Can the E-100 really cut the mustard?

johnd1 · Nov 25, 2001

I offer this statement here in this thread not to offend prosumer equip users (myself included), but to stimulate/provoke discussion. I think we UZI and RS users can relate and comment better to what the author is trying to convey and thats why I am entering it here. I like to discuss a statement like this in order to help put some things into prospective with help from other peoples thoughts.

Statement from another thread posted in response to someone recommending to carry an E-100 RS in his bag.:

In fact, most high-end consumer and prosumer models have MORE features than the "pro" cameras. Pros want reliability, not gimmicks, while the prosumer crowd tends to think that the gimmicks will compensate for their lack of experience.

Now regarding pre-capture, 10X, image stabilization, zooms,etc ., features that the UZI and RS have but many pros don't use, and get along without them. Many pros might call them gimmicks. Why? Perhaps because they are very good at what they do , use much better equipment than we have, and that it precludes the need for such (gimmick)? features.
I offer just one example:

Is it more important and fullfilling to succeed in the attempt to get that baseball next to the bat at the precise moment with a still camera and without the use of a movie camera or a pre capture mode ? Obviously the pros do it all the time. I have taken great pride in my ability to accomplish this with my UZI even though I have a good quality cam corder. It has been very gratifying to display these 8x10's feeling they will standup well, maybe even to professional scrutiny. Will I have this same feeling if I can successfully do it with the RS? Will I be cheating myself and belittling my ability to get a difficult shot? Could I still claim bragging rights to that "Wow! How'd you stop the ball so close?" comments. I'm not sure yet . Comments? JD

john D1 said:
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

knucklehead · Nov 25, 2001

Jay Siegel said:
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

The all reset off works for me too. I've had my settings disappear
sometimes, but iI think it's just due to my messing around a whole lot
more with settings than I'm used to and loosing track of where I am.

I do think that having the reset switch activate to the custom
settings would make a huge amount of sense. Having it return to the
previous settings too, with a second push, would make it even more
powerful, and save a lot of fumbling around through the menues in
critical situations. It might even be something that could be done with
a firmware upgrade.
We might have to storm the gates of Olympus and demand it.

Dave

JLA · Nov 25, 2001

I'm a new E-100 owner and also a new poster on this forum but I do have a few comments to throw in here. There is a lot of discussion lately about the E-100 because of a dramatic price drop which resulted in a lot of exited new owners of this camera - nothing wrong with being exited and eager to learn about something that's new to you. I don't think anybody is trying to say if you already have an UZI to throw it away and get the E-100, but the later does have quite a few more features with 2 of the best being the precapture and dual media capability, I don't think I'd call these gimmicks. I like to photograph wildlife and the precapture will be mighty nice because unlike sports you don't get a second chance most times with the critters and for myself I really don't care how or what enabled me to capture the shot as long as I get it. The big zoom and the IS is great for me too because it's more fun to take a walk in the woods with just the camera and not pounds of extra tripods,lenses,etc. The pros may consider some of the features to be gimmicks that they don't need but many of us are not pros and don't ever intend to be, although I for one appreciate the tips they offer in these forums,helps us amateurs take better pics for our own personal use. I also much prefer the black color of the camera,( I know it doesn't take better pictures because it's black) . Well, that's my opinion,will be eager to read what some other new owners who haven't yet received their E-100's have to say, this is very similar to the E-10 vs E-20 discussions. The 100/2100 and 10/20 all seem to be great cameras, I don't think anybody would go wrong with any of them...Jeff

john D1 said:
Statement from another thread posted in response to someone
recommending to carry an E-100 RS in his bag.:
In fact, most high-end consumer and prosumer models have MORE
features than the "pro" cameras. Pros want reliability, not
gimmicks, while the prosumer crowd tends to think that the gimmicks
will compensate for their lack of experience.

Now regarding pre-capture, 10X, image stabilization, zooms,etc .,
features that the UZI and RS have but many pros don't use, and get
along without them. Many pros might call them gimmicks. Why?
Perhaps because they are very good at what they do , use much
better equipment than we have, and that it precludes the need for
such (gimmick)? features.
I offer just one example:
Is it more important and fullfilling to succeed in the attempt to
get that baseball next to the bat at the precise moment with a
still camera and without the use of a movie camera or a pre capture
mode ? Obviously the pros do it all the time. I have taken great
pride in my ability to accomplish this with my UZI even though I
have a good quality cam corder. It has been very gratifying to
display these 8x10's feeling they will standup well, maybe even to
professional scrutiny. Will I have this same feeling if I can
successfully do it with the RS? Will I be cheating myself and
belittling my ability to get a difficult shot? Could I still claim
bragging rights to that "Wow! How'd you stop the ball so close?"
comments. I'm not sure yet . Comments? JD

john D1 said:

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

Click to expand...

knucklehead · Nov 25, 2001

Steve Weisel said:
dvt43 wrote:
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.

Dave,

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

Yes, but that's just due to my intrests in photography, and might not be
the same for others. Some people who don't even do action shooting
have expressed a strong preference for the E100 just on terms of how
they percieve the image quality. To each his or her own.
It seems like a lot of people are going to be owning both cameras soon.
It will be interesting to see how the preferences fall over time.

Steve Weisel said:
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 think the 2100 is really 1.9mp and the e100 is 1.3. I would certainly like
to have a few more pixels (actually I'd really like to have the 4mp in the
1D), But I really dont pay all that much attention to the relative numbers.
Image quality is made up of many more things than pixel count. My e100
shows a lot less noise than my 2100. It will be interesting to see how others
find that their's compare. It's only by several different comparisons that the
real picture will emerge.

Steve Weisel said:
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."

I wish I had a bit more free time too! I don't know if too many people are
saying forget about your 2100. If your lucky enough to have both then you
can choose which you like the most for different situations. Neither of them
are perfect.

Steve Weisel said:
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 don't think I'd bother with TIFF - it doesn't even work in the action shooting
modes. I pretty much always shot in SHQ with the 2100. With the E100 there's
more of a reason to use HQ if you want to shoot long sequences. I really need
to print more (I've done very little so far) to say how much difference there is
between the two. I'm sure we'll get a lot from JD on how this works out for him.

Steve Weisel said:
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.

That's the best way. Especially doing your own
.

Steve Weisel said:
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.

I think this could be a lively debate for a while yet.

Steve Weisel said:
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?

I think it's pretty well agreed that less in camera sharpening is best
unless you just don't want to post process at all.

Dave

knucklehead · Nov 25, 2001

john D1 said:
I offer this statement here in this thread not to offend prosumer
equip users (myself included), but to stimulate/provoke discussion.
I think we UZI and RS users can relate and comment better to what
the author is trying to convey and thats why I am entering it here.
I like to discuss a statement like this in order to help put some
things into prospective with help from other peoples thoughts.

Statement from another thread posted in response to someone
recommending to carry an E-100 RS in his bag.:
In fact, most high-end consumer and prosumer models have MORE
features than the "pro" cameras. Pros want reliability, not
gimmicks, while the prosumer crowd tends to think that the gimmicks
will compensate for their lack of experience.

Now regarding pre-capture, 10X, image stabilization, zooms,etc .,
features that the UZI and RS have but many pros don't use, and get
along without them. Many pros might call them gimmicks. Why?
Perhaps because they are very good at what they do , use much
better equipment than we have, and that it precludes the need for
such (gimmick)? features.
I offer just one example:
Is it more important and fullfilling to succeed in the attempt to
get that baseball next to the bat at the precise moment with a
still camera and without the use of a movie camera or a pre capture
mode ? Obviously the pros do it all the time. I have taken great
pride in my ability to accomplish this with my UZI even though I
have a good quality cam corder. It has been very gratifying to
display these 8x10's feeling they will standup well, maybe even to
professional scrutiny. Will I have this same feeling if I can
successfully do it with the RS? Will I be cheating myself and
belittling my ability to get a difficult shot? Could I still claim
bragging rights to that "Wow! How'd you stop the ball so close?"
comments. I'm not sure yet . Comments? JD

I hate to say it, but I think it will be a bit like cheating to you. Getting your
timing down to get a shot like that on a consistent basis is a pretty
impressive feat. That's just the kind of shot that the E100 will make
easy for anyone to get, and will have to rob you a bit of some of the
satisfaction you get out of nailing it. I've been wondering for a while
if cameras like this becoming more available will make great action
shots so common that they'll loose some of their punch.
I do know it's progress, and can't be stopped.
It might just mean that we raise the bar about what makes a great
action shot - going for more and more difficult subjects.

Dave

Andreas P. · Nov 25, 2001

Hi John,

8x10 prints in decent quality with the E100RS belongs a lot to the demands for quality of the beholder.
I.g. the following (straight out of the camera shot) photo looks pretty good

in smaller formats. I didn't print it at 8x10, so just consider it as a further sample.

http://home.nikocity.de/andmarpet/P8120024.JPG

Regards,

Andreas

Jason Stoller · Nov 25, 2001

Maxven I meant to say SHQ and I guess I left out the H hehe! You know I use a 1 gig microdrive so I am not concerned about file size! Leave it you to point out that I need to proof read better and not post when I am tired! Thanks Maxven for correcting me.

Jason

Maxven said:
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...

Jason Stoller · Nov 25, 2001

I would like to here about your results of you attempts with 11x17 with the E-100! I think thats really pushing it beyond its capabilites. I personally bought the E-100 for its capablities that my E-10 did not have. I understand the limitations of my equipment. Now my E-20 is on the way and I will have it Tuesday and it certainly will have a few extra's that the E-10 did not. While I think the E-100 is a great value esp for the money at this time, I also think the Uzi is a great value also. I guess what bothers me here is the believe that some appear to have about the Uzi being superior. If you want superior then you have to change the class of camera you are shooting and improve your skills. To put it simple, I guess I am saying this. All tools have a purpose in life. Some tools are made better than others but all tools have limitations, but to really compare tools, you have to understand what limitations they have and what the end results will be.

Jason

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...

Jason Stoller · Nov 25, 2001

Jay can't you set the reset to off in the sub menu's. I am still getting familar with mine but I believe you can do this.

Jason

Jay Siegel said:
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...

Jason Stoller · Nov 25, 2001

Ok here you go! Features are intended to be helpful but not the catch all end all. Who ever told you that professional camera's have less features are full of it. For years some Pro's said oh we will never use AF, its just not as good as a photographer setting up and shooting manually. Well we all have seen how well that lasted. Many have said Digital will never make it because it will never be as good as film. Digital is very very good but yes film still has some advantages as far as picture quality but it seems that is rapidly changing. In some cases that is true and in some its not true. If you noticed, the higher end cameras still give you the features with the added ablity to override them. Again its knowing the limitations of your equipment and how to get the most out of it that determines the end result. Point and shoot camera's are just that. If you have noticed, the Higher end camera's such and Nikon, Olympus, Canon, all allow you more control over the automatic features. The reason for that is because a more skilled photographer can manipulate the features his or her tool has to achieve different effects or better results depending on the situation.

The E-100 was specifically designed to fill a niche that was not filled in the digital world. It was targeted at sports photographers and photo journalists. Does it fill that niche? Apparently it has taken a price drop before anyone was really willing to take the time to find out! Does it have features? You betcha! Did you have to give up something to get those features? You betcha! I wished they had put the E-100 features in the E-20 but they haven't! If they had I would be dealing with only one Camera right now. Yes the shutter speed is there but only in progressive mode like the E-100 offers. The E-100 has a faster buffer but the E-20 can only handle 3 to 4 photos because of the file size. The E-100 offers a stabilzed lens and the E-20 does not! What this tells you is that there is a give and take situation in every camera design! Give me an E-20 with a stabilzed Lens and 15 frame per second fast buffer, and I would be a happy camper!

Jason

john D1 said:
Statement from another thread posted in response to someone
recommending to carry an E-100 RS in his bag.:
In fact, most high-end consumer and prosumer models have MORE
features than the "pro" cameras. Pros want reliability, not
gimmicks, while the prosumer crowd tends to think that the gimmicks
will compensate for their lack of experience.

Now regarding pre-capture, 10X, image stabilization, zooms,etc .,
features that the UZI and RS have but many pros don't use, and get
along without them. Many pros might call them gimmicks. Why?
Perhaps because they are very good at what they do , use much
better equipment than we have, and that it precludes the need for
such (gimmick)? features.
I offer just one example:
Is it more important and fullfilling to succeed in the attempt to
get that baseball next to the bat at the precise moment with a
still camera and without the use of a movie camera or a pre capture
mode ? Obviously the pros do it all the time. I have taken great
pride in my ability to accomplish this with my UZI even though I
have a good quality cam corder. It has been very gratifying to
display these 8x10's feeling they will standup well, maybe even to
professional scrutiny. Will I have this same feeling if I can
successfully do it with the RS? Will I be cheating myself and
belittling my ability to get a difficult shot? Could I still claim
bragging rights to that "Wow! How'd you stop the ball so close?"
comments. I'm not sure yet . Comments? JD

john D1 said:

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

Click to expand...

johnd1 · Nov 25, 2001

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for the beautiful image of the Eagle. And with no post processing. It printed very well at 8X10. It did have a good sized 4.5 MB file though and obviously it was a real close up shot so I didn't expect a problem. Still I think the image is almost spectacular . I opened it up on a 19" screen at my neighbors house and I think both our jaws dropped a bit.I really appreciate your help.
JD

Andreas P. said:
Hi John,

8x10 prints in decent quality with the E100RS belongs a lot to the
demands for quality of the beholder.
I.g. the following (straight out of the camera shot) photo looks
pretty good
in smaller formats. I didn't print it at 8x10, so just consider it
as a further sample.

http://home.nikocity.de/andmarpet/P8120024.JPG

Regards,

Andreas

johnd1 · Nov 25, 2001

Thanks Dave and Jason,
Some good comments by both of you and others too are really helpful.
I appreciate all the help.JD

dvt43 said:
Steve Weisel said:

dvt43 wrote:

Click to expand...

I'd be> willing to bet that your idea of what's your

Member said:

back up camera will> become the same as mine, but we'll see.

Dave,

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

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just due to my intrests in photography, and might
not be
the same for others. Some people who don't even do action shooting
have expressed a strong preference for the E100 just on terms of how
they percieve the image quality. To each his or her own.
It seems like a lot of people are going to be owning both cameras
soon.
It will be interesting to see how the preferences fall over time.

Member said:

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.)

Click to expand...

I think the 2100 is really 1.9mp and the e100 is 1.3. I would
certainly like
to have a few more pixels (actually I'd really like to have the 4mp
in the
1D), But I really dont pay all that much attention to the relative
numbers.
Image quality is made up of many more things than pixel count. My e100
shows a lot less noise than my 2100. It will be interesting to see
how others
find that their's compare. It's only by several different
comparisons that the
real picture will emerge.

Member said:

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."

Click to expand...

I wish I had a bit more free time too! I don't know if too many
people are
saying forget about your 2100. If your lucky enough to have both
then you
can choose which you like the most for different situations.
Neither of them
are perfect.

Member said:

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?

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd bother with TIFF - it doesn't even work in the
action shooting
modes. I pretty much always shot in SHQ with the 2100. With the
E100 there's
more of a reason to use HQ if you want to shoot long sequences. I
really need
to print more (I've done very little so far) to say how much
difference there is
between the two. I'm sure we'll get a lot from JD on how this works
out for him.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's the best way. Especially doing your own
.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think this could be a lively debate for a while yet.

Member said:

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...

I think it's pretty well agreed that less in camera sharpening is best
unless you just don't want to post process at all.

Dave

Konrad · Nov 26, 2001

JD and others,

I wonder why, given the need for tight framing with the E-100, no one would consider moving to a higher pixel camera and just cropping as needed, instead of opting for a 10x zoom. It seems to me that having to work within the confines of a narrow frame, can also make for a harder or shaky shot. But with more detail to work with, you have more freedom in the post-shot process of selecting the exact image you want.

Konrad

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...

Yote · Nov 26, 2001

How/where did you take that picture (eagle or hawk)? I would say it was stuffed but I can see the crud in its eye.

back to the pixel discussion...
note: some say a megapixel is 1,000,000 pixels,
others say 1024x1024=1,048,576

E-100
1368x1024 = 1,400,832

C-2100
1600x1200 = 1,920,000

If a C-2100 print is at 150ppi (10.667x8, perfect fit max size on my canon 8200), an E-100 would be 128 ppi (or 9.12x6.83 at 150ppi)

The C-2100 has 37% more pixels but only 17% more resolution in each direction.

Leads me to a question: If both cameras have the same lens and both CCDs are 1/2 inch, then the E-100 elements are slightly larger, thus less noise and more light per element. Is the smaller picture thus of "Higher Quality?"

My E-100 should be here by the weekend. I can't wait to put all this theory into practice and create some CoolImages!!!!

Thank you all for so much info and enthusiasm on these digicams!
--Yote

Jason Stoller · Nov 26, 2001

Wellif you want an answer here, the E-100 is in a class by itself. Its high frame rate, precapture, and IS lens make is a very good camera with limitations that are worth working around.

Jason

Konrad said:
I wonder why, given the need for tight framing with the E-100, no
one would consider moving to a higher pixel camera and just
cropping as needed, instead of opting for a 10x zoom. It seems to
me that having to work within the confines of a narrow frame, can
also make for a harder or shaky shot. But with more detail to work
with, you have more freedom in the post-shot process of selecting
the exact image you want.

Konrad

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...

--Jason Stoller [email protected] that special moment with a great camera

Andreas P. · Nov 27, 2001

Yote,

Yote said:
How/where did you take that picture (eagle or hawk)? I would say it
was stuffed but I can see the crud in its eye.

This was taken in a falconery at Gr. Feldberg/Taunus. No the hawk is not stuffed. The birds of prey there are quite cooperatibe subjects.

Regards,

Andreas

johnd1 · Nov 27, 2001

Konrad,

When zoomed out to 10X the E-100 still has more resolution (pixels in the frame)than most 3-4 MP cameras would have after the required cropping from them . JD

Konrad said:
I wonder why, given the need for tight framing with the E-100, no
one would consider moving to a higher pixel camera and just
cropping as needed, instead of opting for a 10x zoom. It seems to
me that having to work within the confines of a narrow frame, can
also make for a harder or shaky shot. But with more detail to work
with, you have more freedom in the post-shot process of selecting
the exact image you want.

Konrad

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...

Digipsych · Nov 27, 2001

Just got my RS so these are only initial impressions:
Feels better "in the hand" ( a little heavier, like the finish);
Definitely greater auto-focus lag;
Auto-focus has a harder time in low light;
EVF seems sharper!;

Same image has different color cast on LCD.. not sure which is more accurate yet.
I will be taking the RS w/ me today... why do I feel guilty!!!
Steve B.--Steve B.

Maxven · Nov 27, 2001

Hi Jason.

I think 11x17 sounds like pushing the 1.3 effective MPs of the E-100 too. I haven't tried it myself so I'll have to rely on other's words for it. I have yet to take a picture that deserves an output that size.

However, Jono Slack (who I believe has quite high standards, at least his pictures are great) says he's printed quite decent 11x17s (A3 paper in European terms) using GF. I guess the result is determined on the quality of the picture you start out with, the subject matter, and how close a scrutiny you want your pictures to stand up to.

Maxven

Jason Stoller said:
Jason

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...

--Regards, Maxven (E-100rs, B-300, C-210)

Maxven · Nov 27, 2001

Not to forget the DOF, which is more flexible when zooming in on your target rather than cropping.

Maxven

john D1 said:
Konrad said:

JD and others,

I wonder why, given the need for tight framing with the E-100, no
one would consider moving to a higher pixel camera and just
cropping as needed, instead of opting for a 10x zoom. It seems to
me that having to work within the confines of a narrow frame, can
also make for a harder or shaky shot. But with more detail to work
with, you have more freedom in the post-shot process of selecting
the exact image you want.

Konrad

Click to expand...

--Regards, Maxven (E-100rs, B-300, C-210)

Can the E-100 really cut the mustard?

Veteran Member

knucklehead

Guest

Active member

knucklehead

Guest

knucklehead

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts