Fujifilm s5200 - Pro or Amateur camera?

Hey wasup,

I want to buy a camera for home use and also professional photography. I'll be using the camera for website pictures, magazine pictures, and pictures for various newsletter publications. I was considering the fuji s5200, but is it up to all of that?

Is it considered an amateur's camera or a pro? Or is it a little in between?
Thanks

Jared R said:

Is it considered an amateur's camera or a pro? Or is it a little in
between?

Click to expand...

I couldn't find the S5200 reviewed on this site, but there were similar models indicated....

Well, it is no way what is usually considered to be a "pro" camera, but that is besides the point. It is how a camera is used that makes for professionalism, and in the right hands the kind of camera you indicate will do a fine job.

However......

It will not reach pro standards for action shooting, (shutter lag) and hi-ISO (low light) work will not be satisfactory either.

If those requirements are not part of what you want to do, nobody will ever notice the difference in the shots, I promise you.
--
Regards,
Baz

Barrie Davis said:

It will not reach pro standards for action shooting, (shutter lag)
and hi-ISO (low light) work will not be satisfactory either.

Click to expand...

Actually, the S5200 is one of the new Fujifilm models that in fact has extremely fast shooting (almost zero lag) and very good high ISO shooting up to 1600 ISO.

The F10/F11 leads that class, but the 5200 can shoot RAW, has the long zoom, and can be post processed into some pretty excellent high ISO photos.

But the small sensor is still an amateur feature and just can't keep up with the high ISO and overall capability of the dSLRs. So it's applicability would really depend on how "pro" one would want to go.

Kim Letkeman said:

Barrie Davis said:

It will not reach pro standards for action shooting, (shutter lag)
and hi-ISO (low light) work will not be satisfactory either.

Click to expand...

Actually, the S5200 is one of the new Fujifilm models that in fact
has extremely fast shooting (almost zero lag) and very good high
ISO shooting up to 1600 ISO.

Click to expand...

Is that so? Well, I am happy to be corrected. My generalised comment was a risk I took in the absence of better knowledge. I should have researched better!

Kim Letkeman said:

But the small sensor is still an amateur feature and just can't
keep up with the high ISO and overall capability of the dSLRs. So
it's applicability would really depend on how "pro" one would want
to go.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

How pro is "pro" depends on what you want to do, and how many other photographic skills can be brought to bear. Clearly the MOST professional camera of all is the cheapest, simplest, and easiest to use that will competently turn in adequate quality. With digital that is very often much less of a camera than one is motivated to buy. ;-)

I am currently using a Konica Minolta A2 for exactly the kind of shooting the original poster describes. It is a similar kind of camera, and it is MORE than adequate for the job --- so much so that I presently have great difficulty justifying a (so called) "upgrade" to dSLR. But then I can recognise I don't really NEED anything 'better,' because I have many years of pro experience shooting with all kinds of "fully professional" cameras.....
---------------------------------------------------------------

Question: What is the minimum f-length of the S5200? If it is longer than 28mm equivalent it might be worth getting a wide-angle adaptor lens.
--
Regards,
Baz

Kim Letkeman said:

Actually, the S5200 is one of the new Fujifilm models that in fact
has extremely fast shooting (almost zero lag)

Click to expand...

No. Even the more expensive S9000 has a full-press lag that's very far from zero. In fact, it is around 0.5 to 0.65 of a second.

Pro DSLRs are about 5 times faster.

Kim Letkeman said:

and very good high
ISO shooting up to 1600 ISO.

Click to expand...

Better than the competition does not make "very good". It's not even close to the quality of an entry-level DSLR.

Kim Letkeman said:

The F10/F11 leads that class,

Click to expand...

If that class is "compact digicams", then I agree.

Kim Letkeman said:

but the 5200 can shoot RAW,

Click to expand...

It cam, but it's abysmally slow.

Kim Letkeman said:

has the
long zoom,

Click to expand...

But no true wide, unlike it's much improved sibling - the S9000.

Kim Letkeman said:

and can be post processed into some pretty excellent
high ISO photos.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of excellent and the inteded print size. Most people would consider the S5200 high ISO photos to be excellent.

Anyway, if the thread opener is serious about photography, the S9000 or a DSLR would make far better choices.

Prog.

"Most people would consider the S5200 high ISO photos to be excellent."

Should be:

"Most people would not consider the S5200 high ISO photos to be excellent."

Prog.

Prognathous said:

Depends on your definition of excellent and the inteded print size.

Click to expand...

Prints of any size are NOT part of the requirement here, which lowers the threshold of what is "acceptable quality" by a dramatic degree.

Fact is, almost any camera can produce images suitable for web use, and those pictures will be utterly indistinguishable from images produced by the most capable (expensive) cameras out there. Indeed, if there is any difference at all, it will be the photography that is poor, not the camera.

Again, for colour litho reproduction in journals and newsletters, the quality requirement is pretty low. Good repro is perfectly simple up to A4 size from six megapixels -- and that means ANY six megapixels that have been properly photographed. Furthermore, a certain amount of noise is actually helpful in getting smooth tones from the screening process.
--
Regards,
Baz

What you're actually saying is that for "magazine pictures", a Fuji S5200 is not only as good as a Hasselblad or a Mamiya, it's actually better due to its inherent "tone-smoothing" noise. I bet all those pro magaizne who keep using medium format and other expensive gear (pro Nikon, Canon, Leica) must be feeling very stupid to learn that wisdom... ;-)

Prog.

Prognathous said:

What you're actually saying is that for "magazine pictures", a Fuji
S5200 is not only as good as a Hasselblad or a Mamiya, it's
actually better due to its inherent "tone-smoothing" noise.

Click to expand...

Yup, more or less -- certainly no WORSE. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

Prognathous said:

I bet
all those pro magaizne who keep using medium format and other
expensive gear (pro Nikon, Canon, Leica) must be feeling very
stupid to learn that wisdom... ;-)

Click to expand...

Yup! And so they should.

If they are getting poor results from "lesser" cameras they are just plain doing it wrong. I know this for a fact; I have the proof on a shelf above this computer.....

Up there is a high quality kitchen brochure where one of my shots has been reproduced full page A3 bled-off-all-round.

[FYI. A3 is twice A4, and A4 is the standard size of a scanner platen.]

The image itself was made 4 years ago with 5MP Dimage 7, the predecessor to the 8MP KM A2 I currently use. What's more, ONLY HALF of my submitted image has been reproduced because they cropped it into a vertical when I supplied a horizontal. The actual pixel count in the area used was therefore only about 2.3MP, that's all.

Well, truth be told I could hardly believe it myself when I first saw it, but the image as reproduced stands up very well against the 10x8 transparency scans that are part of the same publication. Not the SAME, but quite good enough to please the client, and quite good enough to blow my socks off!

So when people witter on about the ostensible "quality" that's needed for magazines and journals, I just laugh!

(Hmmmm...there's an awful lot of incompetence out there, and some of it is masquerading as "knowledge")

I hope this makes my opinion clearer for you. Also, I hope at some future time this information becomes useful to you.
--
Regards,
Baz

Ok, interesting (and quite original) point-of-view. Anyone else agrees/disagrees with it?

Prog.

Prognathous said:

Ok, interesting (and quite original) point-of-view. Anyone else
agrees/disagrees with it?

Click to expand...

It's not an original observation, I assure you. It's well known amongst professionals working for publication, and one of the things my colleagues and I have good laugh about when we meet to share some good wine!

[The actual largest image repro I ever got was from the A2 -- a series of 48 sheet hoarding posters. That's the size of the side of a garage, and all from a sensor just 6.6mm x 8.8mm.]

--
Regards,
Baz

"If they are getting poor results from "lesser" cameras they are just plain doing it wrong. I know this for a fact; I have the proof on a shelf above this computer....."

Professional cameras are about far more than simple raw image quality. Of course you can get professional results from a point and shoot. Happens all the time. But -- would you want to do it day in, day out, competing with other professionals who have more appropriate tools?

Shooting sports without a fast 300 f/2.8? Shooting concerts without good high ISO performance? Shooting news without a fast f/1.4 lens? Shooting architecture without a tilt/shift lens? Shooting fashion or products without a sync cable connection? And on and on it goes. There are many professional situations where you can get by with amateur gear -- but if you want to consistently put food on the table and pay the rent, it pays to use professional gear.
--
Regards,
Paul
http://www.bangbangphoto.com

Paul Grupp said:

Shooting sports without a fast 300 f/2.8? Shooting concerts without
good high ISO performance? Shooting news without a fast f/1.4 lens?
Shooting architecture without a tilt/shift lens? Shooting fashion
or products without a sync cable connection? And on and on it goes.

Click to expand...

Paul,

What you say is quite true, IF (and only if) those subjects are part of what you need to shoot to get a living. If you do not need those capabilities, your certainly don't need to buy them in order to get adequate repro quality from the camera.

As it happens, I prefer to straighten my architectural work in Photoshop -- easier and way more professional than messing about with rising front on a 5x4" -- I know, I have done it both ways, thank you!

Also, my camera does have a PC socket, AND it synchronises perfectly all the way up to 1/1000th, which I can tell you feels very professional indeed. If I go above 1/1000th the shutter starts to clip my studio flash!!

Look here, please.....

Right from the start of this thread it was made crystal clear that pinning down the real requirement, (as has been done very competently) was crucial to making a sensible buying decision. Buying something you don't need is not sensible, and therefore not professional.

Paul Grupp said:

There are many professional situations where you can get by with
amateur gear -- but if you want to consistently put food on the
table and pay the rent, it pays to use professional gear.

Click to expand...

And anything is "professional" if it does the job consistently and satisfactorily. Right?
--
Regards,
Baz

. . . I don't understand why you're even bother saying it.

It appears to me as though you are setting up a straw man just for the pleasure of knocking it down yourself.

Professional photography being among the poorer-paying professions there is, I personally never have encountered many shooters who spend more money on equipment than they should. Rather, it's the other way around -- when I shoot at arena-level concerts, I see fellow professionals still shooting D100s. At big press conferences with AP and Reuters and all the papers there, I see everything from point and shoots to D70s and D100s. I've seen pro boxing photographers shooting with 10Ds and 20Ds. Lots of very good wedding photogs shoot with digi rebels, D70s, and all the rest.

In short, as far as I can see, there's nobody running around saying you can't shoot professionally without spending a ton of money on high end cameras. Most of us figure out what equipment we really need to get the job done, and buy it, thank you very much. Every dollar I spend on camera gear is a dollar I have to figure out where to find somewhere, and I generally would rather spend my money elsewhere.

As far as reproduction goes, remember -- the customer is always right. Lots of stock houses have strict rules about what kind of resolution they want in their collection -- sure you can argue with them, but what's the point? They want what they want -- you give it to them.

Anyway -- just don't see the point. Yup -- you can do amazing things under some circumstances with low-cost cameras. This is news?

--
Regards,
Paul
http://www.bangbangphoto.com

Paul Grupp said:

. . . I don't understand why you're even bother saying it.

Click to expand...

Huh!?

Paul Grupp said:

It appears to me as though you are setting up a straw man just for
the pleasure of knocking it down yourself.

Click to expand...

Excuse ME! As far as I can see, it was YOU that set up the straw man. All I did was (rise to the bait and) demolish it! Well, "more fool me", I suppose.

snip.

Paul Grupp said:

As far as reproduction goes, remember -- the customer is always
right. Lots of stock houses have strict rules about what kind of
resolution they want in their collection -- sure you can argue with
them, but what's the point? They want what they want -- you give it
to them.

Click to expand...

Or you work directly with more enlightened clients. That's how I came to learn what half a Dimage 7 image looked like when reproduced at A3 by people who knew what they were doing. (see my post upthread.)

Paul Grupp said:

Anyway -- just don't see the point. Yup -- you can do amazing
things under some circumstances with low-cost cameras. This is news?

Click to expand...

For some people it evidently IS news, Paul. Follow this link....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=16295398

which actually backtracks to this thread.
--
Regards,
Baz

. . . picking one single attribute, like "repro quality" and then trying to say that is the only attribute that matters in the choice of a camera, is argumentative at best.

Sorry, I don't see any demolishing of straw men. I see you trying to say that repro quality is all that matters, so expensive cameras aren't necessary.

Simply untrue. Sure, if you take a picture tomorrow with a camera phone of Osama bin laden getting captured or shot, I'll guarantee that it will get on the cover of every news magazine in the country. Does this mean a camera phone is the very best choice for taking news pictures of radical fundamentalists?

Most professional photography segments have specific needs that require expensive gear. Sports and wildlife shooters need long, fast lenses. Product shooters need high resolution. Just try to shoot a group of 200 people with a point and shoot, and see how much detail you get in individual faces. And on and on it goes.

There have always been people who get away with a little less than the optimal gear collection. Good for them. But equally, when you try to do that, sometimes your cheapness bites you in the a* , and you end up not doing the job right. There's nothing wrong with wanting to cut a few corners and save money if you can do it wisely -- but equally, there's nothing wrong with buying the best gear you can afford to make sure you don't let down your clients.
--
Regards,
Paul
http://www.bangbangphoto.com

Paul Grupp said:

. . . picking one single attribute, like "repro quality" and then
trying to say that is the only attribute that matters in the choice
of a camera, is argumentative at best.

Click to expand...

I did not say that. Check back.

It was me that made the points about shutter lag and speed of shooting, also high ISO drawbacks of non-dSLRs. I made those points in my first post.

Paul Grupp said:

Sorry, I don't see any demolishing of straw men.

Click to expand...

Make your mind up, please! ;-)

Paul Grupp said:

I see you trying to say that repro quality is all that matters, so expensive > cameras aren't necessary.

Click to expand...

No. That is all you have chosen to see, not anything I ever said. However, it is true that expensive cameras very often aren't necessary, which is where you came in.

Paul Grupp said:

Simply untrue. Sure, if you take a picture tomorrow with a camera
phone of Osama bin laden getting captured or shot, I'll guarantee
that it will get on the cover of every news magazine in the
country. Does this mean a camera phone is the very best choice for
taking news pictures of radical fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

Silly argument, and you know it.

Paul Grupp said:

Most professional photography segments have specific needs that
require expensive gear. Sports and wildlife shooters need long,
fast lenses. Product shooters need high resolution. Just try to
shoot a group of 200 people with a point and shoot, and see how
much detail you get in individual faces. And on and on it goes.

Click to expand...

Wow! I HAVE done that with my A2. Hey, maybe I'm a better photographer than I think I am. [Actually it was only 150, but who's counting?]

Paul Grupp said:

There have always been people who get away with a little less than
the optimal gear collection. Good for them.

Click to expand...

Gee thanks! Your approval is most welcome. Don't know how I managed without it!

Paul Grupp said:

But equally, when you
try to do that, sometimes your cheapness bites you in the a* , and
you end up not doing the job right. There's nothing wrong with
wanting to cut a few corners and save money if you can do it wisely

Click to expand...

(It's wisdom I have been trying to sell here.)

Paul Grupp said:

-- but equally, there's nothing wrong with buying the best gear you
can afford to make sure you don't let down your clients.

Click to expand...

Never said it wasn't. Indeed there's a lot to be said for having the 'comfort cushion' of the best equipment in your bag.
--
Regards,
Baz

Paul, I would gracefully retire at this point, lay down the spade, your'e digging a hole.

I agree.

What is the point of trying to argue the comparison between a £200 camera and a £1000 DSLR.

The S5200/5600 is a spro as you will get for the price. Actually it is more pro than you will get for the price anywhere else, includidng a 2nd hand DSLR.