Ok, some of you will hate me for posting this but...

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella3d wrote:
one second? not very practical for candid action shot though. I am
surprised that they say the teleconverter as well, so if you put a
teleconverter on the C2100 you need to turn IS off?

Click to expand...

I keep the IS on when I use my B-300 and I get very sharp photos usually. With or without the teleconverter my experience has been that I get the sharpest images using the IS handheld when I hold the camera as steady as I can. Except when on a tripod I don't see where turning IS off would cause more bluriness in a steady handheld shot. I leave IS on when I use a monopod as well because I'm sure there is still slight movement. IS works for me...Bob --'Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesteday'

Hey July, can i see that pic of the moon you took?

Daniella

Juli Valley said:

Lance Shockley said:

Daniella3d said:

Hello,

I was surprised by a comment from a C2100 user about you need to
turn off the IS when you put the C2100 on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The instruction manuals for the C-2100 (page 97) and E-100 (page
135) both state that IS "mode is not suitable when using a tripod,
cinepanhead or conversion lens."

Lance

Click to expand...

I disagree on turning IS off when using a teleconverter. When I
took a photo of a full moon on Halloween, I would never have caught
the shot in focus without it. Now, I wasn't using a tripod; I was
handholding the camera.
--
Juli

Click to expand...

Not sure, someone mentioned that in the manual they recommand to turn IS off when you are using a teleconverter...wierd but that's what they wrote.

As for my experience with the IS, it was to point out that i was getting better result when i was skaking more. when i was really steady, i got more blurred image. I was just pointing out that in order to work the IS need some lever of shake, if you go below that level you getting it confused as some other people mentioned.

Also the notion of sharp picture is relative to the people looking at a picture...some will find a shot sharp as other will find the same shot blurred..I am really picky on the blur factor

Daniella

Bob S said:

Mofongo said:

Daniella3d wrote:
one second? not very practical for candid action shot though. I am
surprised that they say the teleconverter as well, so if you put a
teleconverter on the C2100 you need to turn IS off?

Click to expand...

I keep the IS on when I use my B-300 and I get very sharp photos
usually. With or without the teleconverter my experience has been
that I get the sharpest images using the IS handheld when I hold
the camera as steady as I can. Except when on a tripod I don't see
where turning IS off would cause more bluriness in a steady
handheld shot. I leave IS on when I use a monopod as well because
I'm sure there is still slight movement. IS works for me...Bob
--
'Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesteday'

Click to expand...

I have run the same test after I have got my 2100. I came to a CompUSA with an extra 128M memory and a set of AA, loaded a display 700 , turn OFF IS on my 2100 and the shooting started. Then I repeat the same images this IS on the 2100. I've tried it at X10 and X27. The purpose of the test was very simple - I wanted to have a smaller camera even with less resolution but the IS factor should be insignificant for a such SERIOUS STEP -). I am a bicyclist and ride every week around 150 miles. There is not much of a trunk space on a road racing bicycle. And the winner is …………… IS. With a 2100 I am loosing benefits of a smaller camera, manual white balance preset and better organized menu. But ..I have gained sure low speed photography including low light photography, higher resolution and cleaner colors. It is not the end of this game. I am planning a smaller X10-X7 zoom camera in addition to my 2100 and it may be a 700. For now (immediate actions) I am planning a good tight camera bag (need your advice) and more training with weights -).

Some people are sharp shooters by their genetics the others are not. The viewfinder dancing in my hands at X27 requires at least 1/400 and for X10 at 70% sharp image probability around 1/150. No way I can do it without IS. For smaller X-es like X3 - not a problema. This two weeks before the merchandise return window closed (CompUSA) were very agonizing. For example, now I may get a 707 and pay for it only on June…..but it is almost the same size as 2100, heavier and very a $$$$ camera. The P5 is a very small and very good camera for a good light conditions . There will be other offers including Olympus.
Leo

Daniella3d said:

Hello,

I was surprised by a comment from a C2100 user about you need to
turn off the IS when you put the C2100 on a tripod.

that made me wonder why i had no problem to get sharp shot handheld
at full zoom with my C700 and i had many out of focus or blurred
with the C2100, despite the IS.

So i borrowed the C2100 again and did a little test. I took some
picture when i though my hands were at the most steady, looking
carefully at the view finder to see precisly and i took some shots
like that. I did the same but this time took the shots when my
hands seemed to be more shaking and i got really wierd result...the
shot where i was shaking more where sharper!?

Does that meen that the IS is working better if you are actually
shaking? I seem to have a good steady hand and i don't drink
coffee, but i got worse less sharp picture when i was at my most
steady...wierd huh?

Daniella

Click to expand...

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe 2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious. --Misha

I never use the 27x digital zoom, firs i think it look very bad..You are much better off capturing an image at regular 10X optical zoom and then enlarge it after in an editing software..at least you will have a decent picture as a backup. I foung that the resolution of 1600 x 1200 of the C700 is the same as the C2100 but the color as you mentioned are a bit more dull in the C2100..in the C700 they are more saturated and vibrant...that was my second main factor for choosing the C700.

If you look at the samples on the on imaging resource, you will see the comparing image side by side for both cameras and i based my choice a lot on these samples:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I am not sure what camera bag to suggest you, as i am using a small camera bag i bought in Canada some time ago.

It seem in most people the IS is quite usefull in low light and slow shutter speed. I have to admit i did my test in good light and fast shutter speed. But in my case, the IS was a problem at fast shutter speed and was the cause of my many blurred pictures...how ironic

Daniella

Leo said:

Daniella3d said:

Hello,

I was surprised by a comment from a C2100 user about you need to
turn off the IS when you put the C2100 on a tripod.

that made me wonder why i had no problem to get sharp shot handheld
at full zoom with my C700 and i had many out of focus or blurred
with the C2100, despite the IS.

So i borrowed the C2100 again and did a little test. I took some
picture when i though my hands were at the most steady, looking
carefully at the view finder to see precisly and i took some shots
like that. I did the same but this time took the shots when my
hands seemed to be more shaking and i got really wierd result...the
shot where i was shaking more where sharper!?

Does that meen that the IS is working better if you are actually
shaking? I seem to have a good steady hand and i don't drink
coffee, but i got worse less sharp picture when i was at my most
steady...wierd huh?

Daniella

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ho yes, i agree with you totally.

In my case i was doing my best to be very steady and this was confusing the IS and i was getting blurred picture because of the IS. So for people with steady hand at fast shutter speed..the IS might be better OFF.

Daniella

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Misha,

SPASIBO for the info. I had approximately the same results when shooting at 20 feet distance in my garage at speed 1/20. If I remember correctly at 1/60 it was like 40% vs. 90% and at lower speeds IS was the only answer for my nonalcoholic hands.
Leo

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Daniella3d,

Let me repeat your phrase: - "ho yes, i agree with you totally." I AGREE with you!
Leo

Daniella3d said:

In my case i was doing my best to be very steady and this was
confusing the IS and i was getting blurred picture because of the
IS. So for people with steady hand at fast shutter speed..the IS
might be better OFF.

Daniella

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella3d wrote:
Also the notion of sharp picture is relative to the people looking
at a picture...some will find a shot sharp as other will find the
same shot blurred..I am really picky on the blur factor

Click to expand...

Daniella,

In another post earlier today you asked me to send you the original file of this 1/2 second shutter speed, hand held Uzi shot that I posted a while ago so you could judge the quality. I'm very happy with the 5x7 print I got from it. Well, I sent it and I still havn't heard your opinion...Bob



--'Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesteday'

The reason for this may be that "is" works best when it sences shake.
So a pearson with steady hands focus on an area then slitely move the

camera out of focus when they press the shutter the rest of the way down. A person with not so steady hands activates the "is" more so that
when they press the shutter it is active enough to compinsate for the
continuos motion that it incures.--jazzman

From all your post i am starting to think that i have some exceptional steady hands, i also don't drink alchool BTW.

The strange thing is that with my my regular Minolta film SLR, i was getting a lots of blurred pictures at only 200mm zoom.

I am not saying that the IS is not usefull and for some people with shaky hands that is surely the solution. Just in some case it can cause problem, if you are actually holding the camera quite steady.

I know many of you have noticed this if the C2100 is on tripod, but am i the only one who had a problem with IS for having too steady hands?

Daniella

Leo said:

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Daniella,

First let me say, I noticed the same thing myself. After already having the 700, I think I got so used to holding the camera as steadily as possible so my first couple of shots with the IS turned on in the 2100 where not what I had hoped for.

My solution.... I just don't try so hard to hold the camera sooooooo steadily anymore

Anyway, holding the camera steady doesn't " confuse" the IS. The IS is actually gyrating inside the lense barrel. It's meant to counteract camera shake, but if there is no camera shake it can actually cause it. It is, after all, a continuosly moving mechanism inside the lens barrel.

Karen

Daniella3d said:

The strange thing is that with my my regular Minolta film SLR, i
was getting a lots of blurred pictures at only 200mm zoom.

I am not saying that the IS is not usefull and for some people with
shaky hands that is surely the solution. Just in some case it can
cause problem, if you are actually holding the camera quite steady.

I know many of you have noticed this if the C2100 is on tripod, but
am i the only one who had a problem with IS for having too steady
hands?

Daniella

Leo said:

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When i said i totally aggree with you i meen on the fact that some people cannot take sharp shot without the IS.

But for some other people the IS might actually ruine the shot in good light and fast shutter speed, like it did for me.

got it?

Daniella

Leo said:

Daniella3d said:

In my case i was doing my best to be very steady and this was
confusing the IS and i was getting blurred picture because of the
IS. So for people with steady hand at fast shutter speed..the IS
might be better OFF.

Daniella

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Karen,

Glad you also notice that, as there is some skeptical here LOL

Anyway, the C2100 is a great camera, i am not saying its not and i liked it very much...just that explain my blurred pictures.

I guess the trick with the IS is to do like you did...be lousy on the holding and you are actually getting better picture! amazing

Daniella

kbelloise said:

First let me say, I noticed the same thing myself. After already
having the 700, I think I got so used to holding the camera as
steadily as possible so my first couple of shots with the IS turned
on in the 2100 where not what I had hoped for.

My solution.... I just don't try so hard to hold the camera
sooooooo steadily anymore

Anyway, holding the camera steady doesn't " confuse" the IS. The IS
is actually gyrating inside the lense barrel. It's meant to
counteract camera shake, but if there is no camera shake it can
actually cause it. It is, after all, a continuosly moving mechanism
inside the lens barrel.

Karen

Daniella3d said:

The strange thing is that with my my regular Minolta film SLR, i
was getting a lots of blurred pictures at only 200mm zoom.

I am not saying that the IS is not usefull and for some people with
shaky hands that is surely the solution. Just in some case it can
cause problem, if you are actually holding the camera quite steady.

I know many of you have noticed this if the C2100 is on tripod, but
am i the only one who had a problem with IS for having too steady
hands?

Daniella

Leo said:

misha said:

I did a test with the 2100 at full zoom indoors, shutter speed
about 1/20, shooting a map across the room - a 10 shot series with
IS on, then 10 with IS off, repeated - with IS on most of the shots
were quite sharp, though some more than others; with IS off, maybe
2 out of 10 were fairly sharp. Your results may vary, but for most
people th benefit of IS is pretty obvious.
--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There may be some benefit to turning IS off when using a tripod - it certainly is not necessary then, but I'm not sure it actually causes blur under these conditions. I shots some lights on trees the other night with the camera on tripod, exposures between 2 and 16 seconds (sadly, there were quite a few hot pixels on exposures longer than 8 seconds; it was a warm night though). It did not occur to me turn IS off, but I think they mostly came out OK:
http://public.fotki.com/michals/olympus/mix/



--Misha

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation! that make a lot of sense. I guess there is some kind of balance into the system that way.

Daniella

Nathan said:

The reason for this may be that "is" works best when it sences shake.
So a pearson with steady hands focus on an area then slitely move the
camera out of focus when they press the shutter the rest of the way
down. A person with not so steady hands activates the "is" more so
that
when they press the shutter it is active enough to compinsate for the
continuos motion that it incures.
--
jazzman

Click to expand...

Ya know, I don't really have anything to add to your post in particular, but that pic reminds me....

I love that star effect from Olympus' lenses/cameras. One of the first things I noticed when I got my first Oly, (3000) was that reflections, like in your pic, had a star effect to them. I thought it was awesome and I never noticed it before in other brand cameras that I had, though I'm sure there are others that do that too.

When I switched cameras, (700/2100) I was hoping it would still do that and it does.

Just a stupid but neat little thing I noticed.

Very nice pic, BTW!!!

Karen

misha said:

There may be some benefit to turning IS off when using a tripod -
it certainly is not necessary then, but I'm not sure it actually
causes blur under these conditions. I shots some lights on trees
the other night with the camera on tripod, exposures between 2 and
16 seconds (sadly, there were quite a few hot pixels on exposures
longer than 8 seconds; it was a warm night though). It did not
occur to me turn IS off, but I think they mostly came out OK:
http://public.fotki.com/michals/olympus/mix/



--
Misha

Click to expand...

Look really good! did you use a star filter?

Daniella

misha said:

There may be some benefit to turning IS off when using a tripod -
it certainly is not necessary then, but I'm not sure it actually
causes blur under these conditions. I shots some lights on trees
the other night with the camera on tripod, exposures between 2 and
16 seconds (sadly, there were quite a few hot pixels on exposures
longer than 8 seconds; it was a warm night though). It did not
occur to me turn IS off, but I think they mostly came out OK:
http://public.fotki.com/michals/olympus/mix/



--
Misha

Click to expand...

You meen you have this star effect natually with the lens without using any star filter? wow, i have to try this..i did not know the Olympus lens had this, although i noticed some of this effect on big lamp in my night shots..they are smaller but i was not pointing so directly as the lights.

Daniella

kbelloise said:

I love that star effect from Olympus' lenses/cameras. One of the
first things I noticed when I got my first Oly, (3000) was that
reflections, like in your pic, had a star effect to them. I thought
it was awesome and I never noticed it before in other brand cameras
that I had, though I'm sure there are others that do that too.

When I switched cameras, (700/2100) I was hoping it would still do
that and it does.

Just a stupid but neat little thing I noticed.

Very nice pic, BTW!!!

Karen

misha said:

There may be some benefit to turning IS off when using a tripod -
it certainly is not necessary then, but I'm not sure it actually
causes blur under these conditions. I shots some lights on trees
the other night with the camera on tripod, exposures between 2 and
16 seconds (sadly, there were quite a few hot pixels on exposures
longer than 8 seconds; it was a warm night though). It did not
occur to me turn IS off, but I think they mostly came out OK:
http://public.fotki.com/michals/olympus/mix/



--
Misha

Click to expand...

Click to expand...