s100 outdoor pics, 24mm

Started Nov 19, 2011 | Discussions
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
Nov 19, 2011

Some pics at 24mm from my s100. Shot raw and converted in dpp (with default settings). It was partly cloudy when I was shooting them. They're just regular examples of what you would get going out and shooting. These are half the pics I took, the other were just near-duplicates didn't want to post nearly the same pic twice.

PC Wheeler
Forum ProPosts: 13,993Gear list
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 19, 2011

Nice shots, Paul. Very clean shots with no CA apparent. I'm beginning to suspect the Digic 5 chip is removing CA; no lens is that clean and I've seen none in my S100 shots either. Panasonic has been doing such in-camera processing for several years (one thing I appreciate about my m4/3 GH2).

No obvious, major distortions: You appear to have had the line-of-sight pretty level. Of course, limiting the number of vertical straight lines near the edges helps
--
Phil

 PC Wheeler's gear list:PC Wheeler's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot G15 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,660Gear list
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PC Wheeler, Nov 19, 2011

PC Wheeler wrote:

Nice shots, Paul. Very clean shots with no CA apparent. I'm beginning to suspect the Digic 5 chip is removing CA; no lens is that clean and I've seen none in my S100 shots either. Panasonic has been doing such in-camera processing for several years (one thing I appreciate about my m4/3 GH2).

I think I have read somewhere that they remove CA indeed in S100.

The corner sharpness (not just corners, a lot more) is a bit disappointing though even aft f/4. There is very significant (several pixels) blur in structures like tree branches; even scaled down to 50% of original size the drop in corner sharpness would be visible. It's not bad, but definitely worse than what I have seen from LX5.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PC Wheeler, Nov 19, 2011

PC Wheeler wrote:

Nice shots, Paul.

Thanks!

Very clean shots with no CA apparent. I'm beginning to suspect the Digic 5 chip is removing CA; no lens is that clean and I've seen none in my S100 shots either.

Yeah, I think in-camera jpg's have chromatic abberation removal applied to them, while I know that the s100 raw shots automatically have chromatic abberation correction turned on when they're imported into dpp.

Panasonic has been doing such in-camera processing for several years (one thing I appreciate about my m4/3 GH2).

No obvious, major distortions: You appear to have had the line-of-sight pretty level. Of course, limiting the number of vertical straight lines near the edges helps

lol, when shooting I was trying to get detail in the corners of the frame, wasn't paying attention to straight objects...if I did it again I would try to get at least one pic with a fence or something.

The one pic that does have some distortion is the closeup of yellow leaves - look at the stuff at the bottom in the background, it's super-wack, the houses on the left side lean to the right, the houses on the right side lean to the left - it's...pretty bizarre looking. As I mentioned in another thread though, it's definitely a 24mm issue, not an s100 issue, as I easily found 100hs and lx5 images that did the same thing.

I wonder if 24mm is just particular bad when it's focused on an object close to the camera, with objects a ways back in the background?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Carl S
Contributing MemberPosts: 924
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 20, 2011

The one pic that does have some distortion is the closeup of yellow leaves - look at the stuff at the bottom in the background, it's super-wack, the houses on the left side lean to the right, the houses on the right side lean to the left - it's...pretty bizarre looking. As I mentioned in another thread though, it's definitely a 24mm issue, not an s100 issue, as I easily found 100hs and lx5 images that did the same thing.

I wonder if 24mm is just particular bad when it's focused on an object close to the camera, with objects a ways back in the background?

No, converging verticals (keystoning) occurs when pointing a lens up (wide angles are even more pronounced) regardless of where the lens is focused.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
voz
voz
Regular MemberPosts: 372
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PC Wheeler, Nov 20, 2011

PC Wheeler wrote:

Nice shots, Paul. Very clean shots with no CA apparent. I'm beginning to suspect the Digic 5 chip is removing CA; no lens is that clean and I've seen none in my S100 shots either. Panasonic has been doing such in-camera processing for several years (one thing I appreciate about my m4/3 GH2).

Yep, and the same is done in my S95. CA is being removed (as much as possible) on the JPEGs and DPP applies automatic CA removal to the Raws. In ACR though you need to take care of it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to Carl S, Nov 20, 2011

Carl S wrote:

No, converging verticals (keystoning) occurs when pointing a lens up (wide angles are even more pronounced) regardless of where the lens is focused.

There are other example shots of what I mean here -
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=13422005#post13422005

In the first pic, the buildings in the background start to become noticeably distorted while the palm tree appears fine -

In the second pic it's the exact same shoreline but without the palm tree in the foreground, and the buildings look undistorted -

Reading your post, I noticed that the buildings in the second pic are higher up in the picture (not as close to the bottom of the frame)...do you think that's what's causing this? My thought had been that it's the tree in the foreground that somehow causes this to happen (like how my pic has an object in the foreground as well)...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Carl S
Contributing MemberPosts: 924
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 20, 2011

Reading your post, I noticed that the buildings in the second pic are higher up in the picture (not as close to the bottom of the frame)...do you think that's what's causing this? My thought had been that it's the tree in the foreground that somehow causes this to happen (like how my pic has an object in the foreground as well)...

Yes that is what's causing this. You are pointing the lens (camera) up in the first image, probably to include the top of the palm tree. In the second image you clearly have the lens (camera) more level which is why there is less keystoning.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bill hansen
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,227
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 21, 2011

Paul -

What did you think of corner sharpness when you viewed images on your monitor, or in prints? Have you tested corner sharpness of images shot at other focal lengths, like the 75mm at which DPR shot their images?

I can't really tell much from viewing on this 15 mich laptop monitor - but I wonder if corners in your images are a little less sharp than the centers.

Over all, are you pleased with your copy of the S100?

Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
drz
drz
Senior MemberPosts: 2,135Gear list
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to Carl S, Nov 21, 2011

I just wanted to mention that the same thing happens when you point down as well. The actual underlying "issue" is that the camera sensor is not perpendicular (aka on-plane) with subject matter. In other words, whether pointed up or down, the camera sensor is now at an angle to the face of the building (or whatever is in the picture) resulting in this distortion.

It's harder to recreate the effect looking down, since things are usually closer and the effect less obvious at that distance/size, but you can easily "prove" it by simply turning your camera upside down and taking the picture looking "up" (which is now down, relative to the camera).

D.

 drz's gear list:drz's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to bill hansen, Nov 21, 2011

bill hansen wrote:

Paul -

What did you think of corner sharpness when you viewed images on your monitor, or in prints?

I think that the corners are not perfectly sharp, even at screen size as you can see in my outdoor 24mm pics -

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&message=39879612&changemode=1

However -

1. In my direct comparison pics with the s95, if anything, the corners on the s100 look a little sharper than the corners on the s95 pics -
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1010&thread=39709784

2. I've seen pics from the g11 and lx5 and their corners may be sharper, I'm not sure, but they are definitely not "perfect" either.

Have you tested corner sharpness of images shot at other focal lengths, like the 75mm at which DPR shot their images?

I took some shots last week of my cube wall which has a lot of texture for comparison, and oddly I found that at 85mm-equivalent corners were noteably sharper than the are at wide angle.

I'm not sure what's going on with the dpreview pics - I know another poster took pics and in his pics he found that f4.5 at 70mm had noticeably softer corners than f5.0 at 70mm. I tried to replicate his results, but couldn't simply because I never seemed to be able to get my zoom to go to 70mm...and I had other things to do this weekend, lol.

I can't really tell much from viewing on this 15 mich laptop monitor - but I wonder if corners in your images are a little less sharp than the centers.

You can click the "Download Original" links and download the full size versions if you want.

Over all, are you pleased with your copy of the S100?

Yes. I haven't found anything about it that would make me consider going back to my s95. The only drawback that comes to mind is not being able to shoot at longer than 1 second with any iso other than 80, and that's something that's mostly theoretical for me.

Most of the things I dislike about the s100 are things just carried over the from the s95 - no minimum shutter speed setting, no ability to set both shutter speed and aperture and let the camera decide the iso, you can set the max iso but not above 1600, flash uses iso640 by default and no way to change it, etc etc. However, to put this in perspective I've found far more glaring flaws (for me) in other models of cameras - the Nikon p300 would choose 1/15 in it's auto mode and f2.8 when the lens went to f1.8 - both I found intolerable. The Olympus xz-1 doesn't display the iso when iso is on auto and you have press - something I use all the time to decide if I need to use flash or not. The lx5 has a lens cap you have to take on and off every time you start up the camera....etc etc. Point being I haven't found a perfect camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to drz, Nov 21, 2011

drz wrote:

I just wanted to mention that the same thing happens when you point down as well. The actual underlying "issue" is that the camera sensor is not perpendicular (aka on-plane) with subject matter. In other words, whether pointed up or down, the camera sensor is now at an angle to the face of the building (or whatever is in the picture) resulting in this distortion.

It's harder to recreate the effect looking down, since things are usually closer and the effect less obvious at that distance/size, but you can easily "prove" it by simply turning your camera upside down and taking the picture looking "up" (which is now down, relative to the camera).

D.

Hmm...interesting...I mean I had seen the "building narrows as it goes up" thing, but never noticed this before with objects on the horizon...thanks to both you guys for the explanation. It seems like the wider the angle the lens the more pronounced the effect, I'll have to play around with it some more. For the tree closeup shot I'm sure I was pointing the camera up, that makes more sense to me than my previous theory that it was focus distance with something close to the camera - thanks again!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,660Gear list
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 21, 2011

PaulRivers wrote:

I'll have to play around with it some more. For the tree closeup shot I'm sure I was pointing the camera up, that makes more sense to me than my previous theory that it was focus distance with something close to the camera - thanks again!

play with the 'perspective correction' tool in Photoshop, e.g. tilt 20 degrees up or down, and you will see how it works out. I regularly get the 'tilt down' perspective in my pictures, e.g. when taking images of canal houses including their reflections in the water.

With a 24mm (effective) lens, you will nearly always see perspective distortion with buildings or other structures with straight lines, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, because putting the horizon in the middle is usually bad for the composition

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PaulRivers
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,414
Like?
Re: s100 outdoor pics, 24mm
In reply to technic, Nov 21, 2011

technic wrote:

PaulRivers wrote:

I'll have to play around with it some more. For the tree closeup shot I'm sure I was pointing the camera up, that makes more sense to me than my previous theory that it was focus distance with something close to the camera - thanks again!

play with the 'perspective correction' tool in Photoshop, e.g. tilt 20 degrees up or down, and you will see how it works out. I regularly get the 'tilt down' perspective in my pictures, e.g. when taking images of canal houses including their reflections in the water.

With a 24mm (effective) lens, you will nearly always see perspective distortion with buildings or other structures with straight lines, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, because putting the horizon in the middle is usually bad for the composition

lol, well, if I owned Photoshop...

Plus I would wonder about the effects if you corrected the distortion for the background, wouldn't it make the foreground which was correctly lined up with the camera look pretty weird?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,660Gear list
Like?
perspective correctin
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 22, 2011

PaulRivers wrote:

Plus I would wonder about the effects if you corrected the distortion for the background, wouldn't it make the foreground which was correctly lined up with the camera look pretty weird?

yes, there is no way to correct such a picture with mirrored perspective, as you would need different corrections for background and foreground (and even if you tried, it would look very unnatural). I usually don't correct normal perspective distortion with low horizon either (the proverbial skyscraper shot), because it nearly always looks unreal when fully corrected. Sometimes a partial correction is required though, depends on framing / other references in the picture.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads