Help S2 or S3?

I have been reading the initial reviews posted on this forum on the S3 and it seems that the S3 is only marginally better. I highly respect the opinions on this forum and what is better to spend the extra $ on the S3 or take the cheaper S2? I care mostly about picture quality and noise levels. Thanks

I normally always advocate the newest model, but at this point I would say go for the S2 and use the 200$ you saved towards a DSLR.

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

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to upgrade to Dslr for a while though so I willl be using this for pretty much everything for quite some time. Considering that would you still take the S2 over the S3? It seems so far that it is equal or marginally better in picture quality and noise levels.

is reportedly going to give a better image quality than the S2. I value image quality. Besides, if you get the S2 you'll always wonder if you should have paid a little more and get the S3 instead.

I value picture quality above all other qualities. But I have read other forum listings here where initial pictures posted with the S3 compared to the S2 and the pictures are sometimes very close and sometimes the S3's are marginally better. I take mostly wildlife and landscape photography (and lots of my little girl too) and I want the best picture quality, but if its only marginally better I would rather take the money I save and spend it on filters, and teleconverter, etc. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

my choice would be obviuosly the s3, larger lcd, better look, lower noise, live histogram. It will serve you well for a long time!

Adam D said:

I value picture quality above all other qualities. But I have read
other forum listings here where initial pictures posted with the S3
compared to the S2 and the pictures are sometimes very close and
sometimes the S3's are marginally better. I take mostly wildlife
and landscape photography (and lots of my little girl too) and I
want the best picture quality, but if its only marginally better I
would rather take the money I save and spend it on filters, and
teleconverter, etc. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

Since those evaluations are based on samples taken about a year apart in different light levels, those comparisons aren't valid directly. Looking at the other cameras with the same sensor as the S3 and comparing them to the S2 and the other cameras using the same sensor as the S2, you always find that the new sensor is better by some amount. That amount in my measurements is 2/3 of a stop accounting for differences in sensitivity. Looking at the samples from Phil and Simon here on dpreview, it looks like that's about right.

A relevant quote from Simon on the subject:

"...what is notable here is that the A700's results are remarkably good; Canon has opted for a fairly subtle noise reduction, meaning that there much less detail lost than we've seen in previous generations of compact camera, and less of the desaturation that comes from heavy NR. As ISO 400 results go, this is very promising (we believe the same sensor is being used in a lot of this year's new cameras) and - although still way too noisy for large prints - it's perfectly usable in decent light."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona700/page10.asp

By the way, I think ISO 400 is usable for moderately large (8x10) prints if you use some noise reduction software. I've had good luck so far with Noiseware.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

For nature and children, I'd concentrate on finding out whether the S3's ISO 200 is useable. When shooting active subjects, faster shutter speeds are a real advantage. For example, on an overcast day with an S2 at x12 zoom on ISO 100, a typical shutter speed might be 1/160 second, being able to use ISO 200 at 1/320 second might improve the odds of taking a satisfactory image of an active subject.

Perhaps find and compare ISO 200 images from the S2 and S3.

I would personally go for the S3 because of the "new" factor. In terms of perforemance and specs, there are some improvements to the S3, but a couple of important (at least to me) improvements. The Macro mode is a huge plus for me because I have found myself getting rather close to certain flowers as well as with some other objects (my Fuji S3000 is a bit dated so it dosen't do too well with closeup Macro). The other two are more scene modes (from what I understand) and a larger LCD (althought it's larger by only .2 inches). The ISO 200 setting looks good, a bit noisy, but from what I read in the review, very managable with image editing software. I've pretty much decided on the S3, because it's "compact", light, it's got what I'm looking for, and is new.

i dont know how valid this comparison is but the difference is significant:

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=1&mo1=140&p1=519&ma2=1&mo2=214&p2=1088&ph=20

Got to admit I can't deny liking the idea of a live histogram during photo record and the bigger (slight as it may be) LCD, but I also can't begin to like the CA or PF (or both) seen in the samples shown so far. When I went back to the gallery here at DPR for a look at S2 samples I'm not finding such bad photos as those from the S3. Very dissapointing. I tried to think this would be a great camera, especially since I wouldn't expect miracles from the high ISO stuff-- which I actually think does okay enough-- until those photos I saw obviously make the S2 photos look much, much better.

Not sure what it is other people are, or are not, seeing in the S3 photo samples that they can say it is passable or improved for them. I really want to be proven wrong.
--
Still Pixels

They have the same lens so any difference in CA can be attributed to sample variation or differences in conditions.

As we don't have a direct S2-S3 comparison yet, the best we can do is look at S2-(other cameras with the same sensor as the S3) instead. Those comparisons make the new sensor look impressive by comparison.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

They have the same lens so any difference in CA can be attributed
to sample variation or differences in conditions.

Click to expand...

Also possibly a different sensitivity of the new sensor to oblique rays. That's a big factor in the cause of CA and PF.

--mamallama

mamallama said:

ljfinger said:

They have the same lens so any difference in CA can be attributed
to sample variation or differences in conditions.

Click to expand...

Also possibly a different sensitivity of the new sensor to oblique
rays. That's a big factor in the cause of CA and PF.

Click to expand...

PF, yes. But not CA which is a lens effect.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

mamallama said:

ljfinger said:

They have the same lens so any difference in CA can be attributed
to sample variation or differences in conditions.

Click to expand...

Also possibly a different sensitivity of the new sensor to oblique
rays. That's a big factor in the cause of CA and PF.

Click to expand...

PF, yes. But not CA which is a lens effect.

Click to expand...

True. I lumped them together in error, but I read somewhere that the dimensional nature of the sensor MAY enhance whatever CA the lens may have.

--mamallama

mamallama said:

True. I lumped them together in error, but I read somewhere that
the dimensional nature of the sensor MAY enhance whatever CA the
lens may have.

Click to expand...

The extra pixels on the S3 may make any CA more visible in 100% crops or in prints with constant enlargement ratio (that means bigger prints by 10% from the S3). For example, if there are 10 pixels of CA in an S2 shot, there would be 11 in an S3 shot through the same lens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Dcresource has similar S2 samples and the PF/CA is about the same.

For me, when the S2 is full wide, PF/CA seems to be the worst. Dcresource's full wide S2 and S3 images seem quite similar in terms of CA/PF.

Perhaps looking at the lens at the extremes of its range will show the worst it can do. Also on the S2, CA seems better at f/5.2 - it would be good to see some images at this aperture setting for the S3.

The comparable S2 and S3 dcresource samples seem very similar to my eye.

I would like to see more S3 ISO 200 samples - this is where I would hope to see a real improvement for the S3.

Ppl whose opinion I trust trust have already spoken, but I distinctly remember that when I bought my G3 I deliberately chose it over the newly-released G5, because the G5 was reported to have more CA. The G5 had the same lens, but a larger (5MP vs 4MP) sensor. I still love my G3. JMTCW (just my two cents worth).
--
Steve
Go a little farther, see a littler farther.

if money is an issue the s2 is a bargain now...I picked mine up for 328....however if you decide on the s3 then I would wait another month to see what the h5 reviews look like.....it looks very nice and is the same price as the s3