S3 soft? I don't think so!

[bluenoser23]

ljfinger wrote:

"The S3 does what it does pretty well. It doesn't do well what the G6/20D/5D do well"

Lee,

That was a great reply. Thank you for taking the time to explain in such detail your views.

One last question (two really):

1. If you could only own 1 camera (and the only choices were S3 and G6) and you were to do most of your photography indoors, which camera would you choose: G6 or S3?

2. Same as number 1. above but your photo settings would be widely varied from indoor to outdoor, posed shots, candids, etc. Which of the G6 or S3 would you choose?

Thanks as always Lee for your time (or anyone else that would like to chime in).

James
--
Bluenoser
A95

 

[Lee Jay]

One last question (two really):

1. If you could only own 1 camera (and the only choices were S3 and
G6) and you were to do most of your photography indoors, which
camera would you choose: G6 or S3?

G6, primarily for the hotshoe. Bounce flash is just great compared to direct.

2. Same as number 1. above but your photo settings would be widely
varied from indoor to outdoor, posed shots, candids, etc. Which of
the G6 or S3 would you choose?

S3. It's a way more flexible camera than the G6 and what it lacks in lens-speed and low-light features (RAW, hotshoe), it makes up for with IS, focal length range, movie mode and the tilt-swivel LCD.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[bluenoser23]

Thanks very much Lee. You've been a great help.

Kindest regards,
James
--
Bluenoser
A95

 

[Fredrick28933]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all things for all people.

 

[mamallama]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is
still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all
things for all people.

Yes, a very informative and interesting thread. But I've been sitting here the last couple of minutes contemplating the last sentence and wondering, where are these people and how did they enter this discussion?

--mamallama

 

[Jim]

S3, ISO 80, contrast -2, sharpness -2, saturation -1, green -1, no
processing.

Full frame reduced with bicubic sharper:



100% crop, untouched straight from the camera:

Very encouraging, Lee. I've been turned off by the S2's softer images (than the G series) but this one from the S3 has given me pause to possibly reconsider this camera (if a Pro2 isn't forthcoming). Nice shot.

Jim
XT, G2, S410

 

[Fredrick28933]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is
still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all
things for all people.

Yes, a very informative and interesting thread. But I've been
sitting here the last couple of minutes contemplating the last
sentence and wondering, where are these people and how did they
enter this discussion?

They entered the discussion by comparing the S3's low-light performance to the G6, its noise or lack of it to DSLR's, not being tack sharp at all focal lengths, etc. All of which is true, but so what? If it could match all of those other cameras strengths there would be no need for them. IMHO it is better to compare like objects.

 

[dy1119]

Lee, please let me join the others on this thread, and thank you for your great contribution. Although I own and constantly use 2 DSLR's and 3 digicams, and have certain experience in operation these tools, I did learn a few new tricks from you in the recent months, and keep your profile in my favorites file.

BTW, the S3 is in my shopping list. Unfortunately, the first shipment arrived here (Israel) was sold immediately, and I'll have to wait 3 weeks. Oh well
Dror
--
http://www.pbase.com/dy1119

 

[Lee Jay]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is
still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all
things for all people.

Yes, a very informative and interesting thread. But I've been
sitting here the last couple of minutes contemplating the last
sentence and wondering, where are these people and how did they
enter this discussion?

Here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=18668841

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't think that the actual point I was trying to make got across all the way.

I had sharpening set at -2 in this shot and yet it appears sharp. The appearance of sharpness depends on many things - amount of motion blur, lens sharpness, bayer demosaicing algorithms, sensor noise (which hides detail), sharpening method and amount applied. However, other than the first one (no shot will look sharp if the in-focus section has motion blur) lighting is more important. This scene had pretty contrasty lighting and so looked sharp even with the minimum sharpening applied.

Another parameter that can make a scene look sharp is image magnification. "Magnification" is the ratio between an object's real size and its size on the sensor. Combined with "enlargement" (the ratio between an objects size on the final image and its size on the sensor), you can determine if you are seeing something "bigger that life" or not. If you can see in the image detail you wouldn't have been able to see from the same location with your eyes, the image will look sharp even if it is soft. For example, if you take a high-macro shot at an f-stop well past the diffraction limit of your camera, the image may look sharp anyway. On the other hand, if you take a super-wide shot at the same f-stop, it will look soft as warm butter because diffraction will have smeared detail that you would have been able to see with your eye.

You have to be careful comparing "sharpness" of cameras and lenses because you can be so easily fooled by the above effects. Also, I think as a whole, people in this forum put too much emphasis on image sharpness. All of these modern cameras are capable of pretty solid 13x19 prints viewed from normal distances if they are collected without motion blur and processed in a way consistent with the lighting present. I have a 5D and 20D and some fantastic L glass capable of mind-blowing sharpness. Under most conditions, the S3 is capable of producing shots that, in final print viewed at normal distances, will be hard to tell from the 5D + L glass. The 5D is way more croppable and does have an edge on big prints but even if it didn't, it would stil be worth what it costs to me for its other capabilities over the S3.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Hoddy4]

I am really pleased and somewhat surprised with the sharpness and quality of the S3 pictures and its low light capability. I am a previous owner of an S2 and the S3 was generally considered a minor upgrade; however, I am much happier with the pictures from the S3.

 

[Lee Jay]

I am really pleased and somewhat surprised with the sharpness and
quality of the S3 pictures and its low light capability. I am a
previous owner of an S2 and the S3 was generally considered a minor
upgrade; however, I am much happier with the pictures from the S3.

I actually didn't buy the S2 because of the image quality (from my own testing) but the S3 is performing well for me.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

100% crop, sharpening -2, no additional sharpening, ISO 80, contrasty lighting:



100% crop, sharpening -2, two-passes of addtional sharpening, ISO 400, very flat lighting:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[bluenoser23]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is
still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all
things for all people.

Yes, a very informative and interesting thread. But I've been
sitting here the last couple of minutes contemplating the last
sentence and wondering, where are these people and how did they
enter this discussion?

Here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=18668841

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee, I wasn't one of those "people" that mamallama referred to as expecting one camera to be all things to all people. I realized long ago that just doesn't exist. The thread of mine you referenced was just me trying to establish a "baseline" of objective facts about the picture quality and abilities of the S3 as I am trying to establish whether it will replace my A95 or simply augment it. I think having a G6 and the S3 would be a perfect - non-DSLR - combo but I'm hoping the A95 and S3 would be close enough.

Anyway, I am very much aware that the G6, A95, G3, etc. are very different from the S3 but when others (like the guy I referred to in my thread) give vastly different opinions on what I feel should be objective factors, people get confused (this is evidenced by the number of threads here from so many users trying to establish if the S3 simply takes high quality shots straight out of the camera).

Thank you again however for being so generous with your time in responding to everyone's questions. You are a gem here at dpreview.

Best regards,
James
--
Bluenoser
A95

 

[Lee Jay]

Lee, I wasn't one of those "people" that mamallama referred to as
expecting one camera to be all things to all people.

I wasn't referring to you, just to the review quotes you posted.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[bluenoser23]

Sorry 'bout that Lee. I misunderstood since you referred to my post. I should never post before having my morning caffeine fix )
--
Bluenoser
A95

 

[mamallama]

Thank you for a well-balanced and informative thread. I guess it is
still hard for some people to accept that no one camera can do all
things for all people.

Yes, a very informative and interesting thread. But I've been
sitting here the last couple of minutes contemplating the last
sentence and wondering, where are these people and how did they
enter this discussion?

They entered the discussion by comparing the S3's low-light
performance to the G6, its noise or lack of it to DSLR's, not being
tack sharp at all focal lengths, etc. All of which is true, but so
what? If it could match all of those other cameras strengths there
would be no need for them. IMHO it is better to compare like
objects.

Comparing cameras is a normal activity. Simon and others in published reviews do it often. But "ALL things ALL people"? Gimme a break. Isn't that a stretch?

--mamallama

 

[Montana500]

It also looks sharp because you post processed the image with a sharpening tool.

Let's see the image with no post processing and not resized.
--
2005 Canon S2 photo gallery:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/hits/hits.html

 

[Montana500]

How can that be when Simon says there is barely even a difference?

--
2005 Canon S2 photo gallery:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/hits/hits.html

 

[Lee Jay]

It also looks sharp because you post processed the image with a
sharpening tool.

Let's see the image with no post processing and not resized.

The 100% crop IS shown with no post processing and not resized. That's what "100% crop, untouched straight from the camera" means!!!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)