Dwight1973
Veteran Member
Thought some of you may be interested in seeing this....
http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100
http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
2100 vs. 5700
- Thread starter Dwight1973
- Start date
RichO
Veteran Member
Looks like some serious focusing problems with both cameras...or camera shake with both.
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
--
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Daniella68313
Forum Pro
It's an interesting test. However, since the zoom photo is from a 5mp..they could have cropped the image instead of rescaling it and that would have given a closer zoom image to the one of the c2100. The colors are better on the 5700 photo, especially richer in the zoom photo.
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com
Daniella68313
Forum Pro
The problem is that they used F8 or close to that..and a very slow shutter speed of 1/4s probably handheld. I wonder why they did this since it would have been much better to use F3.5 and a faster shutter speed.
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com
----
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com
It is an interesting test.
The 5700 definitely ends up with more zoom power. That is easy to see comparing the to original pictures. The 5700 also has much better color to it. The 2100 with the IS definitely won with sharpness though. However, even with the IS, the 2100 had a good amount of motion blur.
I think this test would be better had both pictures been taken on a tripod and at a larger aperture. An f5.0 or so would be much better. The shutter speed would have been higher and the lens is more in its sweet spot for sharpness.
I also suspect that the C2100 would have better looking colors than it did had the proper exposure been used.
It's a shame that the 5700 doesn't have some form of IS. I wouldn't need IS in more than 20% of my shots, but for those 20%, it sure would be desirable.
The 5700 definitely ends up with more zoom power. That is easy to see comparing the to original pictures. The 5700 also has much better color to it. The 2100 with the IS definitely won with sharpness though. However, even with the IS, the 2100 had a good amount of motion blur.
I think this test would be better had both pictures been taken on a tripod and at a larger aperture. An f5.0 or so would be much better. The shutter speed would have been higher and the lens is more in its sweet spot for sharpness.
I also suspect that the C2100 would have better looking colors than it did had the proper exposure been used.
It's a shame that the 5700 doesn't have some form of IS. I wouldn't need IS in more than 20% of my shots, but for those 20%, it sure would be desirable.
First, this "test" isn't well-done. As has been pointed out, the shutter speeds were low and the "tester" apparently doesn't have as steady a shooting hand as he needs. Secondly, it doesn't do anything but muddy the waters and certainly doesn't demonstrate the cameras' abilities.
I freely admit to some interest in the 5700 ... on paper, it looks darn good. But some of the test shots I've seen - even in the E-press - have been soft, soft, soft. Then I'll see some razor sharp ones, and wonder what the heck is going on! Is it a good camera or not? Then I decide it's just the difference in photographers ... and perhaps the absence of IS in the 5700.
But I'm still not 100% sure. Is it possible that Nikon has put some "ringers" out there in the hands of some journalists ... cameras with better optics than the consumer model? That would be unethical at best, wouldn't it. Hmmmm.
Anyway, I know I can make better images with my 2100 than I saw on 2 out of 3 of the online evaluations of it. So, what does this tell us? Beats the heck outta me. ;-)
--
C-2100UZ (2!)
Dwight1973
Veteran Member
I know one of those cameras is known for focusing problems, and it's not the 2100...
--
RichO
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Dwight1973
Veteran Member
I agree the colors do look a little richer. If these two cameras would have been put into auto mode I wonder how they would have done.
Dwight1973
Veteran Member
I agree, f5.0 would have ben a much better test for this. In these shots, the colors from the 2100 do look a little muted. I think where the 2100 would really come out ahead is in any type of handheld shot where there is not a huge amount of light.
Dwight1973
Veteran Member
It will take filters if you add the adapter to the camera. I don't think you can get it quite yet. I have read that the 5700 has some focusing issues in anything but good light, though.
Just think, for $800.00 more you can have the 5700 and get good color and more more pixels.
Of course you will be giving up image stabilization, 100mm of reach, AA batteries, ability to attach filters, a centered tripod screw, compatibility with 3rd party flash, focus assist lamp, faster lens, and much quicker/better AF. Did I mention the UZi cost a whopping $800.00 less?
John
Of course you will be giving up image stabilization, 100mm of reach, AA batteries, ability to attach filters, a centered tripod screw, compatibility with 3rd party flash, focus assist lamp, faster lens, and much quicker/better AF. Did I mention the UZi cost a whopping $800.00 less?
John
Very poor test.
Try http://www.imaging-resource.com to compare camera image quality properly.
Try http://www.imaging-resource.com to compare camera image quality properly.
J.G.107046
Member
The 2100 also has more blooming than the 5700
Dwight1973
Veteran Member
That's about the same kind of point I was trying to make, but in a round about way. I'm just hoping Oly comes out with some kind of successor to the 2100 at Photokina. I am also interested in the E-10/20 upgrade, if they have one, as well.
For the money the C2100 is the better deal in my opinion.
But give credit where credit is due.
The 5700 has the longer reach. The lens may not indicate that, but the end result clearly shows that the 5700 has more reach.
You can attach filters to the 5700. It does require an adaptor though.
The C2100 tripod mount isn't in the right location either. The 5700 has a metal mount as opposed to plastic for the 2100.
Then you got other benefits
CF memory
RAW file format
noise reduction
iso 800
saturation adjustment
more fully compatible flashes.
bulb exposure
1/4000 sec shutter
f10 aperture
Best shot selector
Better white balance
Histogram
swivel lcd
multiple languages
PAL/'NTSC switchable
faster capture
But your points about the autofocus and IS do have huge merit. If the 5700 had fast autofocus and IS to boot, $800 more would be reasonable. I guess I agree with you that $800 more is a bit too pricey for what you get.
But give credit where credit is due.
The 5700 has the longer reach. The lens may not indicate that, but the end result clearly shows that the 5700 has more reach.
You can attach filters to the 5700. It does require an adaptor though.
The C2100 tripod mount isn't in the right location either. The 5700 has a metal mount as opposed to plastic for the 2100.
Then you got other benefits
CF memory
RAW file format
noise reduction
iso 800
saturation adjustment
more fully compatible flashes.
bulb exposure
1/4000 sec shutter
f10 aperture
Best shot selector
Better white balance
Histogram
swivel lcd
multiple languages
PAL/'NTSC switchable
faster capture
But your points about the autofocus and IS do have huge merit. If the 5700 had fast autofocus and IS to boot, $800 more would be reasonable. I guess I agree with you that $800 more is a bit too pricey for what you get.
M
misha
Guest
I don't think this test (which is certainly a rushed job anyway) should be viewed as a demonstration of superiority of one camera over the other. This was only intended to show the zoom/magnification levels achievable with each. The 5700 is at the very start of its life cycle, and its price is bound to go down soon (the 2100 also started at close to $1000) (the current price difference is closer to $650-700, some of the less reputable dealers are already quoting prices in the $900s). Another IS camera does not seem likely, so if one wants/needs more pixels (which all of us do at least sometimes), the 5700 is one the few long-zoom options available.
--
Misha
Ray Medford
Well-known member
--
Ray Medford
I would question the point made above about the 5700 having a longer reach. Unless I am looking at the pictures incorrectly then surely the shrub in the 2100 shot at full zoom is noticeably larger than the one in the 5700. Add to that the fact that the steps on the left and the mail box in the Nikon picture are missing from the 2100 shot, in other words a smaller picture with larger components, in other words, more reach!
http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100
Linda, thank you very much for doing the test. We really appreciate your contribution.
What do you think about the test results? I have been mainly comparing the two Full Zoom photos. For some reason, the CP5700 picture seems to have more contrast and the UZI image looks a little bit washed out. Do you know why?
Is it "blooming" like J.G. suggested?
I have cropped the CP5700 image so that it has the same composition as the UZI shot. The resultant cropped image has about 2.34MPs instead of the mathematical prediction of 2.67MPs. Perhaps the manufacturer's zoom range specifications were not exact or simply off?
How do the 2.34MP CP5700 image compare with the 1.92MP UZI's? Well, when viewed at or less than full screen and much less than 100%, the 2.34MP CP5700 image "looks" OK because of the better contrast. But when viewed at 100%, more than a full screen, one can easily see that the CP5700 image is blurred (absolutely not Linda's fault); and the UZI shot doesn't have that problem (not as much). Linda, you must have taken both the CP5700 and UZI shots handheld as we would want you to anyway, right? And you have steady hands. But you can still see the obvious difference between I.S. and no I.S. shots here. You can see how important it is to have I.S. with long zoom. This is proven once again by your test.
However, it is also proven that, with the help of digital zoom (cropping) and a high 4.92MP count to start with, CP5700 can have the reach beyond what UZI can and still maintain over 2MPs. I think CP5700 is the first Prosumer digicam that can do that.
Too bad that the Nikon CP5700 doesn't have I.S.. Luckily, UZI does.
And perhaps if camera manufacturers like to make digicams with 6X, 7X or 8X Big Zooms but doesn't like to implement I.S., then they should stay at the wide angle end and mid-zoom range and not go over 200mm - like what Minolta does with the 7X D7i: starting at 28mm and going to 200mm. Or, they will have to follow what Olympus and Canon did with UZI and Pro90: 37, 38mm to 370 or 380mm WITH I.S. !!!
Linda, I don't know how to thank you enough for running the test. So, I just say thank you again.
Erin, thank you very much too.
Linda, thank you very much for doing the test. We really appreciate your contribution.
What do you think about the test results? I have been mainly comparing the two Full Zoom photos. For some reason, the CP5700 picture seems to have more contrast and the UZI image looks a little bit washed out. Do you know why?
Is it "blooming" like J.G. suggested?
I have cropped the CP5700 image so that it has the same composition as the UZI shot. The resultant cropped image has about 2.34MPs instead of the mathematical prediction of 2.67MPs. Perhaps the manufacturer's zoom range specifications were not exact or simply off?
How do the 2.34MP CP5700 image compare with the 1.92MP UZI's? Well, when viewed at or less than full screen and much less than 100%, the 2.34MP CP5700 image "looks" OK because of the better contrast. But when viewed at 100%, more than a full screen, one can easily see that the CP5700 image is blurred (absolutely not Linda's fault); and the UZI shot doesn't have that problem (not as much). Linda, you must have taken both the CP5700 and UZI shots handheld as we would want you to anyway, right? And you have steady hands. But you can still see the obvious difference between I.S. and no I.S. shots here. You can see how important it is to have I.S. with long zoom. This is proven once again by your test.
However, it is also proven that, with the help of digital zoom (cropping) and a high 4.92MP count to start with, CP5700 can have the reach beyond what UZI can and still maintain over 2MPs. I think CP5700 is the first Prosumer digicam that can do that.
Too bad that the Nikon CP5700 doesn't have I.S.. Luckily, UZI does.
And perhaps if camera manufacturers like to make digicams with 6X, 7X or 8X Big Zooms but doesn't like to implement I.S., then they should stay at the wide angle end and mid-zoom range and not go over 200mm - like what Minolta does with the 7X D7i: starting at 28mm and going to 200mm. Or, they will have to follow what Olympus and Canon did with UZI and Pro90: 37, 38mm to 370 or 380mm WITH I.S. !!!
Linda, I don't know how to thank you enough for running the test. So, I just say thank you again.
Erin, thank you very much too.
The other thread is too long. So, I am moving the discussion here.
http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100 .
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum