Reading mode: Light Dark

c2100 vs. c700

Go to last post
Daniella,

I don't think it's intentional, but perhaps one reason some people get
frustrated with you is when you change your "facts" midstream.
Look at your own post below that I responded to. That's where I got the
$169 figure. Was that a typo? Or is it $169 from Olympus, and $69 from
ecost.com? All extended warranties and warranty companies are not alike.

My threshold of pain for an extended warranty is no more than 10% of
the orignal cost, and then only from either the original manufacturer, or
a well-known reputable source that has been widely reported to not cause
any hassles when trying to make a claim. ecost may be such a place, but
I've never heard of them, and they're still too $ anyway.
Daniella said:
Inigo Montoya said:
Daniella said:
Anyway...i would get an extended warranty if i was you, its much
safer.
Inigo Montoya said:
Daniella said:
if you would do any mountain bike you might talk like someone who
know something about that sport..but you don't :)))

expensive bike are the lighter, and the more light they are and the
more expensive they are...that goes for the backpacking equipement
too. So it depend where are your priority.

If i would have bought a c2100 i would have paid 169$ more to get
the extended warranty for SDS...because i would be really worry
about this!
john D1 said:
Terry Thorn said:
Daniella said:
and i don't think any c700 owner do...but i am not fat, so i care
about the weight i carry when hiking. some people i know spent $$$
just to remove 1/2 pound out of their mountain bike...and they are
VERY athletic people.
Click to expand...
Whoops... story change. You once said that YOU paid about $1000 to
remove 1/2 pound from YOUR mountain bike.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
 
Terry Thorn said:
Here's a flower for you, Michel...



Get "well" soon. ;-)
Click to expand...
Terry, thank you for the flower. It's so beautifull that I consider breaking the other leg to receive another flower. For this price, please send another beautifull and as well composed as this one. I had thought that it would be easy to follow the link to pbase to see your other flowers (and pics), but it does not look like an ordinary Pbase gallery. Too bad. Please tell me where we can see your pics, You will be responsible for my broken leg n° 2 otherwise.

Btw, how did you obtain this black background ? was that natural or did you use a retouching tool ? I will think again of some of my pics this way.
Michel.
P.S.

Hi, Terry, here is Madeleine - Wife & Secretary for Michel - I have kept your flower for me. Don't tell to Michel. I love flowers so much. I have made grow these ones below by myself :

 
Hello,

it seam that ecost is saling the Olympus Gold warranty for 69$..what's the catch? on Olympus site its 169$ and at ecost the same Olympus part number for olympus warranty is 69$

what do you think?

i think at 69$ its surely worth it if its the 2 year Olympus gold warranty. Someone bought it last week and said it was Olympus warranty but why so much difference in price?
Inigo Montoya said:
Daniella,

I don't think it's intentional, but perhaps one reason some people get
frustrated with you is when you change your "facts" midstream.
Look at your own post below that I responded to. That's where I got
the
$169 figure. Was that a typo? Or is it $169 from Olympus, and $69
from
ecost.com? All extended warranties and warranty companies are not
alike.

My threshold of pain for an extended warranty is no more than 10% of
the orignal cost, and then only from either the original
manufacturer, or
a well-known reputable source that has been widely reported to not
cause
any hassles when trying to make a claim. ecost may be such a
place, but
I've never heard of them, and they're still too $ anyway.
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
 
Dwight1973 said:
LOL I feel much better now:)
Click to expand...
Dwight,

I have made some testings with a C3000Z today. 32 is very different from a (E100RS) 38. It begins raising problems with vertical things at the right/left ends of the pics. (I made my testings in a wood and I did not understood at first why all the trees were sloping !).
So my conclusions are :
  • I have a lot to learn.
  • The professional and expert photographers must laugh very much when they read me.
  • I have to test a 28mm before deciding anything.
  • Why the ? focal does not appear as a major criterion when appreciating a camera ?
  • I will now read what they answer to my "pocketable-wide-[cheap] camera. Does it exist ?" question.
Michel.
 
It's not unusual to see items for sale direct from the manufacturer

going for the full list retail price. They don't want to be in direct competition with their distributers. Bad for business.
Daniella said:
it seam that ecost is saling the Olympus Gold warranty for
69$..what's the catch? on Olympus site its 169$ and at ecost the
same Olympus part number for olympus warranty is 69$

what do you think?

i think at 69$ its surely worth it if its the 2 year Olympus gold
warranty. Someone bought it last week and said it was Olympus
warranty but why so much difference in price?
Inigo Montoya said:
Daniella,

I don't think it's intentional, but perhaps one reason some people get
frustrated with you is when you change your "facts" midstream.
Look at your own post below that I responded to. That's where I got
the
$169 figure. Was that a typo? Or is it $169 from Olympus, and $69
from
ecost.com? All extended warranties and warranty companies are not
alike.

My threshold of pain for an extended warranty is no more than 10% of
the orignal cost, and then only from either the original
manufacturer, or
a well-known reputable source that has been widely reported to not
cause
any hassles when trying to make a claim. ecost may be such a
place, but
I've never heard of them, and they're still too $ anyway.
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
 
michel said:
Terry Thorn said:
Here's a flower for you, Michel...



Get "well" soon. ;-)
Click to expand...
Terry, thank you for the flower. It's so beautifull that I consider
breaking the other leg to receive another flower. For this price,
please send another beautifull and as well composed as this one. I
had thought that it would be easy to follow the link to pbase to
see your other flowers (and pics), but it does not look like an
ordinary Pbase gallery. Too bad. Please tell me where we can see
your pics, You will be responsible for my broken leg n° 2 otherwise.
Btw, how did you obtain this black background ? was that natural or
did you use a retouching tool ? I will think again of some of my
pics this way.
Michel.
P.S.
Hi, Terry, here is Madeleine - Wife & Secretary for Michel - I have
kept your flower for me. Don't tell to Michel. I love flowers so
much. I have made grow these ones below by myself :

Click to expand...
Well I'm glad you both liked it. I took this at a place called Moody Gardens in Galveston, Texas. It's actually a recreated tropical rainforest under a glass pyramid and they have beautiful plants and wildlife in there along with pools and small waterfalls. As for the black background, it's natural. I just lowered the EV a bit (can't remember how much) and the background was already darker from the foliage. The water doplets are the result of the high humidity in there. It's really a neat place to visit. Those are pretty flowers to, Madeleine. My wife is skilled at a great many things but growing flowers isn't one of them. They know as soon as she buys them that their fate is sealed. ;-)
 
I had the camera for 2 weeks...at first i was going to buy this one, but it just turned out to be too big for what i wanted. We still have this camera at my work, they are making some tests to hook it to a 3d system..so far without any success..look like it will soon go on ebay...

BTW..here is another one...probably another older one?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=2186486
Roberta said:
Roberta said:
As for the SDS...there is plenty of documentation on people getting
that to ignore it but its not in my spec..should i put it?
Click to expand...
The point I was making is that it was a problem with older cameras.
Doesn't seem to be problem with those issued later.

As for your question- in all honesty I think you should keep your
specs to yourself since they're not quite objective. I believe it
would be infinitely more helpful, when people inquire, to direct
them to the Olympus site for technical info and to various
experienced reviewers sites for comparisons. There they would get
more accurate and more unbiased FACTS.
I do think its fair, if you own a particular camera, to tell what
you like or don't like about it. I do NOT think its fair to tell
people what you've heard or read about a camera. All of us, being
human, are prone to misinterpreting or misunderstanding things
we've read or heard. Liken it to our court system- "hearsay" is not
reliable or acceptable.

--
Olympus 3O4O and Olympus 21OOUZ
http://www.pbase.com/ro2001
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
 
Hi Daniella,

If I understand you correctly, your remark is not about c2100 vs.c700, but what you're saying is: "You could add a teleconvertor to eg. a 5-megapixel, 3X-optizoom camera, and have more pixels in the final image".

True. But do you know what teleconvertor you need eg. to get to the UZi's 10X?

Let's calculate: A 5-MPixel + 3X-optizoom camera only has 450K of pixels left at 10X. I used my Excel sheet to calculate what optical zoom capability the above camera needs to retain 1920K in the final image: it's 6.2X!

So a 6.2X-optical zoom with a 5-Mpixel CCD will still give you - by zooming digitally - 1922K at 10X. But since in our example it is a normal camera with only 3X optical zoom, we will need to find a 2.0X or 2.1X teleconvertor.

Sure, these are out there. But are they any good? As far as I know, at least for my camera the only 100% good one out there was the B-300 with 1.7X. I could not find one at 2X that was good enough...

And even if we found one, it's still not an even match because you could add a teleconvertor to the 10X+2.1MPixel CCD camera too (eg. my UZi and my B-300 can take me to 646mm optical zoom reach). And even more important is the price difference: the newer camera + teleconvertor will cost much more than the older camera with 10X!

Ciao,

J.
 
Do they still make the MAC? I haven't been to McDonalds in years.
Roberta said:
Terry Thorn said:
By the way, which printer are you using?
Click to expand...
I use the Epson Stylus Photo 870. LOVE it. I get really fantastic
prints from it.
After lots of experimenting I find I get the best results using
Epson's SemiGloss paper and Epson's Heavyweight Matte.
I took three pics and printed each (8x10) on a few different papers
(Epson's Glossy, Premium Glossy, and a few other Epson papers, and
then printed on some other brands of paper too. In the end the
SemiGloss and Matte won by a landslide. Colors come out more vivid-
get better contrast and brightness.
SemiGloss is sometimes difficult to find in local stores (CompUSA
has it sometimes) so I've started ordering it online.
For 4x6 prints I like Epsons 4x6 roll paper- both gloss and
semi-gloss. (The printer comes with roller attachment). With this
paper you can print one picture after another and they print
edge-to-edge. Of course you have to cut them apart but that's only
a major annoyance when I print 20 or more pics at a time.
BTW- I use a Mac.
(the only forum threads that bring out as much emotion as the "700
vs 2100" are the "Mac vs PC" ones. I tend to avoid both unless
someone gets me really riled up. ;-)
See ya

--
Olympus 3O4O and Olympus 21OOUZ
http://www.pbase.com/ro2001
Click to expand...
 
BTW, I have an new Epson 785 and it blows away any printer I ever had over the years. The print quality is stunning. Also over the years I have used Macs and PCs along with the VIC 20, Atari 64 and my favorite computer of all time was the Amiga. That was the only true multi-tasking home computer ever built. I ran Amiga's Workbench, Macs System 7 and Windows all at the same time on the same monitor in three different windows with each processing different programs at once. Today the Amiga would be considered too slow. Now I love my PC running XP and an Athlon 1.4Ghz processor. But if I was into professional graphics in the movie, advertising, or magazine trades, I would use the MAC. For high resolution graphics it is a great machine. I was happy that Microsoft gave Steve Jobs all that money so the Mac is still around. Steve Jobs did a great job in turning the company around and giving it focus again. But since I'm retired now, my PC will do. Happy to hear that there are Mac users out there having fun in the digicam hobby world, not all professionals. Have fun.
Roberta said:
Terry Thorn said:
By the way, which printer are you using?
Click to expand...
I use the Epson Stylus Photo 870. LOVE it. I get really fantastic
prints from it.
After lots of experimenting I find I get the best results using
Epson's SemiGloss paper and Epson's Heavyweight Matte.
I took three pics and printed each (8x10) on a few different papers
(Epson's Glossy, Premium Glossy, and a few other Epson papers, and
then printed on some other brands of paper too. In the end the
SemiGloss and Matte won by a landslide. Colors come out more vivid-
get better contrast and brightness.
SemiGloss is sometimes difficult to find in local stores (CompUSA
has it sometimes) so I've started ordering it online.
For 4x6 prints I like Epsons 4x6 roll paper- both gloss and
semi-gloss. (The printer comes with roller attachment). With this
paper you can print one picture after another and they print
edge-to-edge. Of course you have to cut them apart but that's only
a major annoyance when I print 20 or more pics at a time.
BTW- I use a Mac.
(the only forum threads that bring out as much emotion as the "700
vs 2100" are the "Mac vs PC" ones. I tend to avoid both unless
someone gets me really riled up. ;-)
See ya

--
Olympus 3O4O and Olympus 21OOUZ
http://www.pbase.com/ro2001
Click to expand...
 
Gene Miller said:
BTW, I have an new Epson 785 and it blows away any printer I ever
had over the years. The print quality is stunning. Also over the
years I have used Macs and PCs along with the VIC 20, Atari 64 and
my favorite computer of all time was the Amiga. That was the only
true multi-tasking home computer ever built. I ran Amiga's
Workbench, Macs System 7 and Windows all at the same time on the
same monitor in three different windows with each processing
different programs at once. Today the Amiga would be considered too
slow. Now I love my PC running XP and an Athlon 1.4Ghz processor.
But if I was into professional graphics in the movie, advertising,
or magazine trades, I would use the MAC. For high resolution
graphics it is a great machine. I was happy that Microsoft gave
Steve Jobs all that money so the Mac is still around. Steve Jobs
did a great job in turning the company around and giving it focus
again. But since I'm retired now, my PC will do. Happy to hear that
there are Mac users out there having fun in the digicam hobby
world, not all professionals. Have fun.
Click to expand...
The Epson 785 is a good printer but I don't care that it's USB only. My HP does a little better on skintones but it doesn't render black as well as my Epson 870 so that's why I use it for my photos. Otherwise, I'd rather use the HP. As for the Amiga, I remember that one too. I almost got one but I didn't like the way it'd lock up so easy. I saw a lot of Guru Meditation Errors and that turned me off. And you must've meant the Commodore 64 instead of the Atari 64 since there was no such animal.
 
Agree completely.

I have decided not to talk about 2100 vs. 700 anymore, however, some people are talking a bit nonsenses here...

Yes, 700uz has some slight advantages over 2100uz (will not mention them again)

If we are talking about picture quality that camera can produce (i'm not talking about photographers quality here :-)))), then 2100uz wins hands down:

Clear 2100uz adwantages:

1. It's a nonsense if somebody argues that 1/2.7 (700uz) inch sensor can produce better image quality than 1/2 inch (2100uz) sensor.

2. It's a nonsense if somebody argues that non IS lens (700uz) is better than IS lens (2100uz).

3. Can anybody tell that camera without AF assist lamp and (700uz) can focus better than camera with AF assist lamp (2100uz) when camera hardware quality is about the same?

So:
a. 700uz is smaller but quality of 2100uz pictures is better.
b. 700uz has manual wb, but 2100uz can focus when 700uz can not.

c. 700uz has mass storage support, but IS on 2100uz allows you take pictures in lower light than with 700uz.
d. 800ISO on 1/2.7 inch sensor.....? only noise.

That way i found 2100uz has more features for photography in general.

I think that 2040 for example has better picture quality than 700uz (of course .. in 1x..3x zoom range)...

So, if somebody argues that 700uz is better for him/her, because it's smaller... that's ok
... sometimes size is a key factor...

But if somebody is trying to tell that 700uz can potentialy produce better images (in general... not in certain situations) than 2100uz... IT's A NONSENSE.

--Cheers,Linas
 
Daniella said:
I had the camera for 2 weeks...at first i was going to buy this
one, but it just turned out to be too big for what i wanted. We
still have this camera at my work, they are making some tests to
hook it to a 3d system..so far without any success..look like it
will soon go on ebay...
Click to expand...
This is just more of your mudslinging which you've done practically from the time you joined this forum. If someone were to do that sort of thing to the 700, you'd be livid with anger. You just cannot accept that more people just like the 2100 over the 700. Why does that bother you so much? Can't you be just happy that you've got the camera which best suits YOU?
 
Daniella said:
yea...show me your photos that are better quality than mine...

BTW...another one dead..do you have an extended warranty? they
seam to die quite a bit lately...maybe its a curse ?
Click to expand...
You know, I was on Cnet today checking on another item I was considering and just thought I'd see what they had to say about the C700 and the C2100 just for grins. I found it noteworthy that there were a lot more people sharing their opinions about the 2100 yet fewer of them were negative. Common comments about the C700 were about poor image quality, excessive CA, and hard to get sharp handheld full zoom shots. It seems this is the kind of information that you don't care for potential C700 buyers to see.

http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-6613935-1318-5973028.html?pn=1&lb=2&ob=0&tag=st.ce.6613935.top.5973028-1
 
Check these out , let me know if you think you could match them with your c700. I think the first one was with a A200 teleconverter on it.

Mind you it wouldn't be as easy as shooting the animals thru the bars of the cage while on a tripod.JD

=> http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A13D3923030&cb=PA
Daniella said:
BTW...another one dead..do you have an extended warranty? they
seam to die quite a bit lately...maybe its a curse ?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=2197626
Linas said:
...
--
Cheers,
Linas
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
 
Good think all old people are not like you...geeezz...quel vieux bourru! hehe

You could have used faster shutter speed BTW to really freeze that action..but they are better than your candle photos anyway...i don't see the different in quality...especially at that small size..any full size image? unedited!

i never shooted animals through bars, those i shooted were not in cage but in open space with a ciment wall. where do you see bars??? you need new glasses maybe? :)))

looks like that was really hard for you..i can understand...

oh...i hope you have your extended warranty!
john D1 said:
=> http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A13D3923030&cb=PA
Daniella said:
BTW...another one dead..do you have an extended warranty? they
seam to die quite a bit lately...maybe its a curse ?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=2197626
Linas said:
...
--
Cheers,
Linas
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
 
that's what i call freezing the action...not a shot at the zoo BTW





http://www.pbase.com/image/1117003
http://www.pbase.com/image/1117008
http://www.pbase.com/image/1116999
http://www.pbase.com/image/1125032
http://www.pbase.com/image/1125042
http://www.pbase.com/image/722829
http://www.pbase.com/image/1116990

and since you have seam to volontary ignore that i have taken other photos than zoo, probably you have not even seen my other photos...:



and the mendatory duck shots:



do you want more? i have also barn and old trucks..

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/old_barns_and_junk

as well as landscape photo:



of course the monster trucks at ISO 800:



http://www.pbase.com/zylen/monster_trucks

need more?????

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

i guess that clear the quality and the zoo photo behind bar part...!!!
john D1 said:
=> http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A13D3923030&cb=PA
Daniella said:
BTW...another one dead..do you have an extended warranty? they
seam to die quite a bit lately...maybe its a curse ?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=2197626
Linas said:
...
--
Cheers,
Linas
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi
 
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