Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 2002, 2:42 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 16
Default 128mb card for c-2100 uz, and tiff vs jpg

I think I am about to buy the c-2100, however the specs say memory UP TO 64mb. I have three sm cards that are well over that size for my Fuji that I would like to keep (although selling the fugi

Anyway, I am guessing that you all using the 2100 are surely using those big cards, but just wanted to make sure and don't trust the retailers to always know what they are talking about.

Also, do you find it necessary to use the .tiff function when taking a very important shot??? :?:

My primary area of interest is nature photography, and find myself more and more dealing with low light and distance, so thought the <uzi> was the right camera for me. My fuji just isn't cutting it especially in the low light sit's and my husband doesn't get thrilled when I venture out into a field of bull elks to get a "bit closer".

thanks, in advance
kandyj is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 10, 2002, 6:09 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

I know of many C-2100 users who use the 128meg cards (I'm a C-700 user myself).

The reason why most of the specs and reviews say, "Up to 64meg" is because that was the highest smartmedia card that was available at the time when the C-2100 came out, and the people who wrote those pages haven't bothered to update them (to be honest, it would be a lot of work to find every page that said the 64meg limit and update it...especially considering that the returns on doing it would be nil.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2002, 6:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

As for tiff (missed this part of the question), JPEG with low compression is very good, but I admit I do use tiff for those shots that are most important to me or that I plan to do heavy cropping and enlarging (but most people won't notice the difference)...I also admit that I very rarely use tiff.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2002, 7:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I have used a 128 mb card in my C3000 which only indicates a max card size of 64. I would use the SHQ jpeg compression mode. I usually reserve TIFF for portrait photos that I want to reproduce at 8X10
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2002, 3:29 PM   #5
lg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823
Default Re: 128mb card for c-2100 uz, and tiff vs jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandyj
Also, do you find it necessary to use the .tiff function when taking a very important shot??? :?:
Kandy, I'd use either the SHQ or HQ mode and not worry about TIFF. There is a slight difference in the quality of HQ and SHQ 8 x 10's, but I personally don't think it's worth the extra file space required (almost twice as much required for SHQ). I shoot everything in HQ mode.
lg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2002, 12:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 937
Default SQ v. HQ

This is getting interesting. I don't often use SHQ because I can get only about 22 pictures on the card.

So, I'm left with a choice between HQ and SQ.

I still don't understand the real differences between HQ at 1600x1200 and the best mode of SQ at 1280x960.

HQ gives a bigger picture, but in files around 400kb. SQ on the other hand gives a smaller picture, but in files that are about twice as big - around 800kb. This puzzles me.

SO - what is the real difference in quality between -

1. An HQ picture that's 1600x1200 recorded in a file of 400kb, and

2. An SQ picture that's 1280x960 recorded in a file of 800kb?

It seems logical that the 800kb file would have more information, but more pixels also indicate more information, don't they?

Can anybody explain this in a way I can understand? What would be the reasons for using one as opposed to the other?
Herb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2002, 6:14 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 76
Default

The image size is one thing, the quality is another. With SQ you can change under settings how large the image will be, and if its normal or high quality. If your just shooting a few quick images to email or post on the internet, the normal quality mght b enough. HQ is defualt at a set size and quality, same with SHQ.

I use a 64mb card, and I mainly shoot with SHQ since it will hold 45 pictures. I will then go through all the pictures renaming the ones I want to post on my site renaming them. I will then drop the image size down, and save the file at 75%. This will take most of my pictures from a 1000k file, down to around 100k. And they seem to hold their quality as well.

On the TIFF subject, I can't tell th difference, and it takes a lot longer to save. On the high quality TIFF settings, its a 5-6mb file. I am plenty pleased with the SHQ quality.
MIDACL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2002, 6:58 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

KandyJ___

128 MB Smartmedia will work fine in C2100. I have used one in my c2100 exclusively for two years.

digcamfan
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2002, 6:17 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 133
Default

I use 128MB card from day one in my c2100 no problem.

I shoot at 1600x1200 in HQ and I cant see anything wrong with printed 8x10 (Although I am no expert)

TIFF I cant see any use for. at about 5MB a shot its useless for my interest of sports because of the lapse between shots.
TonyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2002, 9:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 937
Default

I've just been shooting a lot of pictures with the C2100UZ at various settings - TIFF, SHQ, HQ and the highest quality of SQ - and examining them closely.

My conclusion - there's no point in my using either TIFF or SHQ. I simply can't detect any difference between them and HQ - so I'm going to use HQ in future because I can get more pictures on the card.

I can see no point at all in using SQ at it's 'High Quality' setting in either 1280x960 or 1024x768 because at those settings the card holds FEWER pictures than at the HQ setting - and the SQ pictures seem to me to be slightly inferior.

I might perhaps use SQ - at a smaller picture size, or lower quality - IF I wanted to get more pictures on the card than it holds at the HQ setting.
Herb is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:24 PM.