Reading mode: Light Dark

Can the E-100 really cut the mustard?

Go to last post
J

johnd1

Veteran Member
Messages
5,977
Reaction score
1
Location
US
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks continually boasting how good this camera is.

No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them) Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.

Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.

I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100 today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.

My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial difference .

As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00 less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they are more money than the E-100. JD
 
Shouldn't be a big difference on the 8X10s. The only difference is 14 ppi on 8x10s. The bigger jump is 2mp to 3mp where it's about 42 ppi higher on 8X10s with the 3mps.

Both are just great cameras, but if I'd have to choose, I'd probably take the E100.

B A H
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag
compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I
should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial
difference .
As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00
less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I
had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they
are more money than the E-100. JD
Click to expand...
 
New to forum. Thank you all for so much info and enthusiasm about this camera.

No, they won't be as good as UZI, fewer pixels, same lens. I don't know if a 1/2 inch 1.5 MP CCD vs a 1/2 inch 2.1 MP CCD produces better quality pixels, but theoretically it should w/same lens. Thus, UZI images will be sharper, but by less than the 2.1/1.5 ratio we might expect. You'll get more quality images w/speed and pre-capture. Or am I just joining the emotional excitement of the forum?

I print many UZI images at all sizes. Certainly sharper at 300 ppi ( 4x5.5) than 150 ppi 8x10 (on Canon 8200, 6 color 1200dpi). However, for web pages I can't imagine a better camera than the E-100 at any price. Mine should be here in a few days. I desire megapixels for big prints too, but the E-100 sounded like so much more fun than a D7. I'll wait for the next round of 5 MP cameras.

Is anyone using Altamira Genuine Fractals 2.0. I am expecting it to come w/my camera from Outpost. I used the early fractal enlargement products and they were good. Some on these forums claim bicubic in PS just as good. I'll find out soon. I plan to use that to resample for 8x10. I would guess it depends on the subject: Fractal for real life and bicubic for line and buildings...

Also, I now see the UZI at $50 less than the E-100. My UZI loving father can't understand why I want an E-100 w/fewer pixels.

Thanks again all,
Yote
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag
compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I
should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial
difference .
As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00
less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I
had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they
are more money than the E-100. JD
Click to expand...
 
I will be among many who will apreciate your research, although I already have a 2100 and don't see buying a new camera for several years. I really feel comfortable with the 2100's rapid fire for my action shots. Usually it is too fast and my buffer fills, then I am really stopped. I have learned to let up at two or three shots. I would like your views on the buffer fill of the E-100. Thanks for your hard work.

Jim
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag
compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I
should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial
difference .
As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00
less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I
had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they
are more money than the E-100. JD
Click to expand...
 
Hi John,

I posted the two pictures you mentioned and here's what I found out with printing (this is for my expectations regarding quality which I consider very high):

1) It's best to have a TIFF file to work with. Of course, this doesn't work with the pre-capture mode, but anytime I feel I have an important shot, I try to use TIFF. Otherwise, I use nothing less than SHQ except for shots for eBay to sell stuff.

2) When you make a print, the minimum requirement for me is to print at 300 dpi or preferably 600 dpi. For prints greater than 3"x5" I always use Genuine Fractals 2.0 which came with the camera. I simply save the original file as an STN file and then reopen it using the respective enlargement factor and setting it to 300 dpi or 600 dpi.

3) With this high pixel file, you can work on it in Photoshop a little bit if you feel it needs it.

4) Use a high quality paper for printing (recommendations are depending on printer model). I love to use the portrait paper from Tetenal which has a silk-matt finish and works great for protraits.

The resulting 8"x10" print looks pretty good (given your initial image data is good) but don't expect any miracles.

Roland
john D1 said:
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
Click to expand...
 
I had the e100, and while it is a super camera, these 8x10s will be limited in quality, reason why i bought the e10. I wanted more detail in my pictures.

Bu the speed an ease of use of the e100, is something that i miss (what i certainly dont miss is the lcd vf) and i think the e100 beats the 2100 in almost all areas, the difference i saw in printing, where none, and for the rest the 2100 is slowmotion.
Greetings
Rudy
Roland Stauber said:
I posted the two pictures you mentioned and here's what I found out
with printing (this is for my expectations regarding quality which
I consider very high):

1) It's best to have a TIFF file to work with. Of course, this
doesn't work with the pre-capture mode, but anytime I feel I have
an important shot, I try to use TIFF. Otherwise, I use nothing
less than SHQ except for shots for eBay to sell stuff.

2) When you make a print, the minimum requirement for me is to
print at 300 dpi or preferably 600 dpi. For prints greater than
3"x5" I always use Genuine Fractals 2.0 which came with the camera.
I simply save the original file as an STN file and then reopen it
using the respective enlargement factor and setting it to 300 dpi
or 600 dpi.

3) With this high pixel file, you can work on it in Photoshop a
little bit if you feel it needs it.

4) Use a high quality paper for printing (recommendations are
depending on printer model). I love to use the portrait paper from
Tetenal which has a silk-matt finish and works great for protraits.

The resulting 8"x10" print looks pretty good (given your initial
image data is good) but don't expect any miracles.

Roland
john D1 said:
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The operation of the two cameras are different. The E-100 is Progressive Scan and the Uzi is interlaced CCD. The two cameras operate differently internally. The CCD in the E-100 uses an electronic shutter on the CCD that gives it a top speed of 1/10000. SQ mode would be the one to use. If you are going to print an 8x10 I would shoot in Tiff. Tiff will give you a larger file size and more information so you will need a bigger memory card if you desire to take lots of Tiff shots. General fractals is included to help you print a bigger picture with little or no loss of information. Its like anything else, you have to know how to take the picture and post process it. This is not a point and shoot camera even though the ability to shoot it that way is there. You have to set it up right and do the post processing. If you learn to do both these things, you will be much happier and have much better results.

Jason
Yote said:
No, they won't be as good as UZI, fewer pixels, same lens. I don't
know if a 1/2 inch 1.5 MP CCD vs a 1/2 inch 2.1 MP CCD produces
better quality pixels, but theoretically it should w/same lens.
Thus, UZI images will be sharper, but by less than the 2.1/1.5
ratio we might expect. You'll get more quality images w/speed and
pre-capture. Or am I just joining the emotional excitement of the
forum?

I print many UZI images at all sizes. Certainly sharper at 300 ppi
( 4x5.5) than 150 ppi 8x10 (on Canon 8200, 6 color 1200dpi).
However, for web pages I can't imagine a better camera than the
E-100 at any price. Mine should be here in a few days. I desire
megapixels for big prints too, but the E-100 sounded like so much
more fun than a D7. I'll wait for the next round of 5 MP cameras.

Is anyone using Altamira Genuine Fractals 2.0. I am expecting it
to come w/my camera from Outpost. I used the early fractal
enlargement products and they were good. Some on these forums
claim bicubic in PS just as good. I'll find out soon. I plan to
use that to resample for 8x10. I would guess it depends on the
subject: Fractal for real life and bicubic for line and buildings...

Also, I now see the UZI at $50 less than the E-100. My UZI loving
father can't understand why I want an E-100 w/fewer pixels.

Thanks again all,
Yote
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag
compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I
should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial
difference .
As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00
less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I
had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they
are more money than the E-100. JD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jason.

Why do you choose SQ over SHQ? I always have my camera set at SHQ which gives me apprx. 130-140 pictures on a 128MB card. Unless very high fps speed or storage is a concern why would you not go with SHQ?

Maxven
Jason Stoller said:
Jason
Yote said:
No, they won't be as good as UZI, fewer pixels, same lens. I don't
know if a 1/2 inch 1.5 MP CCD vs a 1/2 inch 2.1 MP CCD produces
better quality pixels, but theoretically it should w/same lens.
Thus, UZI images will be sharper, but by less than the 2.1/1.5
ratio we might expect. You'll get more quality images w/speed and
pre-capture. Or am I just joining the emotional excitement of the
forum?

I print many UZI images at all sizes. Certainly sharper at 300 ppi
( 4x5.5) than 150 ppi 8x10 (on Canon 8200, 6 color 1200dpi).
However, for web pages I can't imagine a better camera than the
E-100 at any price. Mine should be here in a few days. I desire
megapixels for big prints too, but the E-100 sounded like so much
more fun than a D7. I'll wait for the next round of 5 MP cameras.

Is anyone using Altamira Genuine Fractals 2.0. I am expecting it
to come w/my camera from Outpost. I used the early fractal
enlargement products and they were good. Some on these forums
claim bicubic in PS just as good. I'll find out soon. I plan to
use that to resample for 8x10. I would guess it depends on the
subject: Fractal for real life and bicubic for line and buildings...

Also, I now see the UZI at $50 less than the E-100. My UZI loving
father can't understand why I want an E-100 w/fewer pixels.

Thanks again all,
Yote
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10. I am not
about to consider smaller prints so this is important to me. I
don't really expect them to be as good as the ones I presently get
from the C2100 but if they are close enough (even if I have to
resize) it could very well work for me. The E-100 has a lot of nice
features that I'm looking forward to use and enjoy.
I liked the 2 images Roland Stauber posted early today. I think
they might print well at 8X10 because he took them very tight. But
with a limitation of just 1.4 MP's there is absolutely no room to
crop or waste them on extra territory within the frame. You need to
fill the frame with the subject matter. I have a feeling that
decent enlargements with this camera will be limited to these very
tightly framed shots. I downloaded a few more images from the E-100
today and had quite a difficult time getting acceptable
enlargements. It appears to me that images taken with this camera
must also be taken at SHQ or better to get the necessary file sizes
to resample up. The very small HQ file sizes don't look like they
create enough pixel information to get acceptable prints. That
means more memory in addition to the more memory already needed
when using pre-capture. Good thing they included a CF slot.
My only other concern is the rumored(?) increase of the shutter lag
compared to the UZI. Especially when used with pre-capture off. I
should be able to immediately tell if there is any substantial
difference .
As late of yesterday I wasn't considering this, but at $100.00
less than what I paid for my UZI, I found it too hard to resist. I
had been considering a backup for my UZI because of of SDS but they
are more money than the E-100. JD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JD,

Gee, great minds think alike.... I bought my 1st UZI nearly a year ago, my second (backup) about 5 months ago. Ordered my e100 last week and probably will get it tomorrow.

I print most photos at 8x10, some at 5x7 and lots at 11x17 from my UZI, and previously from my C2020, and some from my 1.5 mpxl pocket Fuji MX1700.

Following the threads: seems that everyone says the e100 photo quality is either same or slightly better than c2100.

From my several years experience printing 8x10 and larger from 1.3-2.1 mpxl cameras:

1) QImage interpolation is as good as GF and easier to use for prints up to 18x22 (I've not printed larger than that).

2) Quality of large prints is highly dependent on subject matter. Finely detailed forest shots will likely not look good if any cropping is done. Portrait-like shots with blurred background can be cropped a lot and still get beautiful looking 11x17 shots. Other types are in-between.

Little League photos of my kids will likely look good also, since the background will either be blurred or inconsequential as the viewer will be looking at the kid, not the background. This is a major reason I'm getting the camera.

Bottom line: I expect to create lots of 8x10s and 11x17s with my new e100, but also anticipate I will have to frame the shots very tightly.

Holland
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10
Click to expand...
 
Sample low pixel images that look great at 11x17:

This is 600k from my Fuji:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=44851

This is a 1.0 mpxl crop also from my Fuji:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=34344

You see the type of subjects that lend themselves to good looking large prints without very many pixels.

Holland

Holland wrote:
quality is either same or slightly better than c2100.
Holland said:
From my several years experience printing 8x10 and larger from
1.3-2.1 mpxl cameras:
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Holland,
Your post makes me feel better. I do use Qimage Pro resizing/ interpolation.

I am thinking that having to use tiff or SHQ mode for higher file sized shots would dramatically reduce the speed of this camera. But to have to use it to get the speed at SQ or HQ mode would seemingly be redundant for my need to get enlargement quality. I can see that I will have to do a good amount of testing comparing.

I can well understand all the enthusiasm for the speed of this camera but at what cost? I need to evaluate the fast shutter speeds and how they correlate or are tied to the fps rates. Are there trades offs here as well?
Oh well , This is all part of getting used to a new camera.

I am hoping the WB is an inprovement . The UZI does fine but I often find myself tweaking skin tones.

Regarding the need to frame shots tightly, especially for sports, a good teleconverter is very important and I'm so glad I have the B-300 for that.
Looking forward to your informative postings.Thanks ,JD
Holland said:
Gee, great minds think alike.... I bought my 1st UZI nearly a year
ago, my second (backup) about 5 months ago. Ordered my e100 last
week and probably will get it tomorrow.

I print most photos at 8x10, some at 5x7 and lots at 11x17 from my
UZI, and previously from my C2020, and some from my 1.5 mpxl pocket
Fuji MX1700.

Following the threads: seems that everyone says the e100 photo
quality is either same or slightly better than c2100.

From my several years experience printing 8x10 and larger from
1.3-2.1 mpxl cameras:

1) QImage interpolation is as good as GF and easier to use for
prints up to 18x22 (I've not printed larger than that).
2) Quality of large prints is highly dependent on subject matter.
Finely detailed forest shots will likely not look good if any
cropping is done. Portrait-like shots with blurred background can
be cropped a lot and still get beautiful looking 11x17 shots. Other
types are in-between.

Little League photos of my kids will likely look good also, since
the background will either be blurred or inconsequential as the
viewer will be looking at the kid, not the background. This is a
major reason I'm getting the camera.

Bottom line: I expect to create lots of 8x10s and 11x17s with my
new e100, but also anticipate I will have to frame the shots very
tightly.

Holland
john D1 said:
I am going to find out for myself, maybe even as soon as next week
when I expect it to arrive. So for me it's been a day of exploring
this camera in depth without ever having held one. Of course I have
my UZI experience and all you over emotional speed freaks
continually boasting how good this camera is.
No offense but, I really have a need to find out for myself if this
unit can actually produce a good 8X10 for me or is everyone on this
forum just caught up in the emotional comraderie of common
ownership of a specific camera model .(all forums have them)
Regardless, The proof will certainly be in the pudding.
Seriously, My big concern is image quality at 8X10
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hey JD,
Looking forward to hearing what you think of the camera. I'd be
willing to bet that your idea of what's your back up camera will
become the same as mine, but we'll see.
Still haven't had too much of a chance to print much from the camera
yet, but I'm still supprised by the quality of the large prints I have done.
The camera does seem to benefit a bit more from using SHQ than the
2100. Unless you need the buffer space, it's the way to go. I just did
some large group portraits over the holiday and am real happy with
how they came out. The pictures that at least I've posted from this
camera have mostly been HQ, and further compressed in PS for the
web. You'll probably get quite a different impression working with files
straight from the camera.
Your right about not having any room to waist with cropping. That's
why I'm hoping to find a lens setup that will give a sharp, clear picture
a bit beyond what the B300 will give.
The extra lag from the prefocused state is pretty insignificant, and
much more than offset by the other speed capture features. Even the
total lag is not as bad as I thought it imght be in a demanding situation.
I tried both cameras on a soccer game, and while the 2100 was a bit
quicker in locking on a target, the total results from the cameras were
incomprable. The E100 gives you a completely different way of looking
at high speed action that is just not possible with the 2100 - You'll never
think of the Uzi's burst mode as being fast again!
Enjoy your new camera. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot from you on it.

Dave
 
Wonderful examples Holland.

It seems there is little question that close up shots will be fine. Actually my favorite shots are taken at baseball games or portraits. I use TC's for most sports. The subjects (batter/pitcher/fielder will normally fill the frame . So hopefully all my fears will be for naught.JD
Holland said:
This is 600k from my Fuji:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=44851

This is a 1.0 mpxl crop also from my Fuji:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=34344

You see the type of subjects that lend themselves to good looking
large prints without very many pixels.

Holland

Holland wrote:
quality is either same or slightly better than c2100.
Holland said:
From my several years experience printing 8x10 and larger from
1.3-2.1 mpxl cameras:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Dave,

Can you set up the E-100RS so that that it remains in SHQ after being turned off? I tried but couldn't manage to set the right options. Not sure it can be done.

I really wish the reset was linked to custom settings. It would be nice to be able to quickly go back to my initial setup, not the factory's.

Jay
dvt43 said:
Hey JD,
Looking forward to hearing what you think of the camera. I'd be
willing to bet that your idea of what's your back up camera will
become the same as mine, but we'll see.
Still haven't had too much of a chance to print much from the camera
yet, but I'm still supprised by the quality of the large prints I
have done.
The camera does seem to benefit a bit more from using SHQ than the
2100. Unless you need the buffer space, it's the way to go. I just did
some large group portraits over the holiday and am real happy with
how they came out. The pictures that at least I've posted from this
camera have mostly been HQ, and further compressed in PS for the
web. You'll probably get quite a different impression working with
files
straight from the camera.
Your right about not having any room to waist with cropping. That's
why I'm hoping to find a lens setup that will give a sharp, clear
picture
a bit beyond what the B300 will give.
The extra lag from the prefocused state is pretty insignificant, and
much more than offset by the other speed capture features. Even the
total lag is not as bad as I thought it imght be in a demanding
situation.
I tried both cameras on a soccer game, and while the 2100 was a bit
quicker in locking on a target, the total results from the cameras
were
incomprable. The E100 gives you a completely different way of looking
at high speed action that is just not possible with the 2100 -
You'll never
think of the Uzi's burst mode as being fast again!
Enjoy your new camera. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot from you on it.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
In your mode setting menu turn off the all reset. I even turned off each individual item under it also. Someone here had to tell me how as the book doesn't explain it very well but it's on page 180.
 
dvt43 said:
I'd be> willing to bet that your idea of what's your back up camera will> become the same as mine, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Dave,

By that do you mean that you think the Uzi will become your backup?

I still tend to think that the 30%+ extra pixels are not insignificant. (BTW, I've read that RapidShot actually uses 1.4 MPixels, despite its 1.5 rating. What is the actually used count on the Uzi. And could someone do the math to tell us the percentage difference between the actually used number of pixels between these two cameras.)

I've had the Uzi for months, picked up a RapidShot about a week ago, haven't used it much yet due to time constraints. But I'm not yet willing to jump on the bandwagon that seems to say, "Toss your Uzi aside. Once you try rapid-fire and pre-capture the pixel count will seem insignificant."

The advice to shoot in TIFF or at least SHQ is worth considering. But then what if we did that with the Uzi to keep the playing field level?

I'm withholding my final decision until I can read more from the helpful people on this board, see some sampleshots, and do some trials of my own.

Meanwhile, I find it a very interesting and informative discussion, because from my point of view, it's not cut and dried in favor of either camera. Yet.

BTW, are we agreed that the "Soft" setting as regards in-camera sharpening is a misnomer? It doesn't actually "soften" your image? But rather, uses the least amount of in-camera sharpening, or maybe none at all? Which setting do you guys use?
 
Steve,

Not intending to answer your questions to Dave, but your thoughts on the 30% difference in pixel count mirror my own.

The UZI is 2.1 MP but uses 1.9 effectively for image resolution vs 1.4 for the RS. Presently my 8X10's from the UZI come from using the HQ setting. At that setting there isn't any noticeable difference in 8X10 print quality. It doesn't seem as though I will get away with that using the RS ,although Holland feels it is possible. It looks like the RS will be used mainly for speed and the UZI for better quality uses to me, but I'll know better next week. The RS has a lot more features on it that the UZI has but I need to see if they are more gimmick (aimed primarily at point and shooters) than useful .JD
Steve Weisel said:
Dave,

By that do you mean that you think the Uzi will become your backup?

I still tend to think that the 30%+ extra pixels are not
insignificant. (BTW, I've read that RapidShot actually uses 1.4
MPixels, despite its 1.5 rating. What is the actually used count on
the Uzi. And could someone do the math to tell us the percentage
difference between the actually used number of pixels between these
two cameras.)

I've had the Uzi for months, picked up a RapidShot about a week
ago, haven't used it much yet due to time constraints. But I'm not
yet willing to jump on the bandwagon that seems to say, "Toss your
Uzi aside. Once you try rapid-fire and pre-capture the pixel count
will seem insignificant."

The advice to shoot in TIFF or at least SHQ is worth considering.
But then what if we did that with the Uzi to keep the playing field
level?

I'm withholding my final decision until I can read more from the
helpful people on this board, see some sampleshots, and do some
trials of my own.

Meanwhile, I find it a very interesting and informative discussion,
because from my point of view, it's not cut and dried in favor of
either camera. Yet.

BTW, are we agreed that the "Soft" setting as regards in-camera
sharpening is a misnomer? It doesn't actually "soften" your image?
But rather, uses the least amount of in-camera sharpening, or maybe
none at all? Which setting do you guys use?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top