I think we have been waiting for someone to report back, but nobody has. All I can suggest is that if you have a camera fault then it should be returned for repair under warranty.

After all, is a faulty camera any use to you?

Hope that helps!

The 50-200mm lens doesn't have a motor, the motor is in the camera...

:

Pictures To Exe suffers from none of these - images just appear as you would expect them. It is wise to use a screen sized image (1024x768 perhaps) to make the slide show.

Pictures To Exe is a superb program that costs very little. A trial of free and if you like it you can pay the modest license fee for a lifetime of updates.

www.wnsoft.com

Congratulations on your success!

I hope your daughter enjoys her Olympus and it sets her on the Road to Photography.

As it has no effect on the image, cleaning a focusing screen is best avoided.

The screens are very soft and fragile and can be easily damaged.

You do not make it clear whether it was a purchase from Amazon or from a supplier in the Amazon Marketplace.

I'm sure that in either case if they do turn out to be faulty or fake, then Amazon will want to know about it. They are a reputable business.

That's fair enough, but it is important to differentiate between a supposition like that and a fact, because we don't know that that is correct, and it might be quite wrong.

One thing is certain and that is that ten years ago there were not many multicoated polarisers around. Many were even uncoated, including quite good ones. Improved technology has made better polarisers possible.

I agree it's a moot point and that it can be backwards applied to film cameras as well.

The only relevance is that when the lens is open the CCD, being highly reflective, is more susceptible to flare and attention to all the lens elements, including the filter as part of the optical train, will be beneficial to some degree. Especially the rear filter it is true, but imagine how poor it would be with a properly treated rear element and no coating anywhere else. This would be dreadful and shows that it's not only the rear element that is rrelevant to digital performance.

It was the need for greater attention to flare reduction that motivated the production of improved filters, and why not? I'm very happy if the filters are better in the ways that have been described, both for digital and film.

The idea of describing a filter as "digital" seems to have caused a bit of a stir. I have a Jessops "Digital Pro Filter" (Circulat Polariser) in front of me now, and their rationale is as follows:

Digital Multi Coated - greatly reduce lens flare and ghosting caused by reflections

Black Almite Frame - a black matte aluminium satin finish frame for reducing reflections

Black Rimmed Glass - reduces light reflection around the filter edge

Low Profile Frame - ultra thin filter frames to help avoid vignetting on super wide angle lenses

Knurled Edge Frame - for easy attachment and removal

At £39.97 it is not the most expensive polariser. At the offer price of £2 it might be considered reasonable.

I must say the "digital" description doesn't offend me as it does others, I merely take that as an indication that it has had some effort put into the particular needs of digital imaging. It could of course be equally valid on a film camera, but at least the description indicates what it has been designed for.

I am interested to know whether you think the description given is valid or not, and whether or not you feel it is reasonable for the filters to be given the "digital" tag.

: