Fujifilm FinePix S100FS some IQ issues.

Perhaps nothing to do with your topic, but it helps to know if I am in discourse with a 12 year old or an adult, often one clue is the use of proper punctuation and using complete sentences, you know, with subjects, verbs, predicates, the odd adverb or modifier.

Anyways, I didnt have much to comment on as your post, in all honesty, seemed like whining and not necessarily a discerning point of view. I apoligize if I missed the point, was there something in particular I shoud have gleaned from it? Seemed like a simple rant which we have seen 100 times already, the old why are the dslr owners so mean, its really not a matter of nice or not nice, its simply a matter of conveying accurate information. Obviously the owners of this camera are positioned to convey the best information, they have the camera and are able to test and post samples from those tests. But when obvious innaccuracies present themselves, I think the forum is better served if those inaccuracies are adressed as soon as possible. When I am shown to be wrong I expect to be called on it, I think thats only fair.

If you had taken any time to really read what MOST DSLR owners have to say about the S100fs, you might find that what you perceive as a slight is not really that at all. Above Kevin pointed out that the S100fs is the best bridge camera out right now, I think most people would agree that it is.
Thanks, Ted
what does that have to do with my topic ?.....I know it was typed
sloppy but that has nothing to do with the topic i posted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
To be fair to both cameras, that is a VERY tough condition to shoot in. Its some amazing architecture, I would love to go to this place.
Ted
Great comparison. So much cleaner and more detail from the Fuji but
both show bad PF. However, its probably par for the course at the
wide end for any zoom lens. On that point, do you notice if PF drops
once you get up past 50mm i.e the mid range of the lens is much
sharper and cleaner?

Cheers
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
what does that have to do with my topic ?.....I know it was typed
sloppy but that has nothing to do with the topic i posted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
Perhaps nothing to do with your topic, but it helps to know if I am
in discourse with a 12 year old or an adult, often one clue is the
use of proper punctuation and using complete sentences, you know,
with subjects, verbs, predicates, the odd adverb or modifier.
as you should know this is a camera reviewing site not a personal attack site, I do not like being compared to a 12 year old child. My typing skills have nothing to do with cameras ,so stick to the subject and get off my back
 
Perhaps there is some miscommunication here, I've never been on your back so it would not be possible for me to get off of it. I didnt compare you to a 12 year old, I said I have no idea if I am talking to a twelve year old. I never personally attacked you in any way shape or form, but I dont feel like discussing it with you as you seem a bit sensitive. Regardless, you obviously feel threatened or offended in some way, for that I am sorry, but I can't see how that is my problem. I wish you all the luck in the world and enjoy your new camera, its a fine piece of equipment and should serve you well.
Ted
as you should know this is a camera reviewing site not a personal
attack site, I do not like being compared to a 12 year old child. My
typing skills have nothing to do with cameras ,so stick to the
subject and get off my back
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
Here is the Fuji... quite a difference!!!
Sure the fuji is a lot better. But then what doesn't beat the H9?? It was just one of those lemon cameras that should never have been born.

The biggest problem with the fuji is CA, its still way too bad. What was so hard about trying to control it better??

I think they are off on the wrong path, better to have done less zoom and more quality IMO
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
 
Sure the fuji is a lot better. But then what doesn't beat the H9?? It
was just one of those lemon cameras that should never have been born.
I'll take your comment as a compliment since I own the H9 and have gotten a lot of amazing pictures with it. I figured out how to get around the IQ issues that a lot of others were having with the camera.

But in the end, I need RAW and an external flash to do what I want to do, and the Sony H Series cannot fit the bill.

So I guess thanks for the compliment, and it now makes me think "If I can do what I can with the H9, imagine what I can do with the Fuji?"
 
But in the end, I need RAW and an external flash to do what I want to
do, and the Sony H Series cannot fit the bill.
Why RAW? Do you think that's a magic pill or something? Any decent camera today has an excellent jpeg engine. Shot correctly, you don't need RAW to get decent results under most circumstances.
So I guess thanks for the compliment, and it now makes me think "If I
can do what I can with the H9, imagine what I can do with the Fuji?"
You can shoot at higher ISO and control motion blur. But you will still suffer from a lack of fine detail for important shots. Fine, though, for web postings of concerts and social images ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Kim,

What camera do you use?

Thanks,
Toby
But in the end, I need RAW and an external flash to do what I want to
do, and the Sony H Series cannot fit the bill.
Why RAW? Do you think that's a magic pill or something? Any decent
camera today has an excellent jpeg engine. Shot correctly, you don't
need RAW to get decent results under most circumstances.
So I guess thanks for the compliment, and it now makes me think "If I
can do what I can with the H9, imagine what I can do with the Fuji?"
You can shoot at higher ISO and control motion blur. But you will
still suffer from a lack of fine detail for important shots. Fine,
though, for web postings of concerts and social images ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Just another bunch of stars who are being plain stupid !!, what does
the thinnest dslr on the market, fitted with the smallest lens, have
to do with a camera that covers 28 -400mm ????? , what , pray tell
me, is the comparison ?, what are we supposed to see ?, anyone with
two brain cells talking to each other can see the size of the S100fs
,we don't need a David and Goliath shot to show us what we should
already know, if a camera has a 28 -400mm lens it is going to dwarf
the smallest dslr on the market.
The comparison being that a camera of comparable size can achieve higher image quality at the same or less cost. An Olympus with a 4/3 lens of 18-200 (if they ever make 'em) or what is currently available would give superior results. That is the comparison.

Basically what he is trying to say is that there are cheaper alternatives with higher image quality. Don't even need two brain cells for that. I wouldn't spend £499 for the S100Fs, no way. I would rather spend £329 for an Oly that already comes with a 14-54 lens plus the rest on another zoom lens with also, less distortion (higher zoom ratios suffer from this way much more). The non removable lens advantage is now tenuous as the Olys come with dust reduction built in.

I am another Fujifilm owner who was much less than impressed with the IQ S100fs. It looks way too smudgy at 100%, I really don't know what Fujifilm was aiming at. I was impressed with the overall feel of the camera when I used it in the shop and how responsive it was....as soon as I saw some 100% samples I was very disappointed.

Hell, gimme my S20pro any day. Here's two samples from it, one at 100% and the other at its native size. Regardless of the SuperCCD artifacts and the lesser MP count, I would rather have this any day:

100%



Native size:



--
Regards,

Provia_fan

http://www.the-viewfinder.blogspot.com
 
Sadly, for the Oly E-420, it lacks IS which strikes it off my list. I
own a Fuji S6500 but I honestly don't want to own the S100fs, or a
DSLR for that matter, simply because of the bulk.

I need a compact and the F30/31 would be good but it lacks RAW and
manual controls. So, my latest love is the Sigma DP1 but it will
never replace the versatility of a superzoom. Wish I could afford
both.

Cheers
That is going to be addressed as companies like Sigma are updating the list of 4/3rd lenses and I wouldn't be too surprised if they came up with an 18-200 OS or equivalent soon enough. Plus they may implement it with their next entry level DSLRs since the pro level E-3 has IS and the new entrants have built in stabilisation. I am sure Olympus won't want to stay behind.

--
Regards,

Provia_fan

http://www.the-viewfinder.blogspot.com
 
Kim Letkeman wrote -
Why RAW? Do you think that's a magic pill or something? Any decent camera > today has an excellent jpeg engine. Shot correctly, you don't need RAW to get > decent results under most circumstances.
Whilst I agree with you that RAW shooting is not necessary in most situations and the extra PP required may become labourious, in high contrast or some low light situations I often get a much better result using RAW with my Fuji S6500. But, this seems to me to be a limitation (compromise?) with the Fuji's JPEG output where the default contrast is too high, noise is overprocessed and images are over-sharpened.

I imagine that the S100 would have similar in-camera processing so RAW processing may improve some shots.

Cheers
 
Kim, what became of your D2h, trade in on the D300?
Yes ... I traded the D2Hs on the D300 ... took a bath :-)

My timing runs true ... but no regrets. Wicked cam ... the D2Hs was marvelous at high ISO, but the D300 seems to be another increment above it, which should not be possible when one considers the photosites are only 33% as large ...

I shot this 6400iso image in jpeg on the night of the big east coast snow storm at about 1:30 am by the light of a single street lamp ...



Kim

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
I imagine that the S100 would have similar in-camera processing so
RAW processing may improve some shots.
Completely agree ... I was more curious why it sounded like RAW on a P&S was going to be a solution to some sort of photographic problem. Because if that is the solution, then a much better solution is to go dSLR. Shooting RAW constantly on a P&S with 22MB files would be akin to a never-ending root canal.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top