Reading mode: Light Dark

Thoughts On S100fs

Go to last post
H2O Junkie

H2O Junkie

Leading Member
Messages
566
Reaction score
53
Location
Orlando, US
I was asked my thoughts on the S100sf and I said I would do so after I return from the Special Olympics today. The main purpose for me was to feel out the camera and how it reacts to the speed of various sports as well as a mixed environment.

First let me state, it is not my Kodak! I am having to alter some of my old habits to offset the new camera.

Let me get this out right now, I don't like the Sport mode! I found it made bizarre decisions in order to increase shutter speed. I tried numerous different settings in various environments to find what works best. I shot a lot of REALLY crappy photos looking for the combination that would work on the camera.

I also had issues with the autofocus. The manual focus is useless in bright daylight with the EVF, so autofocus is it. That's no different from the Kodak, so it is no great loss to me. But getting the combination of autofocus that works in sports wasn't easy. I finally figured out that averaging was the best because it left room for error. Sports move quickly and the subject may not be in the same place for long. That margin for error made for some pretty decent photos from the volleyball tournament that was going on indoors.





Both were shot at 800 ISO and I did see grain, but it would only be an issue in some pretty big enlargements. It is a HUGE improvement over the Kodak. I wouldn't even have tried to shoot photos with it at the volleyball tournie.

You do need to know that the EXIF data will not be correct. It was shot with an external flash on the shoe and it had a pretty good range as you can tell. The settings used were to compensate for the use of the flash so it isn't existing light.

I am going to keep working to resolve the speed thing and I have learned that Sport mode is out. From here on out it will be manual or semi-manual. Now that I have discovered the value of the averaging on the meter I will work with it more as well.
 
Man that camera must have a very strong flash... the shadows on the wall that looks to be 50 feet away are so sharp...



Thanks for the post on the sports mode. With the S6000 I found it helpful outdoors for getting quick shots, but not very useful indoors for the same reasons you are describing...

gus
--
-the artist formally known as gus-

'Get what makes you happy
Anything less.... makes you less happy'
 
Duh... that explains it 8^)

I was guessing with that kind of flash power the camera would drain the batteries in about 10 shots. haha
--
-the artist formally known as gus-

'Get what makes you happy
Anything less.... makes you less happy'
 
I prefer external to on-camera flashes. They are superior in many ways as you can tell... ;-)
Britney Elvis said:
Duh... that explains it 8^)

I was guessing with that kind of flash power the camera would drain
the batteries in about 10 shots. haha
--
-the artist formally known as gus-

'Get what makes you happy
Anything less.... makes you less happy'
Click to expand...
 
Flash is certainly the only way a bridge cam can shoot in a dimly lit gym ... but why straight on? Those shadows are pretty awful ... it flattens the image completely pulling the back walls right in on you.

Did you find the flash wasn't strong enough to bounce?

If you plan on shooting in gyms a lot, you might want to try wireless flash as discussed in these pages (maybe you've already seen these):

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-prep-basketball.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-big-gym-little-lights.html

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-assignment-speedlighting-college-gym.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/q-speedlighting-gym.html

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
I can appreciate your frustrations when you buy a new camera that on first sighting and handling you think is the all singing dancing that you have been yearning for and then to find that your main goal becomes a task. Its a beast of a camera but full of excellent features especially the IS and high ISO and FS modes. I bought it two weeks ago and am trying to love it-the PF however, evident in your second shot angers me. A common problem with Fujifilm though. Anyway, keep trying and looks like your getting there.
 
Maybe because the roof in a gym is so high and brown bounce is impossible?
Kim Letkeman said:
Flash is certainly the only way a bridge cam can shoot in a dimly lit
gym ... but why straight on? Those shadows are pretty awful ... it
flattens the image completely pulling the back walls right in on you.

Did you find the flash wasn't strong enough to bounce?

If you plan on shooting in gyms a lot, you might want to try wireless
flash as discussed in these pages (maybe you've already seen these):

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-prep-basketball.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-assignment-big-gym-little-lights.html

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-assignment-speedlighting-college-gym.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/q-speedlighting-gym.html

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
Probably the best flash you could get. You have to be courteous to the players not having flash going off in their eyes.

Not bad pics.
 
H2O Junkie said:
Maybe because the roof in a gym is so high and brown bounce is
impossible?
Click to expand...
A little hard to tell if you are patronizing me here or not ... :-)

The point, of course, is that you can't shoot straight at people in a gym, assuming that you want to avoid the serious consequences that follow making someone miss a key shot in an important game.

And flash straight into the face is brutally rude ... and looks horrible anyway (as I mentioned earlier.)

Yet you are 100% using the wrong camera for sports shooting in ambient light, so those references I gave you are the only way you can use that kind of camera for that kind of shooting without being rude to the players and without getting those ugly shadows.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
H2O Junkie said:
I am going to keep working to resolve the speed thing and I have
learned that Sport mode is out. From here on out it will be manual or
semi-manual. Now that I have discovered the value of the averaging on
the meter I will work with it more as well.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised you are having trouble and from my experiences, I think what you posted is as good as it gets for a bridge cam indoors. If you find that acceptable and if you can put up with the hassle, then fair play to you and I wish you well.

I personally couldn't live with the IQ trade offs and hassles and frustrations like you are having. So for my indoors shots which make up a large percentage of my shooting, I eventually bit the bullet over three years ago and got a DSLR.

Over the 3 years with DSLRs and having started out with a nice D70 and kit lens, I have now slowly worked my way up to my dream package which is a 5D and 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Yes...it cost a lot and yes it is heavy. But the final images outweighs all of this for me. And I did not outlay for all of this in one full swipe, so I haven't noticed the money that I put into this system over a 3 years period. Anyway, when I was boozing and smoking ciggies, I was spending way more cash in poisoning myself in one whole year than what I have spent now on my photo gear over the 3 year period. So if this is your "thing" and you shoot this kind of stuff regularly (sports indoors), maybe you should consider jumping on the DSLR ladder as well and give up in tearing you hair out trying to find a way to get images that will only be "half-decent" at the end of the day from your bridge camera.

This is where the journey has taking me from those hair tearing days with the bridge cam.................

From a little birthday party yesterday All shot in jpeg and no PP was performed like sharpening, contrast, NR, saturation ect. Just resized for the web.

No grain or distracting backgrounds.....dad's head only 12 inches behind baby and shot at ISO1600 and clean as a whistle.......



No missing precious moments anymore with an AF that can keep up to the task........





No harsh shadows from flash or noise from high ISOs. I might as well toss my flash in the bin as I haven't put the 430EX on the 5D yet after 3 weeks and 2,000 shots!............ISO800



No missed "off the cuff" precious antics....ISO1600



But still plenty of abuse from the subjects!.....ISO800



I'm not saying a DSLR is the end all and be all. A bridge would do for most peoples shooting requirements especially if most of it is outdoors and in good light. But when things get tricky and you find yourself shooting a lot in these tricky conditions....then there is no substitiute for a DSLR.

And on a final note....... I made some prints today in a big store and the lady at the desk who processes probably millions of prints a year, asked me what camera they were taken from because she said that they were of excellent quality in print. And this was not knowing that they were taken at high ISOs and without flash. A very nice compliment indeed and more significant than getting one from my family because of the fact that this was an unconditional compliment from somebody who doesn't know me and who had no good reason to offer a compliment to a complete stranger.

--
*****************************************
Packy
 
"I have evolved from shooting (un)available light, to direct strobe (ugh) to nuking the ceilings with White Lightning Ultras (find an outliet and hope no one knocks over your strobes.) I have even shot at 250 at f/2.8 at ASA 1600 and bounced a Vivitar 283 (at full power manual) off of the high ceiling (!) which has gotten me out of some dark situations."

As you can see by this statement from the sites you referred me to bouncing off of a high ceiling is difficult at best. Add a brown ceiling (as I am sure you already know, dark colors absorb light) to that mix and bounce wasn't working. I tried 1600 but the it was atrocious as I expected it would be.

I think you are mistaking my post as an attempt to paint this camera as a professional camera. Well, it isn't. If I had thousands of dollars to spend on the special lighting required by the gentleman you referred me to I wouldn't be shooting what I do.

I don't know you from Adam, but I would be wiling to lay odds that most who purchase this camera are not going to expect it to perform to a pro DSLR expectation. I want to produce decent photos that make me happy. I think you folks REALLY need to slow down and realize that. You are more than welcome to spend every spare dime you have on photo equipment, that is your prerogative. I am going to learn to make do with what I got just like I did for years on the Kodak. Once I have mastered this new camera I will be able to produce decent photos that I can smile at and enjoy as well as others. Just so you know, when it ceases to be fun, it becomes a job. I already have a job, I prefer to keep this fun.
Kim Letkeman said:
H2O Junkie said:
Maybe because the roof in a gym is so high and brown bounce is
impossible?
Click to expand...
Yet you are 100% using the wrong camera for sports shooting in
ambient light, so those references I gave you are the only way you
can use that kind of camera for that kind of shooting without being
rude to the players and without getting those ugly shadows.
Click to expand...
 
H2O Junkie said:
I think you are mistaking my post as an attempt to paint this camera
as a professional camera. Well, it isn't. If I had thousands of
dollars to spend on the special lighting required by the gentleman
you referred me to I wouldn't be shooting what I do.
Click to expand...
Had you read his site for even a little while, you would have come upon information for the photographer who wants to play with this stuff on the cheap. A couple of fairly cheap used flashes and some cheap radio gear from eBay and you are in business.

In one of those links I posted for you, he mounts two flashes across from each other, pointing at one end of the gym and slightly over everyone's heads. The spread of the beam washes light down onto everyone without blasting in their eyes.

This allows him to get nice lighting without nasty shadows and to keep ISOs down. That was what I was driving at ... if you want to shoot indoor sports with that cam, these techniques are your only chance.
H2O Junkie said:
I don't know you from Adam, but I would be wiling to lay odds that
most who purchase this camera are not going to expect it to perform
to a pro DSLR expectation. I want to produce decent photos that make
me happy.
Click to expand...
Which is why I posted those links. Short of buying a cam that can do the job in ambient light (and that site presents compelling evidence that even a dSLR is challenged), those techniques are about all there is.

Those images you posted should not make you happy. But with a few tweaks to how you light, they could.
H2O Junkie said:
I think you folks REALLY need to slow down and realize
that. You are more than welcome to spend every spare dime you have on
photo equipment, that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
You bought a very expensive (overpriced, to many) bridge cam ... I hardly think you can point fingers. And as I said ... a couple of cheap flashes and some cheap radio gear ... the whole thing can be set up for less than $200 ... about a third of what you paid for the cam.
H2O Junkie said:
I am going to learn to make do with what I got just like I did for years
on the Kodak. Once I have mastered this new camera I will be able to
produce decent photos that I can smile at and enjoy as well as others.
Click to expand...
A very good goal. The links I posted can take you towards that goal if you want to shoot in low light with that cam.
H2O Junkie said:
Just so you know, when it ceases to be fun, it becomes a job. I already
have a job, I prefer to keep this fun.
Click to expand...
The links I posted are all about experimenting with light. You own an external flash, so you are already interested in playing with light to some extent. Read strobist a bit more and you will see how close you are to making some serious images with that cam.

His site is the equalizer between cameras of all kinds.

If taking other peoples' suggestions is what makes this feel like a job to you, then you are definitely in the wrong place to post your experiments.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Kim Letkeman said:
H2O Junkie wrote:
If taking other peoples' suggestions is what makes this feel like a
job to you, then you are definitely in the wrong place to post your
experiments.
Click to expand...
It is not the taking of those suggestions that bothers me, it is how they are presented. I have seen a lot of posts on here and I have seen those who are totally obsessed. I am learning and having a good time doing it. I didn't want a DSLR and that was my choice. I am not obsessed with it and I am not going to spend untold dollars on those gym shots because that is a rare occurrence. Just look at this thread and you will see what I mean. I am glad you chose your DSLR. The world is full of choices. Why must those who chose to use the S100fs be so beleaguered? I will learn more and am willing to pass on what I learn about this camera to those who own them. But you are using a DSLR and what I learned about this camera has no bearing on you. Why are you treating us so badly? I am sure you can pass on some good info. But I am not going to put together a massive lighting package for something I did one time to see what the camera is actually capable of.

I have been more than up front about the liabilities I have seen with it so far. It has issues yes. But I am going to learn how to use this camera and I am quite sure in the end run I will have acceptable results. I think the biggest problem I have so far is how the DSLR owners seem to be trying so hard to destroy this camera. It was designed with a purpose. Does it actually meet its purpose? I don't know just yet. But I am willing to spend time with it and learn. I will never do any form of professional photography nor do I care to. Will it meet my needs? Only time will tell. Trust me when I say my needs are much different from yours and Packy's (see note further in thread). I am willing to learn, but I am not spending several hundred dollars to produce a combination for something I shoot at best once a year. Sorry if you take offense to that.
 
H2O Junkie said:
It is not the taking of those suggestions that bothers me, it is how
they are presented.
Click to expand...
As information?
H2O Junkie said:
I have seen a lot of posts on here and I have
seen those who are totally obsessed. I am learning and having a good
time doing it. I didn't want a DSLR and that was my choice.
Click to expand...
I never once mentioned that you should buy a dSLR.
H2O Junkie said:
I am not
obsessed with it and I am not going to spend untold dollars on those
gym shots because that is a rare occurrence.
Click to expand...
As I said, it is not "untold dollars" ... you already spent that on your bridge cam IMO.
H2O Junkie said:
Just look at this thread
and you will see what I mean. I am glad you chose your DSLR.
Click to expand...
Why? I chose what I chose. I did not tell you anything about my dSLR. I did not tell you that you should have chosen a dSLR. I merely suggested that there are techniques by which you could get really nice shots from your bridge cam in dim light.
H2O Junkie said:
The
world is full of choices. Why must those who chose to use the S100fs
be so beleaguered?
Click to expand...
You are only feeling beleaguered because you choose to feel that way. I gave you some info. Really good info, actually. You have chosen to bite the hand that feeds you, more than once. You can't stop the feeding, but you can stop the biting.
H2O Junkie said:
I will learn more and am willing to pass on what I
learn about this camera to those who own them. But you are using a
DSLR and what I learned about this camera has no bearing on you.
Click to expand...
Really? So I should not be interested in a clear confirmation that direct flash in a gym looks pretty awful? On the contrary, that information is useful to anyone.
H2O Junkie said:
Why are you treating us so badly?
Click to expand...
Do you know how that reads?
H2O Junkie said:
I am sure you can pass on some good info. But I am not going to put
together a massive lighting package for something I did one time to see
what the camera is actually capable of.
Click to expand...
You already own one flash. Adding a second used flash and 20 bucks worth of eBay wireless triggers is gonna be pretty cheap. I told you how to do it at reasonable cost and you continue to exaggerate the cost, the spirit in which the info was delivered, the war between the P&S army and the dSLR army ... it's all sounding a little juvenile frankly.

If you did shoot in a gym just the one time and you have no interest in doing it again, then you can simply state that and the thread dies.
H2O Junkie said:
I have been more than up front about the liabilities I have seen with
it so far. It has issues yes. But I am going to learn how to use this
camera and I am quite sure in the end run I will have acceptable
results. I think the biggest problem I have so far is how the DSLR
owners seem to be trying so hard to destroy this camera.
Click to expand...
Did these nasty dSLR owners come to your house and smash your "beleaguered" S100fs? If not, then I fail to see how the rather large amount of information you have received on this thread has done you any harm at all.
H2O Junkie said:
It was designed with a purpose. Does it actually meet its purpose? I don't
know just yet. But I am willing to spend time with it and learn. I
will never do any form of professional photography nor do I care to.
Click to expand...
Learning how to use flashes is not "professional photography." Neither is absorbing info from others.
H2O Junkie said:
Will it meet my needs? Only time will tell. Trust me when I say my
needs are much different from yours and Packy's (see note further in
thread).
Click to expand...
You want to make pictures. So do we. Where is the difference again?
H2O Junkie said:
I am willing to learn, but I am not spending several hundred
dollars to produce a combination for something I shoot at best once a
year. Sorry if you take offense to that.
Click to expand...
Despite your best efforts, you have not offended me.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
H2O Junkie said:
"I have evolved from shooting (un)available light, to direct strobe
(ugh) to nuking the ceilings with White Lightning Ultras (find an
outliet and hope no one knocks over your strobes.) I have even shot
at 250 at f/2.8 at ASA 1600 and bounced a Vivitar 283 (at full power
manual) off of the high ceiling (!) which has gotten me out of some
dark situations."

As you can see by this statement from the sites you referred me to
bouncing off of a high ceiling is difficult at best. Add a brown
ceiling (as I am sure you already know, dark colors absorb light) to
that mix and bounce wasn't working. I tried 1600 but the it was
atrocious as I expected it would be.

I think you are mistaking my post as an attempt to paint this camera
as a professional camera. Well, it isn't. If I had thousands of
dollars to spend on the special lighting required by the gentleman
you referred me to I wouldn't be shooting what I do.

I don't know you from Adam, but I would be wiling to lay odds that
most who purchase this camera are not going to expect it to perform
to a pro DSLR expectation. I want to produce decent photos that make
me happy. I think you folks REALLY need to slow down and realize
that. You are more than welcome to spend every spare dime you have on
photo equipment, that is your prerogative. I am going to learn to
make do with what I got just like I did for years on the Kodak. Once
I have mastered this new camera I will be able to produce decent
photos that I can smile at and enjoy as well as others. Just so you
know, when it ceases to be fun, it becomes a job. I already have a
job, I prefer to keep this fun.
Click to expand...
AN Opinion

You dont have to have a DSLR,Too many snobs on these forums Ive noticed, Its not the wrong camera its what you choose,It does a decent enough job. Many times we have found our humble DSLR to be the the wrong camera, too big, too heavy, not allowed in a venue, and what it cost with the lenses ££££ phew is it worth it, no not for everyone , I have a DSLR In decent light or with flash thereis sometimes not that much difference printed 7x5 or on the screen to my Ixus and Fuji that fit in my handbag ,and unless your allways taking low light shots the expence of a DSLR is simply not worth the hassles to many . Take a look at many DSLR photos posted some nice but sometimes these pros and pros in waiting take and post to many pictures that are pretty boring or plain unatractive putting it kindly.
 
H2O Junkie said:
It is not the taking of those suggestions that bothers me, it is how
they are presented. I have seen a lot of posts on here and I have
seen those who are totally obsessed. I am learning and having a good
time doing it. I didn't want a DSLR and that was my choice. I am not
obsessed with it and I am not going to spend untold dollars on those
gym shots because that is a rare occurrence. Just look at this thread
and you will see what I mean. I am glad you chose your DSLR. The
world is full of choices. Why must those who chose to use the S100fs
be so beleaguered? I will learn more and am willing to pass on what I
learn about this camera to those who own them. But you are using a
DSLR and what I learned about this camera has no bearing on you. Why
are you treating us so badly? I am sure you can pass on some good
info. But I am not going to put together a massive lighting package
for something I did one time to see what the camera is actually
capable of.

I have been more than up front about the liabilities I have seen with
it so far. It has issues yes. But I am going to learn how to use this
camera and I am quite sure in the end run I will have acceptable
results. I think the biggest problem I have so far is how the DSLR
owners seem to be trying so hard to destroy this camera. It was
designed with a purpose. Does it actually meet its purpose? I don't
know just yet. But I am willing to spend time with it and learn. I
will never do any form of professional photography nor do I care to.
Will it meet my needs? Only time will tell. Trust me when I say my
needs are much different from yours and Packy's (see note further in
thread). I am willing to learn, but I am not spending several hundred
dollars to produce a combination for something I shoot at best once a
year. Sorry if you take offense to that.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to beleaguer you or your camera. You probably missed the part in my post where I said that if you are happy fiddling with the cam and are happy with the results that it produces, then I wish you all the best and enjoy. Why should you feel beleaguered when I wish you good tidings?

The only offensive thing that I said is that your photos is as good as it gets for a bridge cam and that is true and a fact. The other maybe offensive thing I said is that you will be always fiddling with the camera for at the very best, these type of results which is also true.

Also you missed in my post the criteria for my suggestion to you of getting a DSLR for this type of work. That was if you regularly and passionately** shoot sports which I emphasised in my post. Obviously you don't do it regularly or passionately, so again you don't have to feel threatened or beleagured in my comment as it no longer applies and could ignore my suggestion without getting upset.
Anyway all the best...

--
*****************************************
Packy
 
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