Reading mode: Light Dark

S3 Pre-Prod images

Go to last post
Hi John,

Thanks for posting the heads up to Gary's sample from the S3.

Living in Vermont, I've shot many images at the entrance to covered bridges, and I know how challenging this is to the limited dynamic range of typical digital sensors.

If Gary's image did not involve fill flash on the bride, then his result is indeed encouraging. Very encouraging. I am now more eager than ever to see additional S3 samples.

Thanks again for posting the link.

Best wishes,

David
 
As we expected, the extra dynamic range translates into a flatter image, this is just part of the territory. For those times when we want more contrast, we can crush the shadows after the fact. The extra range will come in very useful especially for wedding photographers, but also for those difficult light situations.

Now we have to see how quickly Adobe and others bring out support for the new raw format.

I really really hope the Pop Photo article was correct about fixing the viewfinder, otherwise I will be very very conflicted if the image quality holds up under detailed scrutiny.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
 
If Mr. Fong was interested in providing something meaningful to evaluate, he would have shot the same scene with the S2 so we can see just how much the dynamic range really does with the image. Without context there's nothing you can do but take Gary's comments at face value. I don't think he's objective (more like a Fuji cheerleader), so I want comparison images.

--
BJN
 
Okay. Fill me in because I missed it.

Did pop photo say that Fuji was fixing the viewfinder? The extra DR is great, but, if I can't see my subject to compose the photo, it's a hard camera to use.
Jonathan Kardell said:
I really really hope the Pop Photo article was correct about fixing
the viewfinder, otherwise I will be very very conflicted if the
image quality holds up under detailed scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
BJN said:
If Mr. Fong was interested in providing something meaningful to
evaluate, he would have shot the same scene with the S2 so we can
see just how much the dynamic range really does with the image.
Without context there's nothing you can do but take Gary's comments
at face value. I don't think he's objective (more like a Fuji
cheerleader), so I want comparison images.
Click to expand...
Thus the reason for our cautious notes of optimism. None of us have been cheering from the rafters. Very encouraging is the most I could give it at this time.

We all await detailed scrutiny of final production images from several sources.

--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
 
mchaboud said:
Did pop photo say that Fuji was fixing the viewfinder? The extra
DR is great, but, if I can't see my subject to compose the photo,
it's a hard camera to use.
Jonathan Kardell said:
I really really hope the Pop Photo article was correct about fixing
the viewfinder, otherwise I will be very very conflicted if the
image quality holds up under detailed scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Pop Photo this month claims that due to customer feedback they have made an "increased magnification viewfinder similar to that found in the F100" While this got me quite interested at first, but we will have to see what is true. I was hopeful that at the last minute they changed the optics at the eyepiece! We shall see.

--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
 
Hi, David.

Looking at the photo, it doesn't look like much, if any, fill flash was used. Not a trace of shadow on the veil behind her left arm, plus the shadow of the flowers on her right arm seems naturally diffused. Even a flash bracket would have left more of a trace, I would think.
I'm impressed, and -- like you --- anxious to see more.
Too bad it's so slow . . .

Tim

--
Photo Galleries:
http://home.zoomnet.net/~tparsley/
work: http://www.georgianonline.com/tim_slideshow/tim_ss_index.html
 
Why wouldn't FUJI supply sample images? Random images from a "loaner" camera in an untweaked condition in another country with unknown controls and variables just doesn't make sense as a way to get the images out. I don't get it. Professional photographers expect much more.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Hi Tim,

Yep, I agree with your observations......but still, it's conceivable (if improbable) that Gary used some form of off-camera flash for fill, well diffused. I'd like to think not, however.

And yes, the last specs we saw indicated excruciatingly slow performance.

Fingers still remain crossed.

Best wishes,

David
Tim Parsley said:
Hi, David.
Looking at the photo, it doesn't look like much, if any, fill flash
was used. Not a trace of shadow on the veil behind her left arm,
plus the shadow of the flowers on her right arm seems naturally
diffused. Even a flash bracket would have left more of a trace, I
would think.
I'm impressed, and -- like you --- anxious to see more.
Too bad it's so slow . . .

Tim

--
Photo Galleries:
http://home.zoomnet.net/~tparsley/
work: http://www.georgianonline.com/tim_slideshow/tim_ss_index.html
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/df9999
 
Taken with the new S3?



Notice the dynamic range! Straight into the sun with a Nikon 12-18 f4 at f11 at 1/350 at ISO 200 and 12mm.

Also notice the lack of ghosting, halos, and flare with the 12-18. One hell of a lens. . . . and Canon has nothing like it (although they recently came out with a cheap pro-sumer ultra wide zoom with variable f stop).

Actually, this is an S2 shot with quick tweaking in PS using this method. http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Thanks for you good results.

All RAW Photo such as X3F, NEF, CRW... can support the 4x DR by highlight saturation function with -1~-2stop exposure.
Best example is a FILL LIGHT of X3F (SD9/10).
Steve Bingham said:
Taken with the new S3?



Notice the dynamic range! Straight into the sun with a Nikon 12-18
f4 at f11 at 1/350 at ISO 200 and 12mm.

Also notice the lack of ghosting, halos, and flare with the 12-18.
One hell of a lens. . . . and Canon has nothing like it (although
they recently came out with a cheap pro-sumer ultra wide zoom with
variable f stop).

Actually, this is an S2 shot with quick tweaking in PS using this
method. http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--
SD-9, 24-70DG F2.8
ICQ : 34153143
 
except for the fact that this method adds a dark rim where the lightened area meets the sky, and adds tons of noise its just like a s3! lol
Steve Bingham said:
Taken with the new S3?



Notice the dynamic range! Straight into the sun with a Nikon 12-18
f4 at f11 at 1/350 at ISO 200 and 12mm.

Also notice the lack of ghosting, halos, and flare with the 12-18.
One hell of a lens. . . . and Canon has nothing like it (although
they recently came out with a cheap pro-sumer ultra wide zoom with
variable f stop).

Actually, this is an S2 shot with quick tweaking in PS using this
method. http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--
robingraham.com
 
I just made a 2' x 3' print with NO (as in zero) highlight or dark area where the two meet.

1- On the top image select the sky, Expand 1 pixel, then Feather 1.

2- If there is still a problem use the move tool and slide the top image one or two pixels down (use the arrow function).

. . .and their are other ways. A little practice and experimentation and any sign of a junction CAN be easily removed. I do it all the time.

PS is so powerful I swear I will NEVER learn it all - and I have been using it since version 1.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
I was curious why it is recommended to make the pic 8 bit before processing rather than staying at 16bit?
Steve Bingham said:
Taken with the new S3?

Notice the dynamic range! Straight into the sun with a Nikon 12-18
f4 at f11 at 1/350 at ISO 200 and 12mm.

Also notice the lack of ghosting, halos, and flare with the 12-18.
One hell of a lens. . . . and Canon has nothing like it (although
they recently came out with a cheap pro-sumer ultra wide zoom with
variable f stop).

Actually, this is an S2 shot with quick tweaking in PS using this
method. http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
I know why 16 bit is better, but damned if I can see real differences in a print. Also, some filters, etc don't work with 16 bit - and - 16 bit really slows PS down.

If I can ever figure out a way to actually see the difference between 8 and 16 I will probably stick with the much slower 16. However, try as I might, I can not been able to see a difference. This is something I have experimented with many times. Perhaps there is someone out there that can define a test I can try that WILL show the difference? Short of exacting product colors in ads, I can't see what I know, in theory, exists. That is, how necessary is 16 bit? I thought it would help shadow and highlight details and range and yet I see no difference in prints OR on my monitor.

All comments welcome. I really do not have a hard stand on this issue.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Probably not much normally - but if you have to process heavily, the extra bits available seem to me to help the image quite a bit, although I haven't done testing as such.

The easiest test would seem to be to do some heavy levels adjustment in 8 bit, and then the identical adjustment in 16bit - my PS has a gremlin at the moment, or I would give it a play.
Steve Bingham said:
I know why 16 bit is better, but damned if I can see real
differences in a print. Also, some filters, etc don't work with 16
bit - and - 16 bit really slows PS down.

If I can ever figure out a way to actually see the difference
between 8 and 16 I will probably stick with the much slower 16.
However, try as I might, I can not been able to see a difference.
This is something I have experimented with many times. Perhaps
there is someone out there that can define a test I can try that
WILL show the difference? Short of exacting product colors in ads,
I can't see what I know, in theory, exists. That is, how necessary
is 16 bit? I thought it would help shadow and highlight details and
range and yet I see no difference in prints OR on my monitor.

All comments welcome. I really do not have a hard stand on this issue.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top