ArticlesProduct Reviews & PreviewsFirst Impressions: Using the Canon PowerShot S100

First Impressions: Using the Canon PowerShot S100

By Barney Britton | Published Dec 7, 2011 | Product Reviews & Previews

Tagged with: canon canon-powershot-s100

Image Quality (tentative first impressions)

It is too early to make any definitive statements about the S100's image quality, partly because we have a lot more testing still to do ahead of a full review, but also because the camera sitting on my desk in front of me is the third sample that I have looked at, and the third with what appears to be a slightly decentered lens. Quality control issues can affect cameras from early production batches (and inevitably, review samples tend to fall into this category) and I hope that we have simply have been unlucky with the samples that we have received so far.

This isn't simply blind optimism (nor is it brand bias). No man is an island, nor any website. I am reserving judgement on the S100's optics for another reason: I have seen images from the S100 posted by owners and trusted competitors which appear better than those that we have been able to capture. At the time of writing, we are expecting another sample from Canon and we will rush it into the studio and out into the real world as quickly as possible. If necessary, our previously-published studio samples will be replaced, a fresh samples gallery created, and progress on a full review resumed (containing, of course, a full account of our experience).

Despite what I hope is only a temporary setback, I am able to make some judgements about the S100's image quality - specifically as regards its resolution and high-ISO performance. The lens issues that we've experienced with our early S100 samples are noticeable in the critical environment of our studio, but as usual are less problematic in 'real world' day-to-day shooting at a range of different focal lengths and distances. That said, pending further testing, the images on this page should be regarded as preview samples for now.


This shot, taken at ISO 100, demonstrates the resolving power of the S100's 12MP CMOS sensor. It also shows how well the S100's metering system copes in difficult, high-contrast lighting.	Blue skies are a tough test for any camera because blue is the noisiest channel, so if there is noise in your camera's files, the chances are you'll notice it here. At ISO 125, some noise can be seen in the sky in this shot, but it is a subtle grittiness, only visible when inspected very closely.

At ISO 800, in flat lighting the S100's sensor is still capable of resolving a lot of detail. Noise reduction is taking the edge off the finest detail here, but resolution is high and the final image is impressively clean.	At ISO 6400, noise, and the effects of noise-reduction are much more noticeable. Crucially though, colors are natural and well-saturated, making this image perfectly suitable for a medium-sized print. Naturally, better results can be coaxed from raw files.

Looking at samples from the S100 next to those from its predecessor the S95, and cameras like the Canon PowerShot G12 and Nikon Coolpix P7100 it is clear that the S100's 12MP CMOS sensor does genuinely deliver more detail. Across its entire ISO span, the S100 out-resolves the S95 at equivalent settings - not by much, but it is noticeable. At their respective highest ISO settings the gap is narrower, but the S100 is certainly no worse than its predecessor at ISO 1600 and 3200 and - crucially - its files are captured faster, and the camera is ready to shoot again more quickly. The S100 is fairly noisy at ISO 6400 but like the S95, the S100's noise reduction treads a sensible line between noise smoothing and detail retention, and in a pinch I'd be perfectly confident making postcard or letter-sized prints at this setting.


As we've seen noise is pretty hard to miss at ISO 6400, but ISO 3200 is much more useable. At ISO 3200, the S100 is clearly applying a considerable amount of noise-reduction to its JPEG files, but edges are well-defined and in general, the S100 delivers a good compromise between detail capture and noise smoothing.	100% Crop

This image was created from a raw file, run through Adobe Camera Raw. As you can see, adjusting the sharpness and NR sliders can deliver more detail, but this is at the expense of a noticeable 'grittiness'. Personally, I would take a noisier but more detailed image, but it really is a matter of taste.	100% Crop

Although we have to reserve final judgement for now, I'm encouraged by what we've seen from the S100's homegrown CMOS sensor in our preliminary shooting.

Thoughts so far...

With the S100, Canon has updated a popular design without apparently meddling too much with the ingredients that made the S90 and S95 so popular. Owners of either camera will have no trouble picking up and using the S100, and even first-time buyers should find the S100 easy to get to grips with. There are raw-shooting enthusiast compact cameras on that the market that offer finer-grained control over their settings and operational ergonomics, but those custom functions that are offered (like Control Ring and RING FUNC button customization) are sensible and well thought-out. I'm not sure whether the addition of GPS or an uprated video capture mode will tempt many photographers to trade in their S90 or S95, but if they do, they'll find that they've upgraded to a camera that at the end of the day produces slightly better critical image quality, slightly faster than they're used to.

My only concern about the S100 at this point (and remember I'm writing this before we have been able to carry out our full gamut of studio and real-world tests) is the camera's lens. The three cameras that we have used have exhibited optical characteristics consistent with slight decentering of their lenses. Naturally, as I've already noted, this is much more noticeable in our studio image samples than in most 'real world' shooting (can you spot it in the images on this page? I doubt it). Depending on the focal length, focussing distance and scene though, it can be detrimental to critical image quality. I hope that we've simply been unlucky with the samples that we've been sent so far. Watch this space.

Comments

Total comments: 187

I just bought one in December 2011 and today I got the dreaded Lens failure warning. The lens will not retract. The only thing that I can do is review the pictures that I already took. Its the weekend and now I have no camera. I have called the local service office and emailed Canon. I hope this can be corrected shortly without any major inconvenience.

0 upvotes

Barney,

I just finished reading the review on the S100 and found it to be excellent. It resolves the lens decentering issue. People can understand it before throwing down on an otherwise faithful iteration of a great little camera line.

Based upon the scoring criteria I felt that if the camera was re-reviewed by a fresh set of eyes it would actually get slightly higher marks in the area of "Features", which is the second most important category in DPR's scoring process. The S100 feature set is one of its strongest suits and I really feel that the tabulation process did not account for all that it offers. Along those lines I would have expected a score much closer to 75.

Although the S100 is obviously not a gold award winner, I believe that it is a stronger silver award winner than what it was given credit for. I don't fault DPR for that since you guys put an enormous amount of effort into these reviews... to the point of exhaustion.

Gordon

0 upvotes

IF DPR believes that it is necessary to test multiple S100s to determine whether observed IQ issues are related to early production units or non-representative samples, then should not this practice be done with all cameras? It now seems unfair to fault ANY camera for imperfect IQ without evaluating 3-5 samples. I understand that the S100 is a special interest camera among enthusiasts, but many camera models will have some sort of enthusiast following.

0 upvotes

canon cameras get five chances. olympus cameras get one.

1 upvote

All the people that bought cameras badly out of spec, but who don't access DPR? Out of luck suckers, I guess?

0 upvotes

If there is a lens issue, they would spot it from day one regardless of the camera tested. So, since other cameras don't have such issues, then its not important to be reported...

0 upvotes

my take is that with the flooding in thailand, canon freaked out about meeting holiday demand and thus lowered their quality control threshold to increase volume. hence, three bad copies in a row.

2 upvotes

Just got news Canon is delaying delivery of the S100 again, now I've got to wait another 3-4 weeks before I can test it myself.

Is this the 'official' response Canon?

0 upvotes

No official response - explanation from Canon after all that time ?
Not good !

0 upvotes

Having downloaded and checked the sample DPR images above, they appear excellent in my opinion, for a point and shoot. Both the leaf and the fruit are relatively closeup shots and this camera does well in those situations. The Seattle Needle is an object. At 100% crop, this distance shot is fairly sharp, just starting to soften with only the slightest tinge of grain. It is acceptable for a P&S in my opinion. Post processig can correct all of this.

However, DPR needs to include a sample images of foliage at a distance to really get down to some serious real world resolution. Clustered small leaves at a distance is the most difficult thing for this camera to resolve. For landscape photography, the S100 leaves something to be desired. Professional equipment is required to capture the detail and resolution of landscape at a distance.

0 upvotes

Well, your report has sure made a lot of folks testers, as seen in this recent thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=40050694

Too bad your previous statement about decentering isn't published in a more prominent place at the site:

"But I would urge great caution before making a big deal out of this. Slow down and consider whether you're happy with your camera and the pictures that it produces. If you are, stop right there. Walk away and go and take photographs. No camera is perfect, and no lens either (read this article if you haven't already: http://www.dpreview.com/.../articles/7333489584/variation-facts-and-fallacies)

"If you're not happy, if you find that your pictures aren't uniformly sharp, and it's severe enough to be a problem for you, then return your camera."

2 upvotes

I purchased an S100 a month ago. It is not a bad camera. At wide angle, out to 60% crop remains sharp. At 80% crop both leaves and twigs begin to soften but objects appear sharp. At 100% crop, leaves and twigs are soft and objects are just beginning to soften. A full frame 21mp Canon 5D Mk II is sharp out to 100% crop but starts to soften after 120% crop. I haven't done enough with the zoom except with marco and up close shots. I recently did a pine cone on a white pine at 3 feet with about 50% zoom (17mm) and the results were ouitstanding. The needles and pine cone texture were exceptionally crisp and clean. What ever the offcenter lens issue is, it may only effect the position of the lens components at a particular zoom factor. Focus doesn't seem to be an issue on my camera. I may have a good camera but I suspect it also has the issue since there may only be one factory for this market.

1 upvote

The thing is that a sample of 3 cameras IS a representative sample considering the variation the customer can expect in a high end product !

What consumer say upgrading from a P&S world will go through the process of testing 3 camera to have a good one ?

Now the big question is representative of what ?

If those camera where randomly selected from all s100 produced to date, then they would be representative of the s100 in general (with a certain degree of incertitude)

If those camera where randomly selected from a certain Friday afternoon batch in a certain production plant, they are again representative, but OF THAT PARTICULAR BATCH (with a much greater degree of confidence)

If it's the latter case, that particular batch should be recalled or at least serviced under warranty.

3 upvotes

This is my concern as well. As a consumer who might purchase a camera like this (or my wife might as a gift), the fact that DPR has gone through three "faulty" models is virtually a deal breaker.

I am also looking at the Olympus xz-1, Fuji x-10, Lumix LX-5, and the lens problems on this camera are an issue that consumers should be fully aware of. Therefore, DPR needs to post a review based on one copy of the camera because one copy is what most consumers will get.

My father-in-law found out the hard way that Canon's customer service can be a nightmare to work with, even on known technical issues. We bought him one of the early Powershot IS models with the sensor issues and all Canon would do is offer him a few dollars off their price, which was still more than I paid from Adorama. So, I would be really concerned about getting a lemon S100 and being stuck with it.

I really like the look of the S100, but the small telephoto aperture concerned me, and now this has put me off.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have to say though, if these are "bad" images, they are still better than I get from my Fuji 3D camera, or my older Lumix. The Fuji is cool if you want 3D for something, but I would never recommend it as a camera.

0 upvotes

I am reading all comments here so far -- and yet we did not get to the central issue: How bad is it and how it manifests. Barney is doing his best to say he does not have to say because it is likely an aberration (and he's got the cool glasses to prove it).
So I think the whole thing is very simple and centers on the dpr standard studio scene. My guess is that the s100 shots came out badly on that, possibly worse than s95's. When doing MILC (m-less inter lens cam), you pick the best lens and go with that. But, geez, this cannot be done with P&S. So you have to go to the source and get the best sample because, well, you get the pic.
I think the studio scene is the best thing DPR has compared to other sites and so I say let the chips fall where they may. There is nothing wrong s100 being a $350 camera.
Possibly some P&Ss have reached limits vis-a-vis MILC if the robot-assisted lens assembly cannot do better at present.
Why, Canon might discover MILC a real and a profitable segment.

0 upvotes

where can you get the S100 for $350?????

List is $429 which is what most sites sell it for (or more)

0 upvotes

that sound like canon is using SIGMA lenses in the S100.... LOL.

btw: you would spare yourself all the stress when you only post FINAL reviews. i mean this is worth nothing to be fair.
people expect a final judgement when they come to dpreview not some "it could be that...".

if i want blahblah, rumors and bad reviews i have plenty of other websites to visit.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I'm working on the basis that if and when reviews take a long time, you'd rather read something than nothing in the meantime.

8 upvotes

This is worth something to some of us.

0 upvotes

I would pay no attention to that comment whatsoever Barney, I think you have written a perfectly rational and informative update of your preview and I appreciate the effort and honest discussion. And for the record I don't think anyone else is doing this. I thought the S100 would be no good when I read certain specs, but now will have to adjust that opinion thanks to some good honest evaluation. Keep up the good work and I look forward to more of the same.
Daniel.

3 upvotes

I am also glad to see updates on what's happening with it.

1 upvote

What a foolish statement! DPReview do not have to justify their actions to you and if you read the article they are explaining why they have not published the review. Had you been a paying subscriber your challenge to their posting/delay may have a point but you are not are you? GROW UP!

0 upvotes

About being a paid subscriber... I load countless advertisements from dpreview everytime I visit the site. You can only make a decent amount of money through advertisement if you have LOTS of traffic. So if visitors start going elsewhere for reviews, they lose money. So yes dpreview should care about what their subscribers want. Educate yourself before you tell others to grow up.

1 upvote

The HDR function sounds nice but I would not be carrying a tripod with a compact camera. Seems to defeat the purpose. If there was an auto bracketing feature then auto aligning in third party software would take care of this issue. Is there auto bracketing? If not then maybe Canon should consider it.

0 upvotes

HDR and autobracketing were present already in the S95. If you don't zoom and your subject doesn't move too much, HDR is usable without tripod.

0 upvotes

"...the third (sample) with what appears to be a slightly decentered lens."

You have to get THREE more samples of PERFECT lens optics to say...

50-50

3 upvotes

with sigma lenses my ratio was 50/50 (i stopped buying them 3 years ago).

most of teh time i had to test 4 lenses to end up with one decent and one thats good.

0 upvotes

A comparison video between the Canon S100 and S95 cameras:
Canon S100 vs Canon S95
http://shrt.fm/vS6Ng4

0 upvotes

He's wrong about the megapixels being less on the s100. Shut off the video at that point.

0 upvotes

Two videos about the Canon S100 Camera:

Canon PowerShot S100 Digital Camera Review
http://shrt.fm/tw4zwl

Canon PowerShot S100 Review
http://shrt.fm/s7zq2z

0 upvotes

PS: I think the US stock is different from the European stock. In the US I hardly find negative comments on the 'softness' of the lens, in Europe a lot more.

And my delivery is delayed significantly, maybe it's because Canon also realizes they have a (big) problem with the S100.

1 upvote

Yep, in Europe its 'measure twice, buy once.' In the States we rely on strong pro-consumer attitude and bitch if the product doesn't live up to its name.

0 upvotes

'That's how it works, yes - manufacturers make loan stock available to journalists, sometimes through a PR agency, sometimes direct. This stock is taken out of the normal retail channel.'

Dear Barney, when I stated Canon 'provided' Dpreview with cameras this was the reply:

By R Butler (Nov 21, 2011 at 18:42:12 GMT)
If that were true, I'd expect us to receive fewer decentred and oddly-behaving cameras than we do.

If it is true Canon pulls out the camera's from their normal stock and gives it to you without checking it themselves all the buyers (including myself) have a major problem. We all have to check and test this little beauty very carefully!

And, once again: all other reviews rate this camera very highly. But stating that your testresults are not representative for the real world is a bit misleading, it's all about the comparison: egual situation, disegual results. Conclusion: the tested S 100's are not OK.

Still I belief this is the only portable P and S worth buying.

0 upvotes

I don't really see your point. We get review samples from manufacturers, just like everyone else, and we always have. It's no secret. But they're not 'prepared' in any special way. Which is what Richard was saying.

1 upvote

I did not read the word 'prepared' anywhere. I think Thomas Wasser made a good point and it's worth considering. It makes three falty cameras in a row even a lot worse because I don't belief for a second Canon simply gives cameras 'of the shelf'. I don't mean that Dpreview is doing anything wrong, not at all but it's a good thing to get the facts straight (if that is possible at all).

By Thomas Wasser (Nov 20, 2011 at 10:58:51 GMT)
I agree.
But I really hope that dpreview doesn't allow Canon, or other manufacturers, to "supply" them with any cameras. If so, the reviews would most likely be based upon a copy of a camera that is pretested to be absolutely “best in the batch”. When QC is what it is, such reviews would of course not have any real value to the consumer.
LIKE3
By R Butler (Nov 21, 2011 at 18:42:12 GMT)
If that were true, I'd expect us to receive fewer decentred and oddly-behaving cameras than we do.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Right - so you're saying that camera manufacturers give us non-representative, cherry-picked 'best' samples, and I'm telling you that in all my six years of reviewing these things, that I've never seen any evidence of that happening (and indeed plenty of evidence that it doesn't).

1 upvote

Dear Barney,
I belief your experiences. And cherry picking is not such a big issue because all the cameras should be the same within very small margins. The point I wanted to make is really this: Canon provides the cameras, cherries or not but still three failed: customers, be aware!

0 upvotes

THEE CAMERAS BAD?... NO consumer would ever put up with that.

It seems like you are apologizing because you have to give a bad review to one of your sponsors products. Are you are afraid they will pull their banner ads?

Put on your big boy pants. Just say the camera is a dog. If they pull their ads we will notice and call them on it. I think they may have a bit more integrity than Olympus - Canon may even credit you for the find....

Just a thought.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

I don't think you've been paying attention...

2 upvotes

yeyh probably a nikon fanboy ... LOL

0 upvotes

I do have a suggestion - if you have the same issue on the 4th camera, could you try doing a test shot at iso80 at a slightly different focal length and aperture? Like right now it's...72mm and f4.5 I think, try 50mm and f4.0.

One poster in the Canon forum said he could reproduce the issue (and even posted pics) by shooting at 72mm and using f4.5. The fuzziness went away when he changed the aperture to f5.0. I tried to reproduce, but I just could not get my s100 shoot at 72mm, so unfortunately I cannot confirm or deny this myself.

One possible explanation is that there is an actual design flaw with the lens where something gets messed up when shooting at the exact aperture and focal length you happen to be shooting at. It would also help explain why so many other people aren't having the same problem, because they're shooting at other focal length / aperture combinations.

Just a thought, I hope if you have the same issues with the 4th camera you'll give it a try.

0 upvotes

You'll be pleased to know that testing at different focal lengths and distances is something that we do as a matter of course ;)

0 upvotes

Really? You guys have something like 50mm test shots from all 3 s100's that also have that weird softness on the right side?

(Just to be clear - this is actually a question, and in no way any sort of snarky remark, I did some s95 vs s100 testing myself and totally appreciate how difficult it is. :-))

1 upvote

I have other suggestion for Paul and Barney: why don't you send your camera Paul to DPR? For sure they can take care of it :-) And if they will get the bad results ... then lets start accepting the truth :-(

0 upvotes

Absolute nonsense for the simple reason that the version DPReview will eventually test will not be representative of the quality of the camera on sale to the public.

I was going to buy an S100 but now I am going to buy a new a bed instead. And I bet it will take better pictures too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

And you know that for definite, do you? You're assuming that I would be OK with publishing a review that isn't representative of the camera's performance? Why do you think I wrote this article? Believe me, I could do without the stress ;)

2 upvotes

When the majority of people in the forums that simply bought their camera at a store don't have this problem, publishing results from a few cameras that do have a problem would not be "representative of the quality of the camera on sale to the public" either.

1 upvote

@Paul Rivers - precisely :)

1 upvote

Sorry Barney - IMHO your 'precisely' response is ... simplistic?

You have stated elsewhere that the studio testing identifies issues likely not apparent to the majority of 'real world' users.
Assming that is true ( I have no reason to believe it is not) how can the majority of people not having this problem indicate your three 'defective' samples are unrepresentative.

I am intrigued by this situation - I believe you have tried to do the right thing in posting the updated review. Unfortunately I see no simple solution re way forward IF dpr continue to get the 4th S100 from Canon.

If the 4th camera shows better results, what confidence can anyone have (in the unique circumstances / publicity around this issue) Canon have given dpreview a standard camera?

If you continue to emphasise the extreme nature of your tests do not reflect real world usage for the majority of users, does this not tend to reduce the importance of your tests to the majority of users?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Then we get a fifth :)

0 upvotes

Three defective cameras in a row is completely inexcusable.

You should fully review the defective cameras that you recieved, because that is what most buyers will end up with.

2 upvotes

What do you mean by "we are expecting another sample from Canon". Are you getting the products you review directly from Canon, with Canon knowing it may be for testing purposes?

2 upvotes

That's how it works, yes - manufacturers make loan stock available to journalists, sometimes through a PR agency, sometimes direct. This stock is taken out of the normal retail channel.

0 upvotes

How do you take cameras out of the "normal retail channel" for previews and reviews weeks before the cameras enter that channel?

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

This is nonsense on stilts, DPReview. Three straight samples all defective. That means the camera is defective, or a substantial number of them are, and any suggestion to the contrary disserves your audience, which will not trust you as much going forward. If Canon fixes the camera for future runs, by all means report that. But what you need to report now, unambiguously, is that there is a defect in all the S100 cameras you've tested, and because you've tested three, this is highly unlikely to be an isolated problem. Given the (current) influence of your site, this may mean that Canon will take a hit until it fixes the problem, but unless you want to be no more than an advertising arm of the manufacturers, you have no choice.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

4 upvotes

I've said we've seen three samples which display apparent decentering. I've also said that it's barely noticeable in a wide range of shooting environments. I'm not saying *anything* is defective, I'm just trying to establish whether we've been unlucky with the early samples that we've seen.

1 upvote

I think it's time you (DPR) do go down to your friendly dealer and buy a camera independently.

You could be seeing three early-production cameras with a "minor" flaw that escapes normal production quality controls, but that can be corrected with modest revisions. Or you could be seeing three cameras that are performing to design specs and intended manufacturing quality. You need to test a camera that comes from somewhere else in the channels, as far from the channel Canon was shipping to you as possible.

I would hate to learn that Canon is deliberately cutting corners, but it certainly is possible.

1 upvote

If you, DPR, are publishing this for the sake of transparency, which is a noble reason, then I beg you, follow up on that cause. Call Canon and tell them:

1. You've designed a great little camera but are producing it with a production-flawed lens. This is what we will publish. Unless...

2. We go out and buy at least 12 of these cameras, on our own, from different stores, locations, even countries, while you reimburse us for those costs. We will then test those cameras to find out whether it was just a early batch problem or something found in regular examples people will be buying.

3. If you don't cooperate as asked, we will publish the results as we have them now: three cameras with the same fault is just not a statistical anomaly, it's reality. This is your only chance.

If they go for it, great, if not, it is your right -- no, your duty -- to believe what three cameras are showing, one good cameras cannot disprove that picture.

4 upvotes

Good idea and then give away the 12 cameras to dpreview readers as a co-promotion with Canon. Even if they do exhibit this minor defect, I'm sure you'd have a lot of very happy readers to get one for free!

1 upvote

Thanks for your initial impressions. I think it's important for potential buyers to ask what they want to do with this pocketable camera. I have had the S100 for over a month and I am extremely pleased. I also have a 1Ds Mark II and if I'm looking to produce 24 x 36 posters for customers or myself, I use the behemoth. I bought the S100 for family pictures, mostly my very young grandchildren and it does exactly what I wanted with more than acceptable results. I have printed 16 x 20 shots that are magnificent, large files can be viewed at http://www.pbase.com/deckedoutdigital/s100

The S100 is a convenient, take anywhere camera capable of very high quality results. It might be important to note that I only shoot in raw. Happy Holidays all!

3 upvotes

In the photo of the tie rack, the dark blue tie in the top right corner has cream coloured spots in the camera JPEG but red spots in the ACR converted JPEG. It looks like the noise reduction in the JPEG engine is far too aggressive.

Is there an option to turn it down/off?

0 upvotes

You can turn noise reduction to low in-camera, or of course you can shoot raw and eliminate it pretty much completely as well.

0 upvotes

I would say that this has been a really bad year as far as camera quality control goes. Sony NEX-5n has a clicking sound issue that even a baby would have discovered it in the testing phase; Fuji X10 has sensor blooming problems, also easy to discover in testing; and now Canon S100 has decentered lens. It's just disappointing that some of the most expected cameras of the year have critical flaws. Let's hope there are no critical flaws in the Panasonic GX1...

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Lens decentering seems to be common problem with quite a few cameras of late and what with the X10 white blob fault I wonder if the engineering quality is not as good as it was.
Are the manufacturers spending too much time and money on the electronics and forgetting how to actually build things, could Made in China have anything to do with it?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Not in this case, since the S100 is made in Japan. (at least mine is)

0 upvotes

So, three of the sample that have been tested potentially have a decentered lens. Even if Canon do resolve this, then a key fact remains- Quality control is an issue for this camera. I trust that this will be detailed in the final analysis, as many customers will have a less than ideal performing camera on their hands.

2 upvotes

Barney, thank you again for a wonderful review. I have upgraded from a Sony TX-100V and I'm extremely please with my S100. People insist on comparing this camera with DSLR, and it is really anoying all the complaints. I also have a Fuji X10, and I belive that this combo is the best I have ever had! There isn't a holy grail of cameras yet (size x lens x sensor x etc). I got to say that the so call decentering of the lenses are impossible to see with the photos I made, as are the white discs os the Fuji X10. I stopped checking studo samples and follwed my instincs, personally I don't keep zooming my family or travels photos for defects, this is not what photography is all about!

5 upvotes

I also thank you Barney. I have had my s100 on order for a few weeks now. I am not too worried about the de-centering issue. Maybe that explains why the supplies dried up. In fact, if Canon has held up production to work on this, I'll be happy to wait until they have it solved. I thought your review was truthful & frank. Thanks again. @bzanchet, I am glad you like yours. Mine will compliment my 7D which is usually loaded with a 400mm. This will sit in my pocket and save me from lens switching for sunrise or video shots. Thats what I want it for.

0 upvotes

When talking about JPEG and processed files from Raw, the reviewer (Barney B) states: "Personally, I would take a noisier but more detailed image, but it really is a matter of taste."
What about putting a voting counter next to the two images. The image processing that Barney came up with introduces artifacts looking like a puke.

0 upvotes

In your opinion.

9 upvotes

That's right. Let's vote on that

0 upvotes

ISO3200 image from RAW file seems very usable for small-medium prints. There's obviously lots of noise in there but you can smear that into the JPEG version and you can't do otherwise. So I'll stick with the RAW version, every time.

0 upvotes

Barney's RAW conversion far preferable to the standard jpeg.

6 upvotes

second is better. and nay-sayers have to notice its a 100% crop and not representitave of print quality until printing a 10x15, where the first image would look mushy and flat. look at each from 5ft away and youll see.

1 upvote

It is a good comparison. In the ties, the second is preferable, possibly because I am looking for and expecting detail in the pattern and texture of the fabrics, much of which is smoothed out in the first image.
But then I look at the horizontal rail, which I assume ought to have a smooth patina, and there the first image is better, since the noise in the second jars with the expected smoothness.
A choice is good!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

I like the JPG, but, RAW in 1.5 sec. and you can roll your own NR.
'course 90% of the time I'll take the faster fps over the post processing.

0 upvotes

Seven replies, that's nice.
From 5 meters away (on a smaller print) one image may look better but from 1 meter I want to see what it really is because I may not want to step into it.
We can also talk about better color transitions resulting in its own kind of contrast (rather than introducing contrast thru black/white lines edging).
The bottom line, though, is that the introduction of artifacts corrupts the whole image. Yeah, you can declare yourself an artist but I've seen enough "artifacts" that introduce (usually sexual) imagery to sell a product. So I think we can own up to that and if I see artifacts that look like crap I call it that.

0 upvotes

I think it's worth noting that Consumer Reports, arguably the premier "independent testing" facility, while they say they buy off the shelf products for testing, rarely also reveal that they actually get most of their products through manufacturer donation.

0 upvotes

I think this is the main concern after reading the comments in the article, i.e., that Canon will screen the new camera it sends to make sure that it does not have a de-centered lens, while regular consumers are left to fend for themselves. Three out of three were de-centered? The article also explicitly states that this is not a big deal?!?

6 upvotes

No, it does not state that it is *not a big deal*. If it were not a big deal you'd be reading a review, not an augmentation of a preview.

0 upvotes

I beg to differ, by not posting a review until you get a 4th camera is sending a message that the lens issue is not a big deal. Otherwise a review would up by now and would state that this camera has lens issues, period (3 out of 3?!? come on). What will you do if the 4th sample is bad? Or if it's good, are you going to report that consumers have a 25% chance of getting a 'good' S100? Facts are facts, are you going to report facts?

3 upvotes

How is it a fact to assume there's _any_ statistical validity to a non-random sample size of... 3?
What you can conclude from that sample size, as regards quality in the retail channel, is absolutely nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

0 upvotes

Good point, I expect DPREVIEW to follow proper sampling methods to report back the likelyhood of getting a bad camera. I'm glad we both agree on that.

0 upvotes

Interesting how Canon includes GPS on a $400 P&S while they plan to charge $650 for an add-on GPS module for their 1Dx.

I have this on email alert for the release of the Silver one for my wife to replace her S95 which we sold on amazon for $250 and are looking forward to using it.

On a side note, the image above... Do those hands belong to a male or female? Either way, I guess the question is insulting, and I don't apologize for that. LOL

0 upvotes

Add-on cccessories for expensive, professional, high-end cameras will always be very expensive. With every manufacturer - Nikon's own DSLR GPS module is also very expensive.

1 upvote

Was your hare brained question asked by a man or a woman? Either way the question is insulting…

I sure hope that you are not a portrait photographer because if you can't tell that those are a woman's hands I'd hate to see your work. LOL

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

I would be interested to know the functionality and speed differences in the consumer and pro GPS units. How long does it take to acquire an accurate signal? How well does it keep that signal? Is the difference proportional to the price? Is a GPS unit just a GPS unit this days?

0 upvotes

Definitely a difference in GPS chipset performance. Even within a single manufacturer's line there are choices between power consumption, size, auxiliary functions, etc.

0 upvotes

I have the S100. Any way I can tell if the lens is decentered?

1 upvote

If you cannot tell right now, and you were happy with your images before reading this article, what does it matter? See the reply above from Decked Out Digital.

0 upvotes

I disagree. Even a photographer who does not see the defect in their shooting today may well find themself later taking shots where it does make a difference, or may advance in their ability to where it makes a difference. They deserve the lens they paid for. If somebody bought a lens with soft corners and didn't notice it because they shot only portraits, would you say they should be happy because they can't tell yet?

0 upvotes

Simply put, yes. I would be surprised if Canon20DUser bought the S100 as a replacement for the 20D in all things photographic. Decked Out is perfectly happy with his S100 for regular shooting, and uses his 1Ds MkII Pro D-SLR when the results matter. That should be enough recommendation.

0 upvotes

I love the "pre"views and taking the time to get it right.

I would really love if some time was taken to really review the GPS features other than saying that it has GPS and you can turn it on and off.

I realize it's a camera review but some specs on the GPS would be great. Battery life with continuous use, lock time (first versus subsequent), will it track while it's off?

Curt

1 upvote

Bravo to Canon for even including GPS - and the logging capability is a nice "customer delight" feature. I hope more manufacturers start considering GPS a "standard" feature in travel-centric cameras.

0 upvotes

"Bravo to Canon for even including GPS - and the logging capability is a nice "customer delight" feature. I hope more manufacturers start considering GPS a "standard" feature in travel-centric cameras."

Me too, albeit using an external GPS tracker and, later, synchronizing the GPS data to my JPG's works just fine (apart from the time needed to do the sync). Nevertheless, I'd still prefer a camera with a GPS receiver in it to avoid having to sync stuff on my desktop.

1 upvote

I agree. It would be nice to have GPS as a standard feature. I know I'm not the only one out there that wants that. Maybe if it becomes enough of a standard review sites will start to take more time to evaluate that feature.

0 upvotes

As an EE I'd love to see more power consumption measurements of all sorts of features instead of just CIPA tests. From what I've seen on the web, a GPS chipset of this sort would pull 50-100mA. That's 10-20 hours without the rest of the camera, which can probably only run 2-3 hours off a single charge. So, not a huge effect, 10-20% less life maybe?

0 upvotes

restriction of using a tripod to use HDR function defys the purpose of buying a compact size camera. I won't be carrying a tripod with me where I am purposely taking S100.

Or I better rule out there is any HDR in camera and enjoy S100 for what it is good at.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

HDR in this camera is little more than a gimmick, like most of the other modes. Except handheld night scene...which I guess _can_ align shots? Odd the HDR isn't better, but as long as it has exposure bracketing, I'll do the HDR at home.

0 upvotes

Dear Dpreview team,
Thank you for the first impressions!
In the final review, if you could please share your thoughts on
- the Handheld NightScene mode (which works astonishingly well on the Canon ELPH 500 HS) comparing to the usual high ISO images?
- the Super Slow Motion modes?
- why Canon decided to restrict ISO to 80 at exposures longer than 1 second? Obviously, it reduces noise, but why restrict the enthusiast, and why now in the S100?
Thank you.

2 upvotes

Ok. I appreciate the extra attention you are giving this camera to verify your impressions. I have one on order. Two questions: a. Exactly what is 'decentering of lens'? b. What is an accurate way for an owner to test the camera at home for this condition? Perhaps you could suggest a few different ideas for home testing? Thanks.

0 upvotes

Decentering is basically when an element within a lens isn't quite straight. Severe decentering is visible as one side, or corner of your images being rendered noticeably softer than the others.

But I would urge great caution before making a big deal out of this. Slow down and consider whether you're happy with your camera and the pictures that it produces. If you are, stop right there. Walk away and go and take photographs. No camera is perfect, and no lens either (read this article if you haven't already: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489584/variation-facts-and-fallacies)

If you're not happy, if you find that your pictures aren't uniformly sharp, and it's severe enough to be a problem for you, then return your camera.

6 upvotes

I plan to try shooting graph paper and also brick wall, both perpendicular to the camera, and then invert the camera each time. I will mount it on a tripod. This should show if a particular image area has consistent unsharp quality to it which should tell me if my unit has lens de-centering, right?

1 upvote

Yeeesss... but remember that subject distance plays a part here as well. Honestly, the best test is to shoot normal subjects at a range of focussing distances and focal lengths and just look at them at your normal magnification, but my earlier advice still applies. Don't get lost down the rabbit-hole ;)

4 upvotes

Gotcha. Thanks. I will report my impressions.

0 upvotes

"If you're not happy, if you find that your pictures aren't uniformly sharp, and it's severe enough to be a problem for you, then return your camera."

Barney, I understand that there's no such thing as consistent perfection, but when would noticeably dull images not be a problem to have concern about? Even if it's so slight that it's only noticeable in 1% of images taken with it, that's about .999% too many IMO.

0 upvotes

One area where I've found (with two different s95's) that the s100 definitely seems better is at the far end of the zoom - the s95 would lose some noteable resolution when zooming all the way, the s100 doesn't seem to. Also - the s95 didn't do iso6400 except in it's special "low light, low resolution" mode. The s100's iso6400 is one area where it is monumentall better than the s95 was. :D

2 upvotes

That's interesting since the author's position seems to be that both have nearly equally poor high ISO quality. It's good to know though that you find the S100 to have noticeably better high ISO quality since our S95 was terrible above ISO 800.

0 upvotes

I...didn't exactly say that. I only said the iso6400 on the s95 was a special mode that was pretty bad, while iso 6400 on the s100 has some definite noise but is much better than the reduced resolution mode with iso6400 on the s95.

I feel like the s100 has improved regular high iso a little bit - iso800 and iso1600, but not a ton.

In my opinion iso3200 has also improved by a more noticeable margin - it was pretty bad on the s95, seems like it's a lot more usable on the s100.

But imo, regular iso's like 800 and 1600 have only improved a little.

1 upvote

"Across its entire ISO span, the S100 out-resolves the S95 at equivalent settings - not by much, but it is noticeable. At their respective highest ISO settings the gap is narrower, but the S100 is certainly no worse than its predecessor at ISO 1600 and 3200 and - crucially - its files are captured faster, and the camera is ready to shoot again more quickly."

I'm surprised to hear that actually, as in my own testing it looked like the s100 did not produce more detail at iso80...

0 upvotes

"One of the few missteps that I think Canon has made with the S100 is its new HDR mode, which really doesn't work as well as it should."

Yeah, I agree there. :-)

Also agree with the comments on the video. :-) wish it had a better microphone - though I'm not saying it's worse than other expensive compacts like the lx5.

0 upvotes

As a former LX5 owner (sold it on amazon for $320), I was impressed with the video quality but hated the crappy audio.

0 upvotes

lol, yeah, it's to bad to - one of the great things about these f2.0 lens cameras is their ability to shoot video in low light.

s100 - good video, mediocre microphone.
lx5 - good video, mediocre microphone
xz-1 - bad video, don't know about the microphone
x10 - haven't heard good things about it's video either...

There was Panasonic compact that had a really good reputation for video a while back (not m43rds, a compact), but as I remember it it was a superzoom not great for low light...

0 upvotes

"In fact, the delay after capturing a simultaneous JPEG and raw file before the camera is ready to shoot again is only 1.5 seconds (approx.) with an inexpensive class 6 SDHC card."

I...just tried it on mine, Class 6 card, and a timer. If you press the shutter button as fast as possible, the timer said it took 3 second before it took the 2nd shot. I tried timing it over 10 seconds (mashing on the shutter button), and it took t pics over 10 second - but *barely* 4 pics, it just started the 4th one as the timer hit 10 seconds. 13 over 30 seconds (iso80, so it's not a low light thing) - that's worse than 1 shot every 2 seconds.

0 upvotes

Class 6 cards can be 6MB/s, or they can be 12MB/s, I have several and it's a crapshoot. If you care about fast RAW+JPEG, buy a Sandisk 30MB/s, Lexar x133 or some other well rated fast card. This is where it will make a difference. Also, continuous mode works even with RAW, at about 1fps with a good card.

0 upvotes

"As far as shooting speed is concerned, the S100 acquits itself very well. I like shooting simultaneous RAW+JPEGs (old camera-reviewing habits die hard) and unlike many of its peers, the S100 remains pleasantly fast and responsive in this mode."

I suppose compared to other RAW compacts it's fast...I still think of it as pretty slow, shot-to-shot time in regular shootin is 2-3 seconds.

0 upvotes

"As far as its operational ergonomics are concerned, the only thing I really wish the S100 had, which it does not, is a dedicated ISO button."

I don't quite get this - what would be the difference between assigning the shortcut button (RING FUNC.) to set iso, and a dedicated iso button? If it had set "dedicated iso dial" it would be different (though I don't think there's space for one), but a dedicated button would work the same as the shortcut button set to iso - right?

0 upvotes

"the new sensor also makes it possible to shoot still images at a maximum frame-rate of 2.3fps - a significant boost compared to the S95's 0.9fps"

I wish dpreview would mention the raw shooting rate, as it's way slower than this jpg rate and I don't believe a huge improvement over the s95.

0 upvotes

RAW+JPEG is dumping between 14 and 23 MB/s onto the card. 24MB/s is about the limit for SDHC, so it's not really the S100s fault if RAW fps isn't much faster. Until UHS is added, we're maxxed out.

0 upvotes

"It's good to see though that Canon has addressed one of our few frustrations with the S95's ergonomics too - its lack of a hand grip. The S100 still doesn't offer a 'grip' as such, but a thin vertical strip on the front of the camera, and a shallow 'scoop' in the body shell does make a difference to handling, allowing for a much firmer hold when the camera is used one-handed."

Imo, I feel like this really missed what improved the s100's ergonomics - the rear rubber thumb grip and the grippier coating. Let me put it this way - if you pick up the s95, then pick up the s100 but avoid using the front indent, the s100 is still substantially easier to hold onto than the s95. Use the front indent and it's nice but not a big difference.

Let me say that the s100, imo, is *far* more ergonomic than the s95 was. Way easier to hold. Part of this, though, is because the s95 lagged behind everyone else's ergonomics to begin with.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

"...and the new sensor also makes it possible to shoot still images at a maximum frame-rate of 2.3fps - a significant boost compared to the S95's 0.9fps"

I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't the 0.9fps rate on the s95 raw shooting, and the 2.3fps rate on the s100 jpg?

0 upvotes

I've been shooting for 3 weeks. Leaving the 50D at home. So far I'm impressed, I have been carrying it everywhere, which is nice. With the weather changing, not as many shooting opportunities. Christmas will provide some opportunity....

0 upvotes

"Quality control issues can affect cameras from early production batches"

Ok, please explain that statement. Why exactly would early produced 'bad copies' be more likely to slip past quality control than later produced ones?

3 upvotes

It seems dpreview is an apologist for the manufacturer. The statement would make sense if it said the early cameras were found to be defective, and changes will have to be made to fix the problems ...

1 upvote

Total comments: 187

First Impressions: Using the Canon PowerShot S100

Image Quality (tentative first impressions)

Thoughts so far...

Further Reading:

Comments