Reading mode: Light Dark

2100 resolution

Go to last post
K

kclay

Well-known member
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story. It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
 
Thanks Randy,

One reason I was sort of excited about this was I just got a new flash and am curious to see if fill flash on some of the longer shots will increase my number of keeper shots and extend my range by letting me use focal lenght I might have hesitated to go for before.

Right now my other long lens is a sigma 400 5.6 which I use with a nice 1.4x tele to give me a shot at 560 f8. Its a heavy lens and I would much rather from 350 f3.5 to 600 f3.5 with the uzi if I can get the same Quality shot. I can hand hold the uzi at times, can't do that with the sigma. Plus I like shooting digital better anyway.

Ken

Ken
Randy Collins said:
Ken,

Thanks for the info. Keep it coming, because most of us don't have
the benefit of side by side comparisons the way you do.

Enjoy, Randy C.
Click to expand...
 
ken,

This is an interesting observation that you make. I know this may sound like a stupid question, but are you shooting these "out of sun" images with the ISO locked at ISO 100? Just curious.

jim

wrote:
kclay said:
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have
very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because
it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a
wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I
could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs
from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct
sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that
are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story.
It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test
shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the
difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit
from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not
just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference
seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next
couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
--
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3
 
Very interesting Ken,

While I haven't noticed a problem with cloudy-day-in-the-shade type shots, I have noticed that the UZi does very nicely with mid-day sun provided I expose for detail in the highlights.

Because I'm new to digital, I thought that this was a trait of digital cameras in general - that it's way to easy to blow out highlights, but at the same time, these cameras seem to like high contrast in the rest of the tones. A polarizer permanently attached makes sense.

Best regards,
Bill
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com

----------------------------------------------------------------
ken said:
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have
very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because
it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a
wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I
could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs
from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct
sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that
are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story.
It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test
shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the
difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit
from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not
just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference
seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next
couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
 
Both,

It still seems to hold true. Usually if your shooting in the shade or overcase and your on auto I belive the iso will be at 100. I'm going to go back and look closer at this to be sure.

Ken
Sandman said:
This is an interesting observation that you make. I know this may
sound like a stupid question, but are you shooting these "out of
sun" images with the ISO locked at ISO 100? Just curious.

jim

wrote:
Sandman said:
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have
very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because
it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a
wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I
could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs
from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct
sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that
are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story.
It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test
shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the
difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit
from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not
just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference
seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next
couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
--
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3
Click to expand...
 
ken said:
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have
very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because
it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a
wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I
could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs
from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct
sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that
are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story.
It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test
shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the
difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit
from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not
just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference
seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next
couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you point. The 2100 is almost magical under the right light conditions, but can really let you down in even moderate light. I don't think its really a resolution issue, the shots stay in focus. But there seems to be a problem with under exposure and noise. I often find shots where the highest level is barely half the available range-in other words the pictures actually look dark. So the auto exposure is a problem. The the pictures can be very noisy.

Last weekend I took some pics in my garden (it was jr. prom nite) and the shots in the shade pretty bad. In the direct light the pics were great, but too much contrast. Luckily I had my E100 as well, which worked very well under both conditions.
Thank goodness I live in CA.

--
CharlieR
 
No, it seems to vary from digital to digital. My E10 seems to have a greater dynamic range than the 2100. If I'm shooting a night shot with no flash both cameras seem to handle the highlight about the same but the shadows will look more like I'm seeing them with the E10.

Same with a daytime photo

with a wide exposure range. If you expose for the highlights the E10 seems to show detail in the shadows better.

Not trying to get on an E10 kick here. Both cameras have their strong suits and I love the uzi. I guess with any piece of equipment it helps if you better understand its strenghts and its limitations.

Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Bill Pitcher said:
While I haven't noticed a problem with cloudy-day-in-the-shade type
shots, I have noticed that the UZi does very nicely with mid-day
sun provided I expose for detail in the highlights.

Because I'm new to digital, I thought that this was a trait of
digital cameras in general - that it's way to easy to blow out
highlights, but at the same time, these cameras seem to like high
contrast in the rest of the tones. A polarizer permanently
attached makes sense.

Best regards,
Bill
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com

----------------------------------------------------------------
ken said:
I read these post daily and I know this is a popular subject.

I shoot with 4 different cameras. 2 digital and 2 film and I have
very good lenses For my film cameras. I only point this out because
it's given me a chance to really compare picture quality across a
wider spectrum.

I've also shot a lot of test shots in almost every combination I
could think of.

2 things have really jumped out at me about the 2100 that differs
from my other lens or my E10.

1. Almost all my 2100 photos are much better if there is direct
sunlight on the subject. I even have 2100 shots out to 850+mm that
are very sharp. Take away the sun and its a whole different story.
It took me a while to see this because I wasn't looking at my test
shots with this in mind and its only with the 2100 that I find the
difference to be this signifigant.

2. Use a polarizer. I find that the 2100 really seems to benefit
from the use of a polarizer in almost any daylight situation, not
just where you would normally use a polarizer. Again the difference
seems to be much greater with the 2100 than my other equipment.

I plan to post a few of the test shots to my pbase page in the next
couple of days.

For whats its worth
Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Charles Rettner said:
ken wrote:
Click to expand...
I don't know thats its the resolution either. Since I've gone back and looked at my photos from this veiwpoint I can say that it is happening.

What I really love is the ammount of digital zoom I seem to be able to use if the light is right and still get a level of sharpness and detail that I'm happy with. Before I noticed this I was hesitant to use the digital zoom and even the longer end of the optical zoom with any degree of confidence.

I still try to use a tripod or monopod when I can.

Thanks
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Charles Rettner said:
Charles Rettner said:
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/cap/
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you point. The 2100 is almost magical under
the right light conditions, but can really let you down in even
moderate light. I don't think its really a resolution issue, the
shots stay in focus. But there seems to be a problem with under
exposure and noise. I often find shots where the highest level is
barely half the available range-in other words the pictures
actually look dark. So the auto exposure is a problem. The the
pictures can be very noisy.
Last weekend I took some pics in my garden (it was jr. prom nite)
and the shots in the shade pretty bad. In the direct light the pics
were great, but too much contrast. Luckily I had my E100 as well,
which worked very well under both conditions.
Thank goodness I live in CA.

--
CharlieR
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