Love my C2100UZ!!!

Serge · May 3, 2001

I know the subject of my post sounds a little bit pathetic, but I do love my C2100UZ. Got it one month ago from Circuit City ($699.95 of course). So far 1,725 pictures have been taken without a single problem. It is hard to believe but I:
--do not have dead, hot, etc. pixels;
--do not have card reader and always use USB cable;

--do not turn camera (or computer) off while plugging in/out USB cable (Olympus' recommendation to turn computer off sounds just crazy to me. Hello, Olympus, this is USB!).

Am I too lucky? Do I have to push my luck further or it is better to get card reader... I will think about that...

Talking about image quality -- just superb for 2MP camera (at least 1600x1200 TIFF and SHQ JPEG). I am not a very big fan of images posting on the net but few can be found on this forum at
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&page=6&message=1040644

There is nothing special, just few "every day" shots. They were not altered (no cropping, no levels adjustment), just resized from 1600x1200. I think they illustrate very well what you can do with the camera.

I wish good luck to all of the C2100UZ owners.

Serge

Jan in CA · May 3, 2001

I love mine, too Serge! Awesome camera! I've only had mine for a couple weeks, but the quality is fantastic and it's so much fun!!

Jan

Member said:
I know the subject of my post sounds a little bit pathetic, but I
do love my C2100UZ. Got it one month ago from Circuit City ($699.95
of course). So far 1,725 pictures have been taken without a single
problem. It is hard to believe but I:
--do not have dead, hot, etc. pixels;
--do not have card reader and always use USB cable;
--do not turn camera (or computer) off while plugging in/out USB
cable (Olympus' recommendation to turn computer off sounds just
crazy to me. Hello, Olympus, this is USB!).

poohbear · May 4, 2001

From what I have read, it is supposed to be bulky and heavy. True? The plus points may outweigh these factors but I might still prefer a smaller camera with a telephoto. Any comments?

Jan in CA said:
Jan

Member said:

I know the subject of my post sounds a little bit pathetic, but I
do love my C2100UZ. Got it one month ago from Circuit City ($699.95
of course). So far 1,725 pictures have been taken without a single
problem. It is hard to believe but I:
--do not have dead, hot, etc. pixels;
--do not have card reader and always use USB cable;
--do not turn camera (or computer) off while plugging in/out USB
cable (Olympus' recommendation to turn computer off sounds just
crazy to me. Hello, Olympus, this is USB!).

Click to expand...

HarveyE · May 4, 2001

It's certainly not heavy though you might stick out in a crowd with the long lens. Aside from that, I LOVE this camera. If it were a woman, I'd marry it.

poohbear said:
Jan in CA said:

Jan

poohbear said:

I know the subject of my post sounds a little bit pathetic, but I
do love my C2100UZ. Got it one month ago from Circuit City ($699.95
of course). So far 1,725 pictures have been taken without a single
problem. It is hard to believe but I:
--do not have dead, hot, etc. pixels;
--do not have card reader and always use USB cable;
--do not turn camera (or computer) off while plugging in/out USB
cable (Olympus' recommendation to turn computer off sounds just
crazy to me. Hello, Olympus, this is USB!).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dai Bando · May 4, 2001

Great Pics Serge

However, now you need to figure out how to reduce their file size for quicker viewing on the Web. 183k (first pic) is way too big to post on the Web. For instance: Photoshop's SAVE AS then #3 on the slider will whittle that pic down to 21k quite easily.

Not everyone has DSL yet.

Gary43618 · May 4, 2001

What ISP do you have? THey loaded up in about 5 seconds for me. (AOL).

Great pics by the way!

David Roberts said:
Great Pics Serge

However, now you need to figure out how to reduce their file size
for quicker viewing on the Web. 183k (first pic) is way too big to
post on the Web. For instance: Photoshop's SAVE AS then #3 on the
slider will whittle that pic down to 21k quite easily.

Not everyone has DSL yet.

buzzy2 · May 4, 2001

HarveyE said:
It's certainly not heavy though you might stick out in a crowd with
the long lens. Aside from that, I LOVE this camera. If it were a
woman, I'd marry it.

...but what if "she" wouldn't have you?...=/
newby

HarveyE said:
poohbear said:

Jan in CA said:

Jan

HarveyE said:

I know the subject of my post sounds a little bit pathetic, but I
do love my C2100UZ. Got it one month ago from Circuit City ($699.95
of course). So far 1,725 pictures have been taken without a single
problem. It is hard to believe but I:
--do not have dead, hot, etc. pixels;
--do not have card reader and always use USB cable;
--do not turn camera (or computer) off while plugging in/out USB
cable (Olympus' recommendation to turn computer off sounds just
crazy to me. Hello, Olympus, this is USB!).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jan in CA · May 4, 2001

Well, it's bigger than a point and shoot, but it's still lighter than a Sony Mavica or a few others. I went to Circuit City to hold it and see how it felt. Try that..you'll be pleasantly surprised.. it's not bad at all!!

Jan in CA

poohbear said:
From what I have read, it is supposed to be bulky and heavy. True?
The plus points may outweigh these factors but I might still prefer
a smaller camera with a telephoto. Any comments?

Dai Bando · May 4, 2001

Hey Gary

Those 4 pics total some 826K and you want me to believe that AOL can download those in 5 seconds?

Try clearing your history files, your temp files and then hit REFRESH on that page with the pics on.

In any case Gary, 183K is miles too big to post. Most of it is wasted on your monitor anyway and it is so easy to compress them without much loss of quality for Web viewing. No disrespect to Serge, of course, but it'll help all of us with our SLOWER (non 5 second AOL) connections

David

hahah>

Gary said:
Great pics by the way!

David Roberts said:

Great Pics Serge

However, now you need to figure out how to reduce their file size
for quicker viewing on the Web. 183k (first pic) is way too big to
post on the Web. For instance: Photoshop's SAVE AS then #3 on the
slider will whittle that pic down to 21k quite easily.

Not everyone has DSL yet.

Click to expand...

JimE · May 4, 2001

The 2100 is awsome. I'm getting tired of the crybabies in this forum. Jim

Terry27608 · May 4, 2001

Jim said:
The 2100 is awsome. I'm getting tired of the crybabies in this
forum. Jim

Well said Jim, I think a few that have gotten bad pieces have blown the subject out of proportion and the ones that have had problems with certain etailers, haven't followed the advice given here. Want the lowest price, expect the lowest service too.
T

buzzy2 · May 4, 2001

Terry said:
Jim said:

The 2100 is awsome. I'm getting tired of the crybabies in this
forum. Jim

Click to expand...

Well said Jim, I think a few that have gotten bad pieces have blown
the subject out of proportion and the ones that have had problems
with certain etailers, haven't followed the advice given here.
Want the lowest price, expect the lowest service too.
T

...thought you had the sole rights to allocating the nomer of "babies" on this forum...or is "crybaby" a different deal?...
n

Karel29269 · May 4, 2001

Well, I too went to Circuit City. And I picked up an E-10. Yes, it is quite havier than the C-2100; its weight reminds me my old Canon 10S. But when I touched those two rings on the lens (one for zoom and the other for focus), I immediately got an SLR fever. However, I have to repeat what MikeA has recently written in this forum: Even if I end up with E-10, its successor, or another digital SLR, I will keep my C-2100. My reason? The incredible zoom lens and the compactness of the C-2100 make it extremely well suited for travel. And, since I am retired now, I plan to do quite a lot of it.

Jan in CA said:
Jan in CA

Member said:

From what I have read, it is supposed to be bulky and heavy. True?
The plus points may outweigh these factors but I might still prefer
a smaller camera with a telephoto. Any comments?

Click to expand...

lectraglide · May 4, 2001

Jim said:
The 2100 is awsome. I'm getting tired of the crybabies in this
forum. Jim

Jim, I don't think some one who really loved their 2100 and lost it to a complete shutdown (for no apparent reason) could be classified as a "crybaby". You will have to have it happen to you before you can understand, I suppose.

Most of those are merely attempting to compare notes on what happened to their units, and have never complained about the quality. (Olympus will not tell anyone the reasons for failure or which systems were involved)

I has happened to a couple of friends of mine and I really have empathy for them. It happened to me with another brand and it cost me $22 in shipping and 26 days without my camera. It was in warranty but I didn't get my shipping charge back.

I've seen very little complaining about the camera on this forum, mostly a lot of praise.

Some people with apparent good fortune never seem to see even the possibility of their own misfortune .
Lectraglide.

Gary43618 · May 4, 2001

You're right, I cleared all my files, history and temp, and reloaded with my stopwatch, and it took 18 seconds to fully load at 100%.

David Roberts said:
Those 4 pics total some 826K and you want me to believe that AOL
can download those in 5 seconds?

Try clearing your history files, your temp files and then hit
REFRESH on that page with the pics on.

In any case Gary, 183K is miles too big to post. Most of it is
wasted on your monitor anyway and it is so easy to compress them
without much loss of quality for Web viewing. No disrespect to
Serge, of course, but it'll help all of us with our SLOWER (non 5
second AOL) connections

David

hahah>

Gary said:

Great pics by the way!

David Roberts said:

Great Pics Serge

However, now you need to figure out how to reduce their file size
for quicker viewing on the Web. 183k (first pic) is way too big to
post on the Web. For instance: Photoshop's SAVE AS then #3 on the
slider will whittle that pic down to 21k quite easily.

Not everyone has DSL yet.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DriftlessMatters · May 4, 2001

If you (plural) have been around the forum for a while, some of the folks you may think of as 'crybabies' have been here the longest, have been the most helpful to newbies, and have freely shared their knowledge. For some, the 2100 is not their first digital camera, but it has been their worst piece of luck.

Hang around a while and get to know the folks. Granted there are some whiners, but there are also some who are just venting a bit. Learn who they are and then give them a break. We all need to let off some steam now and again.

Mark D

Gary43618 · May 4, 2001

but actually even after 12 seconds all the pics were loaded and viewable, but needed an extra 6 seconds to officially load at 100%.

Gary said:
David Roberts said:

Those 4 pics total some 826K and you want me to believe that AOL
can download those in 5 seconds?

Try clearing your history files, your temp files and then hit
REFRESH on that page with the pics on.

In any case Gary, 183K is miles too big to post. Most of it is
wasted on your monitor anyway and it is so easy to compress them
without much loss of quality for Web viewing. No disrespect to
Serge, of course, but it'll help all of us with our SLOWER (non 5
second AOL) connections

David

hahah>

Gary said:

Great pics by the way!

David Roberts said:

Great Pics Serge

However, now you need to figure out how to reduce their file size
for quicker viewing on the Web. 183k (first pic) is way too big to
post on the Web. For instance: Photoshop's SAVE AS then #3 on the
slider will whittle that pic down to 21k quite easily.

Not everyone has DSL yet.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Terry27608 · May 4, 2001

Go shoot your cat.

Lester Helmus · May 4, 2001

My advice is don't carry it in front hung too low.
Lester

HarveyE said:
It's certainly not heavy though you might stick out in a crowd with
the long lens. Aside from that, I LOVE this camera. If it were a
woman, I'd marry it.

Lester Helmus · May 4, 2001

I feel awful! My pics to Photopoint are over 400 kb each.
1. So that's why a set of 20 pics takes so long to upload!
2. But how come I have over 4000 hits on several of my albums?
3. Reducing the size of pics one at a time would take too much time. In
the future I'll set the slider in Digipics to a smaller number and see if it
helps.
Lester

Gary said:
What ISP do you have? THey loaded up in about 5 seconds for me. (AOL).

Love my C2100UZ!!!

Serge

Guest

Jan in CA

Guest

Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

buzzy2

Guest

Jan in CA

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Forum Enthusiast

buzzy2

Guest

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts