S5 - what bothers me

In looking over the samples posted with this website's review of the S5, it is not the reputation for excessive noise that bothers me. I see worse problems in the color fringing, which is excessive in my view, and in the lack of sharpness around the edges. Only the center really seems to be sharp in the full-sized samples.

Take this one, for example:



Look at the railing near the bottom. The red color fringing is as wide as the rail itself.

The S3 samples, by comparison, are also a little fuzzy around the edges, but the softness is less severe and does not extend nearly as far into the image. Fringing, while there, seems less prominent.

This is disappointing, because I really wanted to like the S5. I really want a camera like this with a hot shoe, but I may decide to do without and get an S3, or another brand entirely, and save myself some cash.

I think that this is a remarkably bad photograph with hardly anything in focus. It seems almost that the IS was inactive during the taking of this photograph.

aretzios said:

I think that this is a remarkably bad photograph with hardly anything
in focus. It seems almost that the IS was inactive during the taking
of this photograph.

Click to expand...

1/1250th of a second at 72mm - no IS needed.

It's not sharp because of "heat haze" - the air itself is refracting the light in random directions. It's the same thing that causes stars to "twinkle" and nothing short of adaptive optics can do anything about it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mr. Toy said:

The S3 samples, by comparison, are also a little fuzzy around the
edges, but the softness is less severe and does not extend nearly as
far into the image. Fringing, while there, seems less prominent.

Click to expand...

I explained the softness already. The S3 is fully capable of similar, and even worse results. Longitudinal CA is the main issue with this camera for me. However, it is highly sensitive to the darkness of the background and the intensity of the highlight. If this shot had been shot at -2/3 EC you might not see it at all. If shot at +2/3 it would have been massively worse.

That said, I've had only one image actually ruined to the point of uselessness by this issue. You can learn to work around it. None of the superzooms are perfect. The Panasonics have better lenses but worse sensors and processing. The Fujis have better sensors but worse features (like lack of IS). The Olympus doesn't have much going for it. The Sony's have worse processing. The Canon has this problem.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

The IS doesn’t matter because the shutter speed was very high. The Chromatic Aberration is an unfortunate characteristic of the S2, S3 and now S5 lens design. The phenomenon is more visible in S5 because higher MP sensor gives it more magnification when seeing the image at 100%. The general blurriness is caused partially for the same reason, but more importantly climate conditions in the photographing site.

-Virvatulet

Didn’t meant to be a parrot.

-Virvatulet

;-)

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

It's not sharp because of "heat haze" - the air itself is refracting
the light in random directions. It's the same thing that causes
stars to "twinkle" and nothing short of adaptive optics can do
anything about it.

Click to expand...

If this is "heat haze" then why are the two men wearing long sleeved clothes on a concrete bridge on a hot day? The man on the right appears to be wearing a dark sports coat.

If there is heat, there's no indication of it. At least not over much cooler water.

If you blow it up until only one pixel is visible, it really looks like H* l.
--
Bob,

'Sometimes I get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter.' Ansel Adams

Sony R1
Canon Pro1
Casio Z750
Nikon 3100

Considering it is a (relatively) fixed lens system, they know what the lens does at X-mm focal length, so one would think they could implement a CA reduction algorithm on the picture.

Unless my understanding of CA is wrong, its affects on red/green/blue are constant for each focal length...

Aristophanes said:

Aristophanes said:

It's not sharp because of "heat haze" - the air itself is refracting
the light in random directions. It's the same thing that causes
stars to "twinkle" and nothing short of adaptive optics can do
anything about it.

Click to expand...

If this is "heat haze" then why are the two men wearing long sleeved
clothes on a concrete bridge on a hot day? The man on the right
appears to be wearing a dark sports coat.

If there is heat, there's no indication of it. At least not over much
cooler water.

Click to expand...

Heat haze is about thermal differences , largely between ground and air (unstable atmosphere, negative Richardson number). You can have this on hot days and on cold days.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Clint Sanders said:

Considering it is a (relatively) fixed lens system, they know what
the lens does at X-mm focal length, so one would think they could
implement a CA reduction algorithm on the picture.

Unless my understanding of CA is wrong, its affects on red/green/blue
are constant for each focal length...

Click to expand...

For lateral CA, yes. Not for longitudinal. That's virtually impossible to remove.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Is the bottom railing lateral or longitudinal?

Clint Sanders said:

Is the bottom railing lateral or longitudinal?

Click to expand...

Looks like a combination to me.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

The Canon 17-85mm lens, for example, is also soft round the corners, but sharp in the centre. It still remains a popular lens, and anyone using this level of lens really doesn't look at corner sharpness or fringing issues. They just want to lens to produce good enough results. (I have seen such wonderful pictures from this lens that I don't look at the corners or for CA, and I never think of it anyway!)

Same goes for the S5 IS. There may be CA, there may be noise and there may be some softness in the corners in that picture, but at 50% (which is usually what most normal human beings view their images, it's not obvious and doesn't detract from the overall impact of the scene.

And for this level of camera, for this price (the S5 IS comes at almost the price of the Canon 17-85mm IS USM lens itself!) and the results it produces for its target market, I don't think it's fair to pixel peep and complain.

Don't get me wrong, I do care about IQ, but if that was paramount to me, then I'd use a DSLR or my R1 and not the S5 IS. The S5 IS what it is - A convenient versatile megazoom for general purpose everyday photography, that surprisingly also comes with DSLR speed (AF & operation) and features (hotshoe, manual controls). You can't expect a SUV to be an real off-road machine (not for the same price anyway), you can't expect a pistol to hit a target a mile away with a single shot, you can't expect ... You can't make the S5 IS into a DSLR and you shouldn't. It's got a lot going for it already as it is, so let's just enjoy it for what it is...

--



Your 4 'Cees' for photography: Crisp, Clean, Composed and Colourful
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net

Tigadee said:

Same goes for the S5 IS. There may be CA, there may be noise and
there may be some softness in the corners in that picture, but at 50%
(which is usually what most normal human beings view their images,
it's not obvious and doesn't detract from the overall impact of the
scene.

Click to expand...

There are some simple focusing 'tricks' that can help to lessen or remove the CA in such pics... but I rarely find the need to use them because, as Tigadee points out, this problem mostly disappears when the image is downsized or printed.

Tigadee said:

And for this level of camera, for this price (the S5 IS comes at
almost the price of the Canon 17-85mm IS USM lens itself!) and the
results it produces for its target market, I don't think it's fair to
pixel peep and complain.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Tigadee said:

Don't get me wrong, I do care about IQ, but if that was paramount to
me, then I'd use a DSLR or my R1 and not the S5 IS. The S5 IS what it
is - A convenient versatile megazoom for general purpose everyday
photography, that surprisingly also comes with DSLR speed (AF &
operation) and features (hotshoe, manual controls). You can't expect
a SUV to be an real off-road machine (not for the same price anyway),
you can't expect a pistol to hit a target a mile away with a single
shot, you can't expect ... You can't make the S5 IS into a DSLR and
you shouldn't. It's got a lot going for it already as it is, so let's
just enjoy it for what it is...

Click to expand...

Amen! Beautifully said.

This is exactly why many users here think it is wise to purchase an ultrazoom to back up their DSLR.

--
Click

Pics taken while exploring the capabilities of my new S5IS...
800 x 600 pics at Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clicky/sets/72157600365816494/
Full size pics at Picasa:
http://picasaweb.google.com/click.mr/CanonS5IS

Well said Tigadee. Enjoy the camera you have, I do. Mine is an S3is and I wouldn't swap it for anything.--I love it---warts and all.
jacko5

From the exif information, the picture was taken on July 18th.
--
Regards,

I may be wrong, but I may be right.

Benjilafouine

Side note: Irfanview's chromatic abberation correction tool cleaned this up pretty well with a red shift of about 20.

jacko5 said:

jacko5 wrote:
Mine is an S3is
and I wouldn't swap it for anything.--I love it---warts and all.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, they must be beautiful warts! ;-D

--



Your 4 'Cees' for photography: Crisp, Clean, Composed and Colourful
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net