s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances

Started Oct 28, 2011 | Discussions
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
Oct 28, 2011

Was curious what everyone else noticed were the differences non image quality new features and annoyances between the s95 and s100 in features and behavior of the two cameras. I don't mean image quality changes - let's ignore those completely. Just new settings, restrictions, buttons - everything that's different other than image quality differences.

Here's what I've found off the top of my head:

Better

  • "Auto Flash* is improved, though still a little odd. It was the one are of the s90 and s95 that was truly, actually, realistically broken and terrible before, sometimes making obviously idiotic choices like 1/15 iso1600 - and not firing the flash. Actually I thought it was totally fixed, but in AUTO mode I just took a pic at 1/25 with the flash firing (sigh). At least it's...better, I suppose. See this thread for more about auto mode behavior -

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&thread=39624054&page=1

  • Apparently it used to be that if the screen blanked out (power saving) but the camera did not power down, you would lose any manual focus settings you set. Not on the s100, manual focus survives the screen turning off. Manual focus still resets if you use it in any of the regular modes (p, av, etc) and turn the camera off, but this can be worked around by doing Menu-> Save Settings and using C mode.

  • Max shutter speed is now 1/2000, was 1/1600 on the s95.

  • The s100 has better ergonomics it's easier to hold. Grippier surface, new thumb grip on the back, slight grip on the front, etc.

Worse

  • Exposures longer than 1 second can now only be shot at iso80 - the camera will now no longer let you shoot at, say, 15 seconds iso400. (I don't know how much this matters or not, but it's a change.)

  • No iso12,800 - ok, I don't think this is really worse. The s95 had a low light mode that let you go from iso6400 to iso12,800, but at reduced resolution. The s100 no longer has this mode, though it does now let you shoot at iso6400 (iso3200 was the s95's limit for full resolution shots). Technically you lost anything iso8000-12,800...though like I said, the quality was so terrible above iso6400 I don't think this is any sort of real loss. A workaround is to shoot raw on the s100 and boost exposure in dpp (canon's raw converter) - the s95 only shot raw up to iso3200 anyways, so this would give you the same range.

  • Lcd doesn't provide exactly 100% coverage for some reason - I don't know if this is specific to just my s100, but in one of my tests I put a piece of tape on the fridge and used that to mark the left side of the image. I would move the camera's view so you could *just* barely see the tape on the fridge. On my s95 the tape showed up in the picture. On my s100 it did not. (And I even went back and tried it again to double check that I had not simply bumped the s100 slightly or something - same result, no tape in the s100 shot even though I could see the white line of the tape on the far left side of the lcd both before and after the shot). And yes, this was at wide angle...like I said, seemed to work on my s95.

Jared Huntr
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to PaulRivers, Oct 29, 2011

PaulRivers wrote:

  • Lcd doesn't provide exactly 100% coverage for some reason - I don't know if this is specific to just my s100, but in one of my tests I put a piece of tape on the fridge and used that to mark the left side of the image. I would move the camera's view so you could *just* barely see the tape on the fridge. On my s95 the tape showed up in the picture. On my s100 it did not. (And I even went back and tried it again to double check that I had not simply bumped the s100 slightly or something - same result, no tape in the s100 shot even though I could see the white line of the tape on the far left side of the lcd both before and after the shot). And yes, this was at wide angle...like I said, seemed to work on my s95.

Maybe Canon is up to its old tricks again - compensate for lens deficiencies like distortion and blurry corners using in-camera processing, then crop the edges back to square and resize back up to full resolution? As demonstrated with fish-eye mode, these cameras have enough CPU power to fake out an undistorted live image on the viewfinder to cover up for optical distortion.

 Jared Huntr's gear list:Jared Huntr's gear list
Ricoh GR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to Jared Huntr, Oct 29, 2011

Jared Huntr wrote:

Maybe Canon is up to its old tricks again - compensate for lens deficiencies like distortion and blurry corners using in-camera processing, then crop the edges back to square and resize back up to full resolution? As demonstrated with fish-eye mode, these cameras have enough CPU power to fake out an undistorted live image on the viewfinder to cover up for optical distortion.

...ok, for one thing we all know that's what they're doing. But more importantly, that's what they did in the s95 to and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhilM oz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,196
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to PaulRivers, Oct 29, 2011

How much distortion is there at 24mm?

If you shoot the tape test in RAW + JPEG how does the RAW image compare to the JPEG?

On the SX30 and IXUS 310 which both go to 24mm there is major barrel distortion at this zoom; but the camera corrects for it in the JPEG image. The same correction is applied to the live view image on the LCD so what you see when framing is what you get in the JPEG image.

If the distortion at 24mm is small maybe the live view has no correction applied; but the JPEG does so there is a difference.

The other theory I have is that most cameras don't use the entire sensor area when creating the JPEG. Part of the sensor is cropped away (presumably to cater for manufacturing or mounting tolerances). Perhaps the live view on the LCD is using a different crop area than what the JPEG conversion is using (which would be a bug).

I'd be very interested to see a sample RAW + JPEG from the S100 at 24mm. Do you have anything suitable you could email me?

Phil.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jared Huntr
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to PaulRivers, Oct 29, 2011

PaulRivers wrote:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Maybe Canon is up to its old tricks again - compensate for lens deficiencies like distortion and blurry corners using in-camera processing, then crop the edges back to square and resize back up to full resolution? As demonstrated with fish-eye mode, these cameras have enough CPU power to fake out an undistorted live image on the viewfinder to cover up for optical distortion.

...ok, for one thing we all know that's what they're doing. But more importantly, that's what they did in the s95 to and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Maybe it isn't outputting an 'honest' 24mm field of view? It would be interesting to compare the actual angle of view captured by the camera. In 35mm terms, I believe it should capture 74 deg. if it claims to be 24mm.

We can only speculate as to why the discrepancy between viewfinder and captured image....could be as simple as a coding error in firmware.

 Jared Huntr's gear list:Jared Huntr's gear list
Ricoh GR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Esmail
New MemberPosts: 24
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to PaulRivers, Oct 30, 2011
  • Exposures longer than 1 second can now only be shot at iso80 - the camera will now no longer let you shoot at, say, 15 seconds iso400. (I don't know how much this matters or not, but it's a change.)

Uh .. that's rather limiting .. too bad. For a camera that sells itself as a capable of manual control the user should be able to manipulate all essential controls (aperture, exposure, focus, iso)

FWIW, with my S90 I've taken some shots of the night sky at higher ISO (up to 400, then noise becomes an issue) to avoid longer exposures (star trails become evident with even 8 seconds). I doubt I'd get anything useful with a 1 second exposure at ISO 80. Taking images of skylines at night? .. probably difficult if not impossible with that setup too.

This is not a change to the good and runs contrary to the manual control idea. No idea why they would make this change.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Spotpuff
Regular MemberPosts: 102Gear list
Like?
Re: s95 vs s100 - new non-image-quality features / new annoyances
In reply to Esmail, Oct 31, 2011

This is a great list of things for comparison that don't boil down to the sensor and IQ. Ergonomics and handling do matter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads