My S100fs - Fixing CA - Part 3

Lloydy · May 10, 2008

tdkd13 said:
Lloydy said:

... Up until now, the 828 has provided my income for the past 4
years. It is a brilliant camera, although much maligned. Many folk
ask me which camera took that and I proudly say a Sony.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised by this but not shocked, one thing often forgot about
when it comes to selling images is its all about the picture, not
really the technical aspects of it. To clarify, its about subject,
composition, color and where your selling. If your selling beach
pictures in the Grand Canyon, prepare to be outsold by the
competition. Walk up customers are often looking for images that
remind them of a place. It's no surprise that images of Hawaii are
the most sold photographs in Hawaii, same can be said of New Yourk or
any other place that people travel to.
Its also aparent that small sensor cameras simply do not have the per
pixel sharpness of large sensor cameras, all else being equal. I
cannot think of a single ad agency here in the states that would
accept product shots from any small sensor camera. Thats not to say
one doesnt exist, but of the ones I know of, none will. I say this
only because you mentioned you do studio and product photography, if
the Sony 828 has been your weapon of choice in these situations, I am
surprised.

Agree with everything you said but my images are published in at least 9 books to date, are used in numerous magazines and sold through stock agencies. Many of these images are from the 828 and also 717 and H1 and Nikon and Canon and Fuji (645).

tdkd13 said:
tdkd13 said:

The S100fs is brilliant also, however, typically maligned by
'armchair bandits' who just want to be 'He who speaks loudest'.

Click to expand...

Dont discount people who speak up to attempt to bring a more balanced

tone to a conversation. Calling them armchair bandits hardly seems like an accurate description. Was the wording chosen to denigrate, as it seems that was the desired intent here. Someone has to say something, a couple days ago some
Fuji fanboy was espousing that the Fuji S7000 was a better tool for
action photography than a Nikon D2H, thats simply a foolish notion
and could not be let slip by without some clarification. Upon asked
to clarify the poster said he preferred the Fuji because he had to
work so much harder to get a decent image from it as opposed to the
Nion which seemed to do all the work for him, if you looked at the
pictures, the shots from the Nikon were not just a little better but
WAY better.

Actually, up until now, I have been a Sony 'fan boy'. Since buying the S100fs, I am so totally impressed by this camera that I may just become a Fuji 'fan boy "

Can it do everything ? Of course not. However, I, like many others, get annoyed when people denigrate a product, particularly, by quoting other 'experts' and never using the camera themselves. Sitting behind technical hype and spouting such wisdom from their armchairs. Is this not an accurate description ?

Denigrate ? That is a two way street and whilst I really detest getting into the 'he said - no, he said' vitriol, I WILL defend this camera. It is an awesome tool and, I believe, the reviewers are wrong. Would not be the first time.

tdkd13 said:
tdkd13 said:

I will enjoy presenting my images in my gallery and proudly
proclaiming that it was shot with a Fuji,

Click to expand...

No reason not to, if thats what you used.

tdkd13 said:

Enjoy your camera, learn it's potential and, above all, post images
here to show what it can do,

Click to expand...

No problems here either. I hope you can see this post in the light it

is being presented. One cannot discount fact, fact has verifiable, repeatable empirical evidence to support it. It's SOOO hard to hold your tongue when
someone new pops in and says something so counter to all empirical
evidence. These things must be questioned at some level and if the
questions are just met with derision than no one is really learning
anything. I'll admit this takes place on both sides of any issue, so
its not a one way street. Some of the things that get discussed (or
overdiscussed) such as PF/CA have accepted test methods for
quantifying,
In scientific testing we look for things that are repeatable and
verifiable in order to be quantifiable. As long as the tools and
conditions used do not change it makes a great way to test one system
against another. It is these tests that show this Fuji lens/CCD
combination are not performing on the same level as many other
optical systems. This is why reviewers continue to hammer home the
CA/PF issue, because when they test for it, it doesnt test as well as
other cameras. Simply because you or any other users says its "all
blown out of proportion" is really not germain to the real issue.
Obviously, both sides can be, and likely are correct. DPReview can be
correct because in the testing they did this camera performed worse
than others in its class. And users can be correct in stating that
its all blown out of proportion because in the grand scheme of things
its not as big an issue to dominate all discussions about this
camera. I can see both sides quite clearly.

Ted, believe me, I understand your analogies, I am an engineer by trade and practice. I don't dispute what you say but I do know that empirical evidence does not necessarily mean that the bridge will not fall down.

I do not take anything you say other than in the 'light it is being presented'.

Cheers.

tdkd13 said:
Ted

tdkd13 said:

Cheers.
Rgds, Dave.

Click to expand...

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

tdkd13 · May 10, 2008

Lloydy said:
Can it do everything ? Of course not. However, I, like many others,
get annoyed when people denigrate a product, particularly, by quoting
other 'experts' and never using the camera themselves. Sitting behind
technical hype and spouting such wisdom from their armchairs. Is this
not an accurate description ?

No its not really an accurate description at all, at least as I see it, technical hype, to be quite honest, is exactly what you spouted in an earlier post in which you stated the Fuji has dual image stabilization. That is hype to the Nth degree, but its not really what we are discussing here. Hype, by its most common definations is
1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotion: (you could make a case here)

2. Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material, (the type I mentioned from your dual IS comment)

3. Something deliberately misleading; a deception:

I fear what you are calling "technical hype" is simply quoting from accepted experts in the field on a particular subject with which you disagree. These same experts said glowing things about this camera, MANY glowing things, several people have accpeted the items from the review that they agreed with, and discounted those they didnt. I'm not saying you have done this, I'm saying I have seen it. People post an exceprpt from this sites review saying this cam is as good a cam in the bridge market as has ever been produced and tout that as having meaning, this discredit the test results about CA/PF as having no merit since they dont see them in thier pictures. You surely see the contradiction here.

Lloydy said:
Denigrate ? That is a two way street and whilst I really detest
getting into the 'he said - no, he said' vitriol, I WILL defend this
camera. It is an awesome tool and, I believe, the reviewers are
wrong. Would not be the first time.

You believe the reviewers are wrong about what exactly? You believe they were wrong to say:

"Most importantly, the S100FS's image quality is generally very good (particularly in resolution and noise terms)." ?

or "And in terms of sharpness, the lens is excellent through most of its range." ?

No, I think your fine with these statements, more likely you just think they are wrong on a test which can be easily verified, why so?

Lloydy said:
Ted, believe me, I understand your analogies, I am an engineer by
trade and practice. I don't dispute what you say but I do know that
empirical evidence does not necessarily mean that the bridge will not
fall down.

Evidence either proves something, disproves something or allows one to make a logical conclusion about something. In this particular case, using the sites image testing software and comparing cameras this one proved to have more CA/PF than the others tested, how is that debatable?

It makes no statement at all about whether or not PF will be a problem for you or anything of the sort. The test suite doesnt require a subjective opinion, it simply measures something, when you measure two somethings, you should be fully able to discern how one relates to the other as it pertains to that measurement, correct?

Lloydy said:
I do not take anything you say other than in the 'light it is being
presented'.

Good, thanks for that.
Ted

Lloydy said:
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

packy · May 10, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman wrote:
They also say: "By far the biggest problem that the S100FS faces is
chromatic aberation (CA). Fringing of one sort or another has been
something of a traditional problem with FujiFilm cameras but the
S100FS produces some of the most dramatic results we've seen from
such a high-end camera from such an established brand. This is a big
dissappointment because it is by far the most obvious image quality
flaw and is utterly unneccesary (it could surely be removed in-camera
using the Real Photo Processor)

It's funny how that this image below is all they came up with as a sample to highlight this huge and dramactic flaw. It's no worse than my F10 shot below which seems to be taken in the similar conditions. And everyone gladly put up with the CA/PF on the F10/11 when it was their No1 main photographic tool including yourself at the time. Funny how CA is a dealbreaker now

And in their opinion above, they give no mention on how much or how often it will effect the actual user in real world shooting. Out of about 200 shots over the past two days in an "walkaround shooting" scenario in both indoors and outdoors, I had about 170 shots that wasn't even in the zone to get CA, and out of the other 30 that was, only about 2 or 3 of them would have been slightly noticable only if you blown them up and they were easy to fix. That is my reality as a casual user.

Kim Letkeman said:
Not my recollection.

Either you have a bad memory or you don't want to know. I can remember countless of Canon SD700 v Fuji F10/11 mud throwing debates and you were involved in some yourself. The Fuji camp were throwing the noise mud at the Canon peeps while the Canon peeps throwing the "PF + can't shoot outdoors in bright light" mud at the Fuji peeps, I recall.

Also, if you don't recall PF debates or haven't seen PF mentioned on DPR which would assume that the problem didn't exist or wasn't a problem at all.....then why did you buy a Shay Stevens plug in to remove CA at the time and even dedicate a full test on your website if it wasn't an issue your F11?
http://letkeman.net/Photos/F11_1600_pp_study

Maybe because this was your "main" No1 photographic tool for a long period of time and you were happy not to look at anything else so it warranted a plug in to tidy up the flaws to make the camera a better package for you? I can't see why people using the S100 as their main cam can't do the same thing as you did, too.

Kim Letkeman said:
And DPReview did not make special mention of it.

They gave it a section to itself and captioned it "Color Fringing" in the F10 review. I think that would class as a special mention.

Kim Letkeman said:
Also, those cams were not advertised as dSLR replacements ... and did
not cost anywhere near what this one costs.

So you are saying Fuji is advertising at replacing DSLRs? That would include their only one, wouldn't it?....hmmmm.

From what I have read, it comes across to me that they are just saying that the S100 toutes some similar funtions that are found on a DSLR (like manual controls, dedicated buttons ect) without the hassle of changing lenses. That can be said of a G9 too. Nowhere do I see them saying that their S100 can match or better the performance and IQ suggest that it is a replacement to a DSLR.

And as for cost......I paid €400 for my F10 new back then and only paid €550 for the S100. Hardly worth remortgaging the house to come up with the difference for that.

Kim Letkeman said:
ACR works fine on simple CA ... but when the PF gets heavy, ACR
cannot handle it any better than CS3.

Well....again I can only work on what the camera and conditions has thrown up at me in my real world shooting. And the sample I posted was the worse image of over 200 I took in which about 30 of them where in conditions that I would assume would test a lens (bright grey UK weather).

*****************************************
Packy

packy · May 10, 2008

Lloydy said:
Lloydy wrote:
... There you have it !
Packy actually used the F10 and F11 and reported what he saw. Simple,
isn't it ?

Sorry Dave...I stand to correct you. I only used the F10. Kim used the F11 as his "main" cam for a while before geting a DSLR. But both cams were the same in sensor and lens design, so output would have been near identicle.

And this was the stuff that the F10 was capable of below. Actually worse than what I have expereinced with the s100 so far. And I have shot some stuff already with the S100 in the most challenging conditions like in bright grey UK weather which brings out the worse in a lens.

Anyway, enough debating. I'm happy with this cam. I know what I got it for and know what it can do.....and it exceeds my expectations.

Who could complain with a P&S that can deliver an ISO1600 shot like this? Makes all the other nonsense all irrelevant.

*****************************************
Packy

gustabod · May 10, 2008

Thanks Dave, interesting chit chat that has followed this!!

I'm no professional, but I take pride in the images I share with others, and in one way or the other they all need an amount of PP to correct or improve the image to the way that I intend to present it. I am pleased with what I mostly get out of the camera (for example unlike the Canons I use, where I have to fiddle with levels, contrasts, saturation et al), so any additional adjustment is no big issue. Thanks again for sharing the manual techniques.

This camera has few design flaws and everyone seems to have chosen to either be very upset by the CA issue or find it irrelevant. There are other design issues that tend to bother me more (like the AF accuracy, or ability to lock in).

Fuji chose to make a very ambitious product at a competitive price, and almost succeeded. It's a shame that they hadn't opted to curtail their ambitions (or at least those of their marketing department) and gone for a slightly more conservative approach with their lens (like 24-200 equivalent for example).They went for gold, got a very good silver!

I would love to see the same camera with an S5 type sensor and 24-200 lens, I would pay the required price if it performed, I know I'm possibly dreaming, but equally want Fuji to understand that there is a market that values flexibility and convenience but demands good image quality, and that they are almost there with this concept.

Please let's see more of your work.

all the best
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod

gustabod · May 10, 2008

packy said:
Who could complain with a P&S that can deliver an ISO1600 shot like
this? Makes all the other nonsense all irrelevant.

and a very good point you make!
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod

Lloydy · May 10, 2008

... That 1600 ISO shot is great. Haven't tried that yet.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

rimpas · May 10, 2008

Lloydy said:
... If you get something from it then I am more than happy.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

thanks Dave! i got tons of info. exactly what i'm looking for. my new s100fs should arrive next week.

--
cheers,
Rom

ASR45 · May 10, 2008

Most helpful indeed thank you, when i first looked at the first shots folk posted they were not up to much, but as more and more folk are buying this camera Ive started to see very good results, yours are testimony to that. I have not seen many shots at the long end 400mm if you get time could you post some or give me your views, as i do a lot of Bird shots and was wondering what it would be like many thanks for your time and keep posting your wonderful images regards Alan.

steveTQP · May 10, 2008

Greetings! As a former Sony F828 user, I am fascinated to see that you are now using the new Fuji S100FS. My big question is this: Do you find the sharpness of the Fujinon 28-400mm lens to equal or better that of the Sony 828 "Zeiss" optic? That one fact would help determine my upgrade path from the Fuji S9100.
Thank you very much! (Please cc: my email address as well.)
--
Steve Solomon
[email protected]

Lloydy · May 10, 2008

... Thanks for that.

I have taken a couple of 400 mm shots but I will go out and take a series just at 400. I doubt it will be today as it is raining 'cat's and dog's' here.

I mentioned in another thread that I had some problems at 400mm with focus 'hunting'. I did find that once I took off the CPL, it seemed to be a lot better so, thanks for the inspiration to get out and try this.

I'll post it as soon as I can.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

Lloydy · May 10, 2008

... I'm yet to do a side by side with the 828 but do plan to as soon as we get some clear weather again :

When I do, I'll post some examples.

I would say that the S100fs seems optically better than the 828. The images seem clearer and lens distortion is minimal.

I always shoot the 828 at ISO 64 with sharpness, contrast, saturation set to low but it can still be hard to control noise, particularly, when you are 'pushing' levels in post process.

The S100fs does not seem to exhibit any noise. I certainly haven't found it yet.

Keep in mind that, to date, I've mainly been shooting at Auto ISO (400) and DR 400%. In practice, this means that all images are shot at ISO 400 and, at this setting, I don't see noise.

The images are noise free and the DR function is simply amazing. There are no highlight blowouts and shadow detail is excellent. This one feature alone is absolutely wonderful.

I have also shot some images in Velvia simulation mode and they also look excellent. For those images, I capped out at ISO 200.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

Dame_Blanche · May 11, 2008

I'm Happy!!!

The first thing I learned about quality and quality control is that it is not an absolute concept.

Quality is defined by the customer and has a very close relationship with the amount of money he is willing to pay.

In Holland you can buy a S100fs for € 519 and an Olympus E-420 with 14-42 + 40-150mm kitlenses for € 589 ... still 100 mm short at the tele-end compared to the S100fs.

A Nikon D40 with a 18-55 + 55-200mm can be bought for € 495 and if you rather have the 18-200mm VR you'll pay € 865.

The D40X + 18-135, approximately the same pixel count as the S100fs, is for sale at € 779, and the body at € 455.

One thing we all have to agree about, none of these bargain camera's or entry level D-SLR's, come with a lens with a focal reach of 28-400mm with image stabilisation throughout the range and 2x digital zoom, a tiltable 'real' live view LCD and movie facilities.

I have a Canon 5D in my studio an I will only replace that fine piece of machinery when it starts falling apart.

The S100fs allows me to sling the camera strap around my neck, put a polarizer filter in my pocket and start my foto 'safari' without being bothered with changing lenses.

According to Murphy's Law it's a certainty that I will always have the wrong lens on the body for a particular scene.

In the right hands even an entry level D_SLR is superior to any compact camera... unless there's a wobbling kitlens attached.

All of a sudden this entry level dslr is then reduced to a fine weather camera and shot's below F/8 will suffer from numerous artefacts like unsharpness and CA/PF.

In the right hands the S100fs is a powerful tool and much more versatile as any entry level D-SRL.

The S100fs' 28-400mm F/2.8 - F/5.3 lens is a perfect solution for my kind of (amateur) photography and I have made numerous photographs at wide open diaphragm and the result is, according to MY standards and MY bank account, very very satisfactory.

CA/PF, if present and disturbing, is taken care of by means of the HSL option in Photoshop Elements or PSP.. on a 8 bits TIFF file and it works fine for me. I also downloaded the freeware CAFree and PFree plugins but I am still studying how to set the right parameters.

Noise, moire, jaggies, CA/PF, blooming, sharpness and compression artefacts or whatever is latent present, when you blow up a photograph you'll sooner or later will see any or all of these artefacts.

My S100fs is MY A3 maximum camera. However, when I want to blow up a part of the photo I use Genuine Fractals to upsample and I am very pleased to have invested in that superior program.

You have to own a S100fs to appreciate it.
Spec's and Reviews don't make photographs.
Grtz Blanche

ASR45 · May 11, 2008

Thanks dave,

Lloydy · May 11, 2008

... At this thread also.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=27877819

Sorry, didn't see you name at the bottom of your original post :
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

Lloydy · May 11, 2008

... Glad you're enjoying it. Hope you have lot's of fun.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

ASR45 · May 11, 2008

Thanks Dave, they are stunning.

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

Lloydy said:
Lloydy said:

The clone brush picks up both colours and patterns. More importantly,
it samples continuously as you stroke. If you do this in another
layer, then you can set the blend mode of that layer to .... you
guessed it ... colour.

Click to expand...

The clone brush replicates detail and colour. The brush only
replicates only colour. There is a huge difference. Do I want to
replicate someones beard into a telephone box ? Or, do I just want to
replicate the colour of the beard ?

sigh ... apparently, we could argue about this all day ... but I don't understand why you think it is ok to sample colour from a beard in order to paint out CA on a telephone box, but not to sample the underlying pattern as well. I.e. your statement reads like nonsense to me.

If the CA encroaches on a "salt and pepper" beard, and you want to paint out the CA, you cannot just sample one colour from the beard, as you will replace the CA with a single colour fringe that is equally incorrect. But you can clone the beard right beside the edge and paint over the CA with the beard's colour and pattern, then blend the layer however it looks best.

If this does not make sense to you, then your photoshop expertise is simply too great to be understood by mere mortals.

Lloydy said:
Lloydy said:

Not at all. And you are welcome to continue to patronize me over it

Click to expand...

Patronise ? If you post inane comments - what else should I do ?

My comments are technically quite accurate ... but your professionalism appears to require that you use ad hominem insults to underscore your intransigent stance.

Lloydy said:
Oh - My apolgies. I certainly did not make it clear in my post that I
use 5x5 average for my eyedropper selection.

Ah yes ... I'm sure that everyone who has read Scott Kelby's books already knows that you use either 3x3 or 5x5 sampling ... but you purport to be teaching, so information like that is most useful ...

Lloydy said:
Have you not been following my 'My S100fs ...' series ? I am certain
I have covered almost every aspect of 'general purpose' shooting that
I can. The exceptions to date are studio images and night images
illuminated by other than artificial light. Go back and have a look
and then send me the apology.

Yeah ... that's gonna happen

... I am sufficiently trusting in DPReview's methods to believe that (a) you just might have a very good sample but more likely (b) you are very willing to fix every image because painting out CA is so rewarding. And since you are more than a little defensive about your techniques etc, I find your veracity to be rather mitigated ... enough that one can draw no straight-forward conclusion from your posts.

Lloydy said:
Let me make it abundantly CLEAR. The S100fs displays an extremely
small percentage of 'issues' with images in a myriad of conditions.
When you get one you will understand what I am taking about.

I will never own one. I do consider it an excellent camera, but it has an abundance of issues for people who shoot certain kinds of images. You cannot make it abundantly CLEAR because you are just one voice, and a rather insulting and arrogant one at that.

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

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

packy said:
then why did you buy a Shay Stevens plug in to
remove CA at the time and even dedicate a full test on your website
if it wasn't an issue your F11?
http://letkeman.net/Photos/F11_1600_pp_study

It is about prevalence. The fact that you have joined the S100fs club does not instantly render the DPReview irrelevant

packy said:
Maybe because this was your "main" No1 photographic tool for a long
period of time and you were happy not to look at anything else so it
warranted a plug in to tidy up the flaws to make the camera a better
package for you? I can't see why people using the S100 as their main
cam can't do the same thing as you did, too.

Again, I think it is a question of prevalence of the issue.

packy said:
packy said:

And DPReview did not make special mention of it.

Click to expand...

They gave it a section to itself and captioned it "Color Fringing" in
the F10 review. I think that would class as a special mention.

I was talking about the summary of both cams ... for example, the F10 gets this sentence in the last paragraph of the conclusion:

"But ultimately this is a fast, reliable, well-built and easy to use 'point-and-shoot' camera that is both undemanding and rewarding in use and is capable of superbly detailed results with no serious image quality issues."

whereas the S100fs gets these:

"There is a cloud on the horizon, though, and its a cloud with oddly-colored edges. Chromatic aberration (CA) is a major problem at the focal lengths that are likely to be most used. The effect is so pronounced at times that it is visible even in small prints. The frustrating thing is that CA can be removed automatically - we've seen it done in other long-zoom cameras, so know it's possible, economically. It can also be manually removed from RAW files but the supplied FinePix Studio software doesn't provide the tools to do, so again you're pushed towards using third-party software that don't do the images justice."

"Unfortunately, we can't quite in all conscience highly recommend a camera with such a flaw in its image quality. Which is a real shame because, for a lot of users, it will be a great camera that offers a well-priced and remarkably flexible alternative to a DSLR. But for anyone wanting to make large prints on a regular basis, it could be a disappointment, so we'd have to suggest they take a look at DSLRs and pore over our lens reviews."

But they do throw users a bone with this sentence in between ... so all is not lost:

"Essentially, deciding whether this is the camera for you depends on whether you are willing to accept a compromise - the CA is some of the worst we've seen in recent times (particularly for a camera costing this much), but the rest of its performance is excellent. In A4 or 10x8 prints, you tend to notice the high quality and sharp detail at almost every focal length, rather than the CA. And remember, this is a camera that costs considerably less than any DSLR with an equivalent 'super zoom' or twin zoom kit (end of line bargains aside), and is lighter, less bulky and more user-friendly to boot."

packy said:
packy said:

Also, those cams were not advertised as dSLR replacements ... and did
not cost anywhere near what this one costs.

Click to expand...

So you are saying Fuji is advertising at replacing DSLRs? That would
include their only one, wouldn't it?....hmmmm.

You know for a fact that Fuji have placed this camera up against entry-level dSLRs ... their own dSLR is semi-professional in nature (still the best wedding camera ever made) and is not threatened in the least by the S100fs.

packy said:
And as for cost......I paid €400 for my F10 new back then and only
paid €550 for the S100. Hardly worth remortgaging the house to come
up with the difference for that.

I paid the equivalent of 200 euro for my F10 and the same for my F11. The wacky pricing in Europe makes everything stunningly expensive ... 550 euro is about 1100 dollars right now, so you might have paid rather a lot for the S100fs. Still, you gotta pay what it costs in local currency and if that camera floats your boat, as it obviously does, who can argue with that?

packy said:
Well....again I can only work on what the camera and conditions has
thrown up at me in my real world shooting. And the sample I posted
was the worse image of over 200 I took in which about 30 of them
where in conditions that I would assume would test a lens (bright
grey UK weather).

Cool .... you and Lloydy got great samples, and DPReview got a bad one. Two out of three ain't bad if one is playing the odds ...

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

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

Lloydy said:
Lloydy said:

Lloydy said:

Did you study my examples ? I doubt it. I repeat - Any camera, any
lens !

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have now looked at your work ...

Lloydy said:
I have used this camera in a
myriad of lighting situations and would not trade it for anything I
have owned prior. I don't really care 'tuppence' for what a reviewer
says if I can see the proof from my own images.

Well, now that I've looked at your preferred subject matter, I can see that you really shouldn't be impacted that much by the CA issue.

That does not make the reviews irrelevant for most people, but it probably does for you.

Lloydy said:
Lloydy said:

It is quite possible to shoot only scenes that will not provoke the
issue. That is what many do by now ... twg for example, posts mostly
images that are close ups with a lot of mid toned colours.

Click to expand...

If you read what I wrote carefully, you will notice that I shot
several shots at 28mm and with extremely high contrast content. I
have also posted landscape shots and panoramas with 100% crops to
show detail and any 'pimples', Have you looked at those ?

Now that I have looked over both Pix Planet and Red Bubble, I can see a few things that are relevant to this discussion.

First off, you have many excellent images. You have a strong eye for composition, and shoot many classic images. You live where there is nothing but spectacular and exotic scenery and are, of course, taking advantage of it.

Interestingly, I see little or no studio work on your sites, so perhaps we can discount some of the comments you have made along those lines. I also see very few of the classic architectural and landscape images where CA would be prevalent, so I can certainly see where you are coming from when you deny its impact.

On the other hand, you have a surprising number of shots in strong, mid-day light. And because you shoot cameras with strong tone curves, you have a surprising number of issues with highlights (blown speculars) and very dark shadows (going to black) ... I would think that you are the perfect candidate to shoot in morning and evening light, also to shoot RAW at all times. Even better, to shoot a dSLR with a much larger full well capacity to allow some of that shadow detail to creep in before the highlights blow.

I know that these scenes (all the statues and other classic scenery) can be done with much less harshness, as Hugo and others have posted similar scenes in softer light.

I think that your tools of choice are making your life more difficult that necessary. With your talent, you should be using the best tools to help smooth the bokeh in your backgrounds and to lower the original tone curve. At the least, you should consider re-shooting some of those excellent shots in softer light.

I was originally quite surprised when you mentioned that you earned your living with bridge cameras ... I can now see that your images are quite credible as a source of income. But I can also see how much better your images could be if shot in better light and with better tools.

YMMV ...

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

My S100fs - Fixing CA - Part 3

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts