My S100fs - Fixing CA - Part 3

Lloydy · May 11, 2008

... Thank for your nice comments about the images.

A couple of minor comments.

The studio work I do is typically contract work for product, food, furniture, clothing, jewellery, etc. Much of it with models.

I also have done a huge amount of portrait work but, now, do little as I'm busy with three galleries.

As such, I cannot display the images. In the past I have posted many images of different studio subjects and I will do a studio session with the S100fs in the very near future.

Most of the images on Pixplanet are older edits (not as good as we do now) and we are re-editing all - some 6,000 edits need to be done (half finished) as we are now partnered with a large stock agency.

Many of the images are from top end film cameras and/or DSLR's. I still own a 645 but don't use it anymore - film and processing are almost non-existent here now.

Anyway, thanks again for the nice comments on the images.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

rennie12 · May 11, 2008

your problem with the S100fs ? We all know you think its a terrible camera; we all know why. Why do you post the same thing over, and over, and over ? What do you get out of these posts ?

BTW, I am genuinely curious about this. There is a similar poster (not you) in the Panasonic forum, whose life's work is apparently denigrating the FZ series. I wonder why he does that, too...

I do agree, btw, about the inadvisability of brush correction - and also that it is a shame Fuji did not do it right to begin with.

--
bill wilson

packy · May 11, 2008

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

On the contrary. I think the DPReview is very relevant and their info is very accurate and helped me make my purchase. Their conclusions that you won't see CA in up to A4 prints sealed the deal for me when I will only be printing at the very max 8x6s with this cam.

The DPR quote that you posted about how frequent the CA appears, or how bad it actually is, doesn't effect me if I can't see it in my prints or when viewing on my monitor. And this has been the case and my reality.

If anything...... It effects me more in lugging around three lenses and a DSLR body on a motorbike, or walking around the city doing a little not-so-serious stuff that will cover macro, 28mm landscapes, and 400mm tele shots in good light just for monitor viewing and 8x6s.

I shot over 150 shots outdoors today and if you dig deep and blow them up you will see some degree of CA in a percentage of that would be alarming for some folks who plan on using this camera for larger prints. But once again they weren't a bother for my usage. I was more than impressed to be honest and the convienience was a pleasant experience. Here are such photos shooting into dodgey grey skies:

Kim Letkeman said:
I was talking about the summary of both cams ...

I'm not one to skip to the end of the book to see how the story ends. One might miss something in the storyline

Kim Letkeman said:
You know for a fact that Fuji have placed this camera up against
entry-level dSLRs ...

The advertising looks pretty much the same IMO as it has been for years with all bridge cams that went before it. That is....... they advertise that they have a lot of the controls of a DSLR without having to other outlay (lenses). This selling point is "old hat" IMO.

But they don't "outright" advertise that their camera is a DSLR "replacement" as you stated in your post. When one buys the S100, in most cases that buyer is making a choice to either go bridge or DLSR for the photographic journey. Bit like deciding on getting a motorbike or car for the journey. One won't replace the other but some manufacturers may point out were one might be more beneficial over the other depending on what way you like to travel.

Kim Letkeman said:
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 ...

Nope I didn't get a great sample or anything special. I got what everyone else got. The only problem here is maybe that you're misnterpreting what I said in the 2nd paragraph of my first post. In it I express my views fairly along the same lines as what DPR found with their cam. I said "My obsevations so far with the S100 is that, yes CA is there on some shots, but just like the review here says..... unless you print large you won't have too much of a problem." DPR have found this in their findings too.....but uses a couple of paragraphs of explicit detail in getting the message across, that's all.

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

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

rennie12 said:
your problem with the S100fs ? We all know you think its a terrible
camera; we all know why. Why do you post the same thing over, and
over, and over ? What do you get out of these posts ?

I correct fallacies ... the fact that certain denials and fallacies are posted repeatedly should cause concern to those who need a balanced view of this camera. I actually think it is a fine camera, which I have mentioned on numerous occasions. Buy one if its issues will not affect you ... no need to obsess over my posts.

I think people who want one of these need to carefully examine the images on the DPReview site, which I believe represent the classic vacation camera shots (being as they walk the South Bank of the Thames just as I did for the last few weeks in tourist mode between meetings ... I used the D300 with 18-200VR and have not seen any CA by the way)

Those images have issues that DPReview clearly identify. The people who deny the issues outright are doing a disservice to the shoppers who come here to find out the real scoop.

By the way, I find the "for goodness sake" cr@p rather patronizing.

rennie12 said:
BTW, I am genuinely curious about this. There is a similar poster
(not you) in the Panasonic forum, whose life's work is apparently
denigrating the FZ series. I wonder why he does that, too...

I wonder why you care so much? I do it because I can't abide the kind of baloney that passes for testing and logic around here when a new camera comes out.

rennie12 said:
I do agree, btw, about the inadvisability of brush correction - and
also that it is a shame Fuji did not do it right to begin with.

I actually tried brush correction and found that it works fairly well when the colors are very uniform, which is unfortunately rare. And it is incredibly finicky and painstaking when the colors change with the shadows and light ... as they often do. Of course, as I said it doe snot handle patterns at all ...

And I agree that a firmware fix should have been attempted. It has been very successful with the D300 and D3.

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

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

packy said:
I was more
than impressed to be honest and the convienience was a pleasant
experience. Here are such photos shooting into dodgey grey skies:

Yup ... very nice images. At low ISO it's quite nice most of the time. I suggest though, that there has to be some wicked sample variation going on here.

packy said:
packy said:

I was talking about the summary of both cams ...

Click to expand...

I'm not one to skip to the end of the book to see how the story ends.
One might miss something in the storyline

Clever, but I'm sure you know I read reviews in their entirety.

packy said:
The advertising looks pretty much the same IMO as it has been for
years with all bridge cams that went before it. That is....... they
advertise that they have a lot of the controls of a DSLR without
having to other outlay (lenses). This selling point is "old hat" IMO.

True. And this "old hat" is directly positioned against the entry-level dSLRs. That is also confirmed by DPReview.

You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but you know exactly where Fuji's target lies for this camera.

packy said:
packy said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

Nope I didn't get a great sample or anything special.

I honestly don't see how you can make that assertion, since you don't have the other cameras in your hands to do A-B testing.

packy said:
I got what everyone else got.

I'm sure you understand that sample variation means that you never quite get "what everyone else got."

packy said:
The only problem here is maybe that you're
misnterpreting what I said in the 2nd paragraph of my first post. In
it I express my views fairly along the same lines as what DPR found
with their cam. I said "My obsevations so far with the S100 is that,
yes CA is there on some shots, but just like the review here
says..... unless you print large you won't have too much of a
problem." DPR have found this in their findings too.....but uses a
couple of paragraphs of explicit detail in getting the message
across, that's all.

"These figures highlight a number of problems. The first is that the lens performs least well at both ends of its zoom range. This is not uncommon in zoom lense designs but is quite a drawback because most people shoot most ofen at one extreme of their zoom or the other."

"The other problem is that at some focal lengths (around 200mm equiv. for example) at which the CA is non-linear and rises dramatically at the corners of the frame. This makes it more difficult than usual to remove."

We've seen examples of these from multiple cameras. You have not yet shot one ... but that does not mean that you won't one day try to shoot that kind of image.

All this is not to say it isn't a great cam ... it is. But face it ... in strong light it can be a bit of a polished turd rather than a diamond ...

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

bigvig77 · May 11, 2008

Well, I posted a thread about the negative comments and again, here are some in this thread. I find it funny that people who own and use this camera OFTEN in MANY situations seem to love it for what it is, but there are others who keep dumping on them and their opinions as owners when the majority of the people doing the dumping dont own the camera. I dont get that at all. I wonder if the people doing the dumping are dealers for other brands, because its the only thing that makes sense to me.

And BTW: There are some AWESOME pics in this thread from a great camera and photographers. Paul

Kim Letkeman · May 11, 2008

Lloydy said:
... BUT, even after all your efforts, I still see CA present !! Care
to enlighten me ?

I don't see enough left to be worth noting at all.

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

tdkd13 · May 11, 2008

Thats the only thing that makes sense to you? No wonder SOME of your comments seem to lack sense then.
Ted

bigvig77 said:
I wonder if the people doing the
dumping are dealers for other brands, because its the only thing that
makes sense to me.

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

packy · May 12, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman wrote:
Yup ... very nice images. At low ISO it's quite nice most of the
time. I suggest though, that there has to be some wicked sample
variation going on here.

It's the best of the bunch for high ISOs too. Better than the F10 to the F31 with the ability to process the noise yourself, so it exceeds my expectations for a small sensor cam in this dept., too. Is it DSLR quality?...of course not. But it does get real close to the worst entry level cams (E410, E510s). Of course they could be wicked sample variation here too!

ISO1600 @ 1/40s

Kim Letkeman said:
Clever, but I'm sure you know I read reviews in their entirety.

I know. Which is why I found it odd that after you seeing a whole paragraph dedicated to PF with a sample showing how bad it was, that you dismissed it to me as a non-issue. If it was a non-issue DPR wouldn't have dedicated a whole section to it. And you dismissed it.

I found it also hard to believe too that you didn't have any recollection over PF debates on the forum that went on religiously over a good few weeks when you were a DAILY participant on the forum and even participated in some of those debates......selective memory?

Kim Letkeman said:
You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but you know exactly
where Fuji's target lies for this camera.

I only have my opinions. There is nothing hidden or lying underneath what I have already said. That was that their intentions is to target P&S folks stepping up a bit and who don't want the DSLR, more so than try and wean people away or replace DSLRs. It would be like flogging a dead horse for them to try and do that, don't you think?. And even if that was the case, aren't the DSLR manufacturers just as guilty in falling short in what they are now advertising with live view to try an target more P&S users too especially when it works pretty poorly compared to a P&S?.

Anyway...if you look at it realistically and taking the target audience of a heavily specified bridge cam into account, they would know their stuff beforehand from experiences and would have made their minds up between bridge and DSLR long before taking any manufacturers advertising onboard. I knew what I was looking for when I bought my first bridge and I didn't get my info from manufacturers adverts. When my shooting changed and I wanted to do other things then I knew a DSLR was the choice without the help of manufacturers adverts. You also knew what you were looking for before you decision. I don't think you were influenced by manufacturer advertising either, so it's all the one what they tout.

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman said:

Nope I didn't get a great sample or anything special.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how you can make that assertion, since you don't
have the other cameras in your hands to do A-B testing.
I'm sure you understand that sample variation means that you never
quite get "what everyone else got."

If that is the case......then since DPR are lucky to get even one camera at times, not alone to get two copies of each camera, then what you are saying is that they could be giving us different and not accurate information too. It's two-way traffic. So we can hold their information and images suspect too unless they do A-B testing too, no?. And you have gotten ALL of your info about the S100 from DPR so that would be suspect too, won't it?

Kim Letkeman said:
"These figures highlight a number of problems. The first is that the
lens performs least well at both ends of its zoom range. This is not
uncommon in zoom lense designs but is quite a drawback because most
people shoot most ofen at one extreme of their zoom or the other."
"The other problem is that at some focal lengths (around 200mm equiv.
for example) at which the CA is non-linear and rises dramatically at
the corners of the frame. This makes it more difficult than usual to
remove."
We've seen examples of these from multiple cameras. You have not yet
shot one ... but that does not mean that you won't one day try to
shoot that kind of image.

All this is not to say it isn't a great cam ... it is. But face it
... in strong light it can be a bit of a polished turd rather than a
diamond ...

.....and the alternative? Shoot a panny bridge and have noise or smearing in 100% of your images over ISO200. Or get a DSLR with THREE lenses to do EXACTLY what the S100 does in focal length and macro? Not a great alternative for some folks and people will gladly accecpt the CA just like the F10/11 users did with their offerings over what the alternatives were.

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

Kim Letkeman · May 12, 2008

packy said:
.....and the alternative? Shoot a panny bridge and have noise or
smearing in 100% of your images over ISO200. Or get a DSLR with
THREE lenses to do EXACTLY what the S100 does in focal length and
macro?

Well ... K100d + Tamron 17-250 matches the range at reasonable cost. Very sharp, lower CA at all focal lengths and apertures, stabilized, much better low-contrast detail retention at 800 and above ...

As far as macro goes, you know that these cams do their closest macro at wide angle. And that brings in a lot of background, which looks pretty busy because of the much larger depth of field of the smaller sensor.

The best macro shots from that or any other bridge cam come from using long focal lengths and a close up lense, preferably something from Raynox.

So assisting the Tammy with the same Raynox is a wash. I also like the fact that 1:1 macro lenses from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma tend to be fairly cheap on the used market ...

packy said:
Not a great alternative for some folks

I suspect that the above is a much better alternative than people are willing to admit ... even if a bit more expensive.

packy said:
and people will gladly
accecpt the CA just like the F10/11 users did with their offerings
over what the alternatives were.

Wow ... you are really smitten ... I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure that I would enjoy that cam as much as anyone ... I just have no need to collect cameras that are inferior to the ones I already own of that size ... especially at that cost.

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

packy · May 12, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman wrote:
Well ... K100d + Tamron 17-250 matches the range at reasonable cost.
Very sharp, lower CA at all focal lengths and apertures, stabilized,
much better low-contrast detail retention at 800 and above ...

Still heavier, bigger and no macro. The lighter and small the better for me. And no tilt screen for discreet candids and awkward angles. And the image stabilization is all but useless according to reviews on this cam. Quote from DPR "Utilizing the K100D's Shake Reduction did improve things, but only slightly."

I don't don't usually bring cost into it as "you either have it or you don't".....but for those who are not like me and are price conscious and not living in your neck of the woods then the lens alone cost the same as an S100 for us Euopeans. Body alone costs close to the S100 too. So a bit pointless for something to muck about with or if other users are on a "tight" budget. And then of course there is of course the risk and temptation of catching lens lust disease

Kim Letkeman said:
As far as macro goes, you know that these cams do their closest macro
at wide angle. And that brings in a lot of background, which looks
pretty busy because of the much larger depth of field of the smaller
sensor.

But most acceptable for mucking about and excellent results can be got which you showed us yourself with you good macro work with the F11 in your early days with this cam.

Also with longer macro lenses (with exception of expensive Nikon VR) you will need more shutter speed and smaller apertures which means a tripod. A big no-no for me on a motorbike.

Kim Letkeman said:
Wow ... you are really smitten ... I suppose we'll just have to agree
to disagree.

yes....for what it does. Is it better than a DSLR? Of course not. But as an overall package it is a cheap alternative for me for what I want to do and more importantly it is a more portable and lighter effort for a days outing. The lighter and small the better for me.

Kim Letkeman said:
I'm sure that I would enjoy that cam as much as anyone ... I just
have no need to collect cameras that are inferior to the ones I
already own of that size ... especially at that cost.

accepted and respected....take care. I think we have beaten this to death. WE agree to disagree.

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

Mik the Dane · May 12, 2008

I do have the F828 too...Since early 2004. Nice with something to compare to...The Fuji S100FS lens performe for me fantastic in macro and super-macro and up to 250mm. Pictures are only taken once....in life...but i'm sure that Fuji's lens perform better to my interests than the F828 lens;-)

But the 2 lens's we can't compare directly; how could we do that...? Sitting in 2 different cameras with 2 different chips generating the output to the end user;-)

tdkd13 · May 12, 2008

Mik, yes I agree, it would not be possible to compare the two directly. I also feel the Fuji is a better overall camera than the 828 by a decent margin, better noise performance, more features, great range on the lens, great macro modes, etc.
Take care, Ted

Mik the Dane said:
I do have the F828 too...Since early 2004. Nice with something to
compare to...The Fuji S100FS lens performe for me fantastic in macro
and super-macro and up to 250mm. Pictures are only taken once....in
life...but i'm sure that Fuji's lens perform better to my interests
than the F828 lens;-)

But the 2 lens's we can't compare directly; how could we do that...?
Sitting in 2 different cameras with 2 different chips generating the
output to the end user;-)

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

rennie12 · May 12, 2008

sounding patronizing. Did not mean to.

Kim Letkeman said:
I correct fallacies ...

Nothing wrong with that -

Kim Letkeman said:
I wonder why you care so much?

The same sort of thing that bugs you about:

Kim Letkeman said:
I do it because I can't abide the kind of baloney that passes for testing and logic around here when a new camera comes out.

Actually you just seemed reasonable enough to ask why you do it - and you gave a perfectly reasonable and understandable (and courteous) answer, for which I thank you.

I rather agree with you but have given up hope on communicating with such people.

I must say your phrase "...kind of baloney and logic that passes...etc" hits the nail exactly on the head in many cases.
--
bill wilson

Kim Letkeman · May 12, 2008

I do take my share of beatings on this forum for my rather outspoken and direct style ... and yes, it can seem like I have an agenda. I certainly apologize if it seemed like I was teeing off on you ... it's been a particularly spirited week

The thing is ... I do have an agenda. But that agenda is not camera specific, rather just that people who are searching for a new camera evaluate this (and indeed all Fujis) carefully. I love the brand, and were I not already sold on dSLRs for my general purpose photography, I'd happily give the S100fs a try ... but that's just not gonna happen. The only alternative I am willing to entertain must be small ...

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

Kim Letkeman · May 12, 2008

packy said:
So a bit pointless for something to muck about
with or if other users are on a "tight" budget. And then of course
there is of course the risk and temptation of catching lens lust
disease

Both excellent points ... I don't see many viable alternatives to the S100fs for someone on a budget. The only thing they have to realize is that they may have a problem if they shoot the kind of subjects that stimulate CA.

packy said:
packy said:

As far as macro goes, you know that these cams do their closest macro
at wide angle. And that brings in a lot of background, which looks
pretty busy because of the much larger depth of field of the smaller
sensor.

Click to expand...

But most acceptable for mucking about and excellent results can be
got which you showed us yourself with you good macro work with the
F11 in your early days with this cam.

Still do

... and yes, I agree that close ups are quite nice with the F11. But once you've tasted real macro ... well, the F11 or the S100fs is not gonna cut it. The nice thing is that any cam with threads on the front can do a great job at full zoom with a Canon 500D or Raynox on the front. So in that sense, the S100fs is equal or better when compared with dSLRs, because the depth of field should be an advantage with the aux close up lense.

packy said:
Also with longer macro lenses (with exception of expensive Nikon VR)
you will need more shutter speed and smaller apertures which means a
tripod. A big no-no for me on a motorbike.

The traditional method for really close macro is hand-held with external flash for light. Clever methods for diffusing built in flash can work as well. The S100fs could do that job quite well, since it has a hot shoe.

For simple close ups of flowers, any of these lenses will do a fine job. The Fuji can get closer, but as I said the backgrounds become a real challenge.

packy said:
packy said:

Wow ... you are really smitten ... I suppose we'll just have to agree
to disagree.

Click to expand...

yes....for what it does. Is it better than a DSLR? Of course not. But
as an overall package it is a cheap alternative for me for what I
want to do and more importantly it is a more portable and lighter
effort for a days outing. The lighter and small the better for me.

And were that enough for me, I would join you with an S100fs ... but I like dSLRs and am willing to put up with the extra weight.

Today I attended a conference and carried the F11 for the day ... tomorrow I go to a desert garden and will carry the D300. I just can't see myself acquiring anything in between ... unless I can find a cheap S5200 ... I still think that was one of Fuji's best ever ... and so unsung

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

bigvig77 · May 13, 2008

Ted: Some of my posts lack sense because I question why non owners of the camera constantly bash the camera and cameras owners saying they must have the one and only good one because everyone, including this site, doesnt think its that great of a camera, even though there are constantly awesome pictures posted from this camera on this site? Like I said, Ive seen so many great posts and pictures from this camera I cant believe people (certain ones) would dump on it as much as they do, regurgitating the same lines over and over because dpreview says the camera has ca/pf issues, but most (all?) of those people arent owners of the camera. It gets really old seeing the same old thing from the same old people which leads me to believe there must be an agenda there, because it makes no sense unless they just like seeing themselves writing the same old thing in every thread someone posts about this camera, including the posts that have great pictures in them. There is an agenda, whether or not because they are a dealer of another brand is one thing, but there is some reason the same people who dont own this cam constantly trash it, no? And now Im being personally attacked because Im making a statement regarding the bashing going on? Hmmmm, interesting for sure.

tdkd13 · May 13, 2008

Comments in text.

bigvig77 said:
Ted: Some of my posts lack sense because I question why non owners
of the camera constantly bash the camera and cameras owners saying
they must have the one and only good one because everyone, including
this site, doesnt think its that great of a camera, even though there
are constantly awesome pictures posted from this camera on this site?

If you feel pointing out FACTS about something is constantly bashing, then I suppose no one can help you. Most people on both sides have long ago agreed that there are issues with CA on this camera, the fact the you seem to feel that problem doesnt exist AND are posting that disagreement in a thread begun by an owner of this camera to teach users how to get rid of the very problem you think doesnt exist is quite ironic, dont you think?

bigvig77 said:
Like I said, Ive seen so many great posts and pictures from this
camera I cant believe people (certain ones) would dump on it as much
as they do, regurgitating the same lines over and over because
dpreview says the camera has ca/pf issues, but most (all?) of those
people arent owners of the camera.

I asked you this question once before and you elected not to answer, I will try again though. How does the fact that a person does or doesnt own a certain piece of gear affect that persons ability to discuss image quality? All that is required to discuss image quality is access to images with which to judge, and eyes, I have both so am perfectly quailified to speak on this issue. You dont have to accept or even read anything I write, but if you care to speak to the issues instead of just whining feel free to add to the discussion with something substantive.

bigvig77 said:
It gets really old seeing the
same old thing from the same old people which leads me to believe
there must be an agenda there,

Whhaaaaaa, what gets old is people that seem to think opinions that run counter to their own must be conspiracies of some sort.

bigvig77 said:
because it makes no sense unless they
just like seeing themselves writing the same old thing in every
thread someone posts about this camera, including the posts that have
great pictures in them.

Maybe its simply helpful people who are attempting to keep the record straight and actually backing up thier arguments with actual test results created by professional reviewers who do this for a living.

bigvig77 said:
There is an agenda, whether or not because
they are a dealer of another brand is one thing, but there is some
reason the same people who dont own this cam constantly trash it, no?

NO, have you heard of Occams Razor, its really not difficult to grasp what you are seeing here, but I see little reason to discuss it with you because you dont really want to add to the conversation, you just want to whine about what you see as an injustice. I have engaged in excellant discussions with several owners of this camera and I think we see things eye to eye for the most part. I spent a couple hours last night trying to help another owner of this camera find out what he is doing wrong since his results are not up to par with what this camera is capable of (see this thread)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=27909211

bigvig77 said:
And now Im being personally attacked because Im making a statement
regarding the bashing going on? Hmmmm, interesting for sure.

You received a personal bash not because you said something, its because you said something stupid. If you want to see an agenda, so be it, I'm not going to be able to change that. I think you are only seeing the negative, which says more about you than it says about me. If I was to post to someone and say 7 great things, and one thing you didnt like, you would accuse me of being negative, its been done for years, I care little. I am willing to enter into rational discourse with anyone who cares to, all I ask is that they be able to back up the things thay are saying and are willing to look at empirical evidence, I am willing to offer proofs of most everything I say, if I am wrong I will always state so and thank the person that set me straight. If I have said something you disagree with, by all means lets discuss that particular topic, I will offer evidence to support my points and you can do the same, its realkly very simple, its called discussion and it happens around here every day, you should try it.

All you are doing is saying only owners of this camera can comment on it, which is ludicrous at best, and anyone who is bringing up negative aspects of this camera must be dealers of other models, which isn't even ludicrous, its lunacy. If you took offense at what I said earlier, this post wont make you feel any warmer and fuzzier I'm sure. My point is, if you want to discuss something as technical as a modern day camera system, you will be forced to use certain metrics and procedures to quantify aspects which are easily quantifiable. If you want to discuss the artistic aspects of photogrpahy, there are many other sites that aren't as gear oriented where you might feel more at home.

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

bigvig77 · May 13, 2008

Here is the thing: I posted a comment that YOU didnt like, then you responded to my comment by saying something about how its why my comments lack sense. A personal attack by you on me for what reason? Because you didnt like what I wrote about MOST people who trash the s100 and dont own it. Did something I write make you think I wrote it about you? Is that why you personally attacked me? Seems like that says more about you than me buddy.

The only thing Ill answer is this because Ive got a pretty good idea of what type of person you are by the last couple posts: Can someone who doesnt own something discuss it is your question: Yes, they can. BUT.....when the non-owners CONSTANTLY trash the camera in threads where the OWNERS are posting awesome pictures, it gets pretty old. I thought this forum was better than this but I guess you get people like you no matter where you go. You only want to listen to YOU, nobody anyone else. Someone posts great pics from the camera, how they dont see PF in the pics they are taking and other people (mostly non owners) hijack their posts by saying that OTHER people/companies who have TESTED the s100 have found bad PF. Whoop dee do! I think the people using the camera have a better grasp on it than the people who used it in a quick test and DEFINITELY over the people who dont own it. I can read all the consumer reports about a certain car, all the bad about it, but I gaurantee there are people who own the car and love it. Does that make me an expert on said car and does that make them wrong? If so do others need to constantly try to remind them of that?

Get a grip man, its just photography, its just a camera. If people are happy with it and getting results they are happy with and looks great to others, then why try to constantly rain on their parade? Why make personal insults? Have nothing better to do? Dont say it says more about me, I didnt make any personal insults, youre the one who did that.

And really, there is no trying to talk to you. The last 10 posts Ive seen from you say the same thing over and over about how it says more about you than me, about how youll enter into a rational discussion with your evidence that you can back up with facts, etc., etc., etc. The redundancy of your posts make me tired.

rocklobster · May 13, 2008

LLoydy

You are to be congratulated on how you have guided us through the process of correcting a flaw in what is truly a great camera. This should help those who have agonised over the decision of buying the S100 - as long as you don't mind a bit of PP, and I don't because I use RAW (S6500) and this camera has a great sensor for RAW photography. You could probably skip a few steps in your procedure with little change to the final result.

Cheers

My S100fs - Fixing CA - Part 3

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

New member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts