2100 vs. 5700

Yhave to open the pictures and compare them. The thumbnails that were on the main page were not cropped, rather they were resampled. To show which has more reach, the thumbnails should have been cropped.

Prove it to yourself. Open up both pictures and crop out the same area on both. I cropped out the white box above the stairs. Results

5700 - 98X88 pixels
2100 - 86X78 pixels

That gives the 5700 a 10-15% edge over the C2100 for reach. Not only that, you get a lot more coverage of the surrounding to boot.

Ray Medford said:

Brian said:

For the money the C2100 is the better deal in my opinion.

But give credit where credit is due.
The 5700 has the longer reach. The lens may not indicate that, but
the end result clearly shows that the 5700 has more reach.

Click to expand...

--
Ray Medford

I would question the point made above about the 5700 having a
longer reach. Unless I am looking at the pictures incorrectly then
surely the shrub in the 2100 shot at full zoom is noticeably larger
than the one in the 5700. Add to that the fact that the steps on
the left and the mail box in the Nikon picture are missing from the
2100 shot, in other words a smaller picture with larger components,
in other words, more reach!

Click to expand...

Here are two 800x600 crops from both pictures:





(both photos passed through Autolevels)

The 5700 does edge the 2100 by a little.

--
Misha

Note: 2100 1st, 5700 2nd pic

That clarifies things a bit. Too bad the shots couldn't have been at a fast shutter speed.

misha said:

Here are two 800x600 crops from both pictures:





(both photos passed through Autolevels)

The 5700 does edge the 2100 by a little.

--
Misha

Click to expand...

1. It is to prove that, with the help of digital zoom (cropping) and a high 4.92MP count to start with, CP5700 at 280mm can have the reach beyond what UZI can do at 380mm and STILL MAINTAIN OVER 2MPs. Other digicams with smaller zoom and less pixel count to start with (such as 4MP and 6X zoom) just can't do that even with the help of digital zoom (it will fall way below 2MPs).

CP5700 (4.92MP & 280mm) is proven here to be the first Prosumer digicam that can do that.

2. To show the obvious difference between I.S. and no I.S. shots at long zoom handheld. You can see how important it is to have I.S. with long zoom.

By the way, who are the experts? The ones who wear white lab coats or the ones with the baseball caps?

Brian said:

That clarifies things a bit. Too bad the shots couldn't have been
at a fast shutter speed.

Click to expand...

But you can see the top (2100 UZI) picture is less blurry than the second one (CP5700). You can see the advantage of I.S. digicam over non-I.S. digicam at long zoom.

Brian said:

misha said:

Here are two 800x600 crops from both pictures:





(both photos passed through Autolevels)

The 5700 does edge the 2100 by a little.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In the sense that even after cropping out just a portion of the CP5700 shot with the exact same composition as the UZI shot at 380mm, that CP5700 portion has more Pixels.

Brian said:

see comparing the to original pictures. The 5700 also has much
better color to it.

Click to expand...

Nikons of Yore were top dogs for colour balance and White balance, both my 950 and 900 beat even the E10 for Colour and wipe the floor with it for white balance accuracy under difficult conditions - Nikon ballsed up the 990 and the 5000 didn't seem as good either though - it would seem that they are back to their old selves with the 5700!..

These things are easily corrected in Photoshop and the 5700 has too many negative issues and omissions for a prosumer camera of it's price (£150 more than a brand new E10)

The 4500 is nice, it's almost a 4Mp 950 with a tiny screen and no top LCD, the pics look very similar..

--
Olympus E10 +WCON, UZI +B300, Nikon E950, E900, E300

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Ray Medford said:

I would question the point made above about the 5700 having a
longer reach. Unless I am looking at the pictures incorrectly then
surely the shrub in the 2100 shot at full zoom is noticeably larger
than the one in the 5700. Add to that the fact that the steps on
the left and the mail box in the Nikon picture are missing from the
2100 shot, in other words a smaller picture with larger components,
in other words, more reach!

Click to expand...

Let me try to clarify in a different way.

Sure, to begin with, the full tele CP5700 shot is a wider shot and covers more background than the full tele 2100 shot.

http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100

But please open the full tele CP5700 shot in full resolution (4.92MP) and download it. Do the same with the full tele 2100 shot (1.92MP).

Then crop out from the 4.92MP CP5700 a portion that is exactly identical IN COMPOSITION to the 1.92MP 2100 shot.

You will find that CP5700 portion has somewhere around 2.3MP, more pixel than the 1.92MP 2100 shot.

It is in this sense that CP5700 has a longer reach than 2100. It is the first Prosumer digicam that can do that.

However, CP5700 doesn't have I.S.. And it shows when shooting long zoom handheld, as demonstrated in the more blurry test photo (than the 2100's with I.S.).

Just a slight correction - that's not digital zoom, which produces artificial pixels by interpolation, cropping preserves actually captured pixels, just removing the part that is not needed - like an enlargement from film in a photolab. As for blurriness of the Nikon picture, no doubt that IS is an advantage, but I would not take that one sample (probably taken without proper consideration of shutter speeds) as definitive proof. We need more samples under various conditions to draw any conclusions.

w3 said:

1. It is to prove that, with the help of digital zoom (cropping)
and a high 4.92MP count to start with, CP5700 at 280mm can have the
reach beyond what UZI can do at 380mm and STILL MAINTAIN OVER 2MPs.
Other digicams with smaller zoom and less pixel count to start with
(such as 4MP and 6X zoom) just can't do that even with the help of
digital zoom (it will fall way below 2MPs).

CP5700 (4.92MP & 280mm) is proven here to be the first Prosumer
digicam that can do that.

2. To show the obvious difference between I.S. and no I.S. shots
at long zoom handheld. You can see how important it is to have I.S.
with long zoom.

By the way, who are the experts? The ones who wear white lab coats
or the ones with the baseball caps?

Click to expand...

--
Misha

Well you've certainly proved it with a lot of hard work too!.. What it's also proved is that it TAKES a £1000 camera to beat a £350 camera at this..

The 5700 needs more than IS to be worth the asking price though, they need to get the thing to focus properly, get their QC sorted out, get the thing to use their own flashes with TTL properly and sort out a few other omissions while they're at it..

I laughed hard when I saw the EOS1D quoted as the worlds fastest Digital SLR** - they couldn't say world's fastest Digital Camera** cuz the little plastic E100RS wipes the floor with it LOL ..

David and Goliath springs to mind in that case

--
Olympus E10 +WCON, UZI +B300, Nikon E950, E900, E300

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

johnd1 said:

Just think, for $800.00 more you can have the 5700 and get good
color and more more pixels.

Click to expand...

The 5700 lists at $1199 (per the Nikon website), and the 2100 listed originally for $999. The 5700 is available on the 'net for +\- $950 and the 2100 has gotten no lower than about $399 (except for some possibly questionable ebay sellers) ... and that after being discontinued.

I'd say the difference is about $550 right now, not $800 ...

Mike
--
C-2100UZ (2!)

It depends on how you look at it. The EOS1D does 8 frames/sec at 4MP. That's 32MP/sec.

The E100 does 15 frames/sec @ 1.5 MP. That is only 22.5MP/sec.

So the E100 has a higher frame rate, but the 1D is crunching 50% more pixels.

So by your argument, my Cam corder crushes the E100. I mean twice as fast. Oh I guess it doesn't have the pixel count though.

Adam-T said:

I laughed hard when I saw the EOS1D quoted as the worlds fastest
Digital SLR** - they couldn't say world's fastest Digital
Camera** cuz the little plastic E100RS wipes the floor with it LOL
..

Click to expand...

5700 on left, 2100 on right.
http://www.pbase.com/image/3830085 (go to this to see detail - it is large)
I followed Skaliwag's suggestion to use the imaging-resource tests.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C5700/C57THMB.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C2100/C210THMB.HTM

Copied both at what is reported as full optical zoom - both are not at full res. Cropped the 5700 pic the the dimensions of the of the 2100 (1024 x 768). Now in the review, Dave says the 2100 picture is just at 10x optical, but on the thumbnail page, it says this pic is at 11.7x, which means also 1.7x digital on top of the optical. Since that pic is showing more zoom than the 5700, I think that must be an error in the article, so we don't have anything to compare - still apples and oranges. Unless w3 can pull these and edit the 5700 pic (crop) to give it that 1.7x optical zoom as well. But you can see this version is sharp and still has the better saturation.
Erin

The experts are the ones who can take the pictures in such a way that we can tell not only whether it can match the Uzi for long zoom resolution, but also whether it can match it for quality.

I can see that Brian and I suppose Canon can too which probably irritates them, it was the solid fact that the RS IS fastest digital still camera NOT the 1D which made me laugh ;-)..

For the price the 1D costs, it ought to be able to crunch 4Mp 8FPS!. as an aside, it also seems to have more focussing issues varying between samples than the 5700 and E10 put together - what IS the world coming to ?? .

;-)

--
Olympus E10 +WCON, UZI +B300, Nikon E950, E900, E300

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

erin.rounds said:

Since that pic is showing more zoom than the 5700, I think that
must be an error in the article, so we don't have anything to
compare - still apples and oranges. Unless w3 can pull these and
edit the 5700 pic (crop) to give it that 1.7x optical zoom as well.
But you can see this version is sharp and still has the better
saturation.
Erin

Click to expand...

These pictures are only intended to show relative zoom from wide angle to full telephoto on the SAME camera (the one being reviewed). I don't think they set up this test to compare the focal distances of different cameras.
--
Misha

w3 wrote:
For some reason, the CP5700

w3 said:

picture seems to have more contrast and the UZI image looks a
little bit washed out. Do you know why?

Click to expand...

I get similar results when comparing pictures taken with my Nikon 995 and my Uzi. The Uzi seems to preserve more shadow detail, at the expense of contrast. The Nikon does the opposite.

Both Linda and Erin's tests seem to show that the 5700 can match the Uzi, but I'm not sure my hands are steady enough to handle it a full zoom with no IS.

Is there some reason why manufactures can't use digital stabilisation, like you find on digital camcorders ?

Dwight1973 said:

Thought some of you may be interested in seeing this....

http://lindap.digitalphotochat.com/5700vs2100

Click to expand...

There's been a lot of comment here on this comparison, for which we're all grateful. But it's time to "get real."

1. The 2100UZ is an "old" camera, ginned of an existing 2.1 mp CCD and an inlicensed (Canon) lens. In the past 3 years since that combo was probably conceived, CCDs and lenses have improved vastly

2. There's something strangely "flat" about the images from the 2100UZ, especially zoomed. I don't ever recall seeing that effect with my 2100UZ unless I am shooting through atmospheric or pollution haze. Don't neglect the possibility that a vehicle could pass through the scene and the exhaust alone -- not visible at the time -- could degrade a long lens shot.

3. I've noted variability in C2100UZ images from different cameras, and also, in the test shots from different 5700s.

Steve uses a "Nichols Ave." shot as a great standard to compare cameras. But even there, the variability in light at time of year can impact quality. The Nichols shot for the 5700 is wretched; for the Sony DSC-F707, it's darn near that of the new Fuji S2.

So my conclusion is...

"Has anyone found a way to stick the rubber handgrip back onto a 2100UZ once it's peeled off (due to heavy use, hand heat etc.)?"

Double-sided tape doesn't work, even if you sandpaper the slick inner surface of the rubber. I ended up cutting a leather panel out of the case my Handspring Visor came with, and putting that on the camera.

Mel

w3 said:

But you can see the top (2100 UZI) picture is less blurry than the
second one (CP5700). You can see the advantage of I.S. digicam
over non-I.S. digicam at long zoom.

Click to expand...

Forget the cameras that shot them for a second. The top photo has more detail -- resolution -- and is sharper. The math says otherwise, but these are two really bad test photos, and one of them happened to be better than the other one.

You really can't tell much comparing these photos. I think the bottom one was more noisy, but that might just be because it's more blurred, and the noise is more obvious?

Anyway, as to which one has more reach, the Oly has a much longer lens and the Nikon has plenty more pixels ... but judging from this comparison it looks like the Uzi has better quality pixels -- less noisy. Still, I'd like to think both of them would normally do better than this...

That ... and the 1D shoots eight individually focused frames a second, not just eight frames. Fifteen frames isn't so fast if only the first one is in focus.

A lot of the time you can get around this, but I missed plenty of photos with my Uzi because of the burst mode, or because it focuses too slowly. Seems like it would be the perfect baseball camera, but ducks took lots of patience.

Like anything else, it's the best blend you need, not just the best at one particular feature. That, skill, and plenty of luck...

Brian said:

It depends on how you look at it. The EOS1D does 8 frames/sec at
4MP. That's 32MP/sec.
The E100 does 15 frames/sec @ 1.5 MP. That is only 22.5MP/sec.

So the E100 has a higher frame rate, but the 1D is crunching 50%
more pixels.

So by your argument, my Cam corder crushes the E100. I mean twice
as fast. Oh I guess it doesn't have the pixel count though.

Adam-T said:

I laughed hard when I saw the EOS1D quoted as the worlds fastest
Digital SLR** - they couldn't say world's fastest Digital
Camera** cuz the little plastic E100RS wipes the floor with it LOL
..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...