My S100fs - Compared ...

john120588 · Jun 27, 2008

Dannyboy292 said:
great comparisons...to me the S100FS seems to look a little better
than the 400D.
--

this comfirm to my findings, the grade of these cameras like 400d, 450d, 1000d has a very very poor auto focus, I searched for all the photos i found on web gallery, and i borrowed the 400d to play awhile, even i try it on my 28-70mm f2.8L, it got the auto focus 90% all wrong, it is always a few inch off.

and this provide that if a DSLR can't get the focus right, you lost all the pixels and it is no better than a point and shot dc, but it amazing that this camera still remain top seller while the rest of other DSLR like sony a350, olmpus 420, nikon d40, theese are all cheaper than 450d.

Kim Letkeman · Jun 27, 2008

tojkr said:
I agree with you and feel that what Dave did as comparison is very
fair. Dave did a good job of bringing the comparison with right set
of DSLR & lens than dprview did.

You must be kidding. Have you read the thread? Do you understand why DPReview equalizes variables? Why they do not shoot with cheap, junky lenses?

tojkr said:
and in Macro test Fuji S100FS won.

Again ... did you fail to understand the point I made regarding relative F stops? Or do you simply not understand why that matters?

tojkr said:
I have set of friends who became 'uncomfortable' to discuss about
photograhpy with me, after seeing flower photographs I did with panny
FZ20 turned far better than their proud Canon-300D and Nikon D50.

Sure they did. Post them and we'll explain to you what happened to the Canon 300D (which does not exist so maybe you mean the 30D) and the Nikon D50 images.

tojkr said:
What they did not know was, I have LEICA 2.8 in FZ20 and they have
'$79' kit lens that can't do macro. But there are areas like iso400 -
, skyshot in bright light where panny will have washed out , grainy
pictures and theirs will win.

The Nikon kit lense is a fine piece of glass ... easily able to keep up with your Leica when shot correctly. That tiny sensor of yours makes that F2.8 act like F14 on a 35mm camera, meaning that you will have a terrible time getting the background out of focus by any valid comparison ...

tojkr said:
So we don't compare apples and apples. But people in this thread who
are angry at Dave should prove something by placing some photos where
the DSLRs beat S100FS than blaming him.

Spend more time understanding the technical arguments ... then come back and discuss.

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

rennie12 · Jun 27, 2008

Kim and the others who don't OWN S100fs are really just muddying the waters for some reason of their own which I do not understand.

Dave - and some like him - on the other hand are trying to blow the S100fs WAY beyond what it is - for some reason I don't understand.

Basically the concept of "comparing" a DSLR to what is (misleadingly) called a "bridge camera" is an exercise in futility.

They are DIFFERENT animals. Each has a reason to exist (though I predict the ultrazooms (a proper description) are dying because the cheapo DLSRs are so cheap.

I have the S100fs and use it for simplicity, light-weight carrying (trust me it is light compared to a DSLR with a comparable range of stabilized lenses) - and its SILENCE which to me is of considerable value.

If I have other needs overriding these, I turn to my Pentax K10D and its set of decent lenses - one very good indeed - the 77LTD.

But I would not dream of comparing the two any more than I would compare a cat to a dog. (And I love and have had as living companions both cats and dogs - usually both at the same time.)

Oh - one more comment - somebody in this thread said something about this conflict between visitors like Kim and resident S100fs users "spoiling this forum".

That's NONSENSE. This kind of bickering is quite amusing - and actually pretty much to only value to the private posts - basically the posters are all wannabes of one sort or the other but very entertaining.

Dpreviews reviews, imho, are the best on the web. But the private posts are just funny.

If you want information - come to dpreview for reviews, to fredmiranda.com for images, and Luminous-landscape.com for actual technical information.

(Noting wrong with dpreviews' tech info sections but the info on LL.com is much more complete - and much longer, and often boring.)

But the bickering is the whole point for the spectator - most entertaining, I think.

--
bill wilson

Kim Letkeman · Jun 27, 2008

dpr101 said:
This leads to my challenge to Ted and Kim. Both of you tend to
critique others' posts rather than start discussion threads of your
own. Perhaps you think that is your place in this forum but I hope
you would strive for more positive contribution. So, how about
starting some threads to post shots made with your Fuji cams, or
share some interesting discoveries found while using your Fuji cams?
Better yet, since no one has been able to conduct a proper
comparison, show us how it is done.

Kim Letkeman · Jun 27, 2008

Accim said:
all small differences in the way the comparison
is made comparable. That in such a degree that it is to vomit. So it
is not the right lens is used, or shutter or aperture. The sun is not
in the sky the same place all day!!

Don't be a fool ... why do you think DPReview go to such lengths to equalize variables? Because even tiny differences completely invalidate all conclusions.

And these are not tiny differences. The fact that this escapes you is something you should rectify.

Accim said:
In a very aggressive,
condescending and demanding proof and sustained language, these
individuals by their terrible demanding arguments and evidence.

We are demanding, yes. We demand that people think before posting, that they post comparisons that have some chance of logical meaning. You may be happy with interpreting utter garbage ... but I am not.

Accim said:
Believe, these people are well on the way to destroy this forum of
photo enthusiasts.

Yeah, sure. The sky is also falling. Haven't you heard?

Accim said:
Personally I am very tired of the same
condescending tone of the forum includes every day from the same
people. They have their digital slr camera, and they will always
argue that it is the only correct one.

Not at all ... as is typical of the uninformed, you are ignoring the many times Ted and I have praised the S100fs. It is best of breed. It is the best alternative to someone who would rather not use a dSLR. And so on ...

Accim said:
If this was a slr forum, I
could understand they spend so much time in the forum, but it is not.

See the post I made a moment ago showing many dozen posts on Fuji cameras ... I have even made several recently. One, for example, showing how to use the delay mode on Nikon SB26 flashes to augment any P&S in product shooting.

But then again, there is no need for me to justify my posting habits to your anyway ... just argue the technical merits and stop all this whinging.

Accim said:
You have to suddenly compare Fuji camera with twice as expensive
equipment before that individuals believe it is a fair comparison.

No, you have to competently compare anything to anything else before I will feel it is a fair comparison. Read the words Ted and I have been writing and stop being so naive.

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

Kim Letkeman · Jun 27, 2008

rennie12 said:
Kim and the others who don't OWN S100fs are really just muddying the
waters for some reason of their own which I do not understand.

So what if we don't OWN a camera? That is such a specious argument ... which I thought would have been above you.

And surely you could see the arguments Ted and I made ... to try to clarify Dave's junk data ... how does this constitute muddying?

rennie12 said:
That's NONSENSE. This kind of bickering is quite amusing - and
actually pretty much to only value to the private posts - basically
the posters are all wannabes of one sort or the other but very
entertaining.

Dpreviews reviews, imho, are the best on the web. But the private
posts are just funny.

You are coming off rather arrogant here ... I thought that too was above you.

rennie12 said:
But the bickering is the whole point for the spectator - most
entertaining, I think.

Spectators and participants alike ...

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

Lloydy · Jun 27, 2008

... Seems we are talking about different images. I do sincerely apologise for quoting the wrong Exif data.

Incidentally, that particular image looks fine at full size, it just has some 'blown' highlight areas and shallow DOF. It is also characteristically Canon 'smooth' which, for me anyway, means a lack of detail.

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

Lloydy · Jun 27, 2008

tdkd13 said:
Glad you can see the fun here, it is mostly good natured, although
when your the one wearing the dunce cap I imagine it can sometimes
seem like bullying, good for you that you can see beyond that. I
responded to your post below and quite simply, not to be anymore
palygroundish than we already are, I was right and you were wrong.
The EXIF you quoted is not from the image I commented on, quoting
directly from my post to Dannyboy "Case in point, the second image is
shot at 480mm effective focal length on the Canon, the shutter speed
chosen was 1/80 sec, this on a non image stabilized lens, the
"comparative" image on the Fuji was shot at 1/450 sec using the Fujis
stabilized lens." Read that EXIF and then come back and say your
sorry.

Ted, have done so in the other post. I read this as 'the second image', meaning the second on the page. Silly me :

Take care.

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

Lloydy · Jun 27, 2008

... Clarify ???

Haven't laughed so hard in ages.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

Kim Letkeman · Jun 27, 2008

Lloydy said:
... Clarify ???

Haven't laughed so hard in ages.

Honestly Dave ... you have refused to even acknowledge my critiques of your methods, much less counter them. So you are choosing instead to live in waters that are continually muddied by your attempt to make all of this personal ...

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

BobORama · Jun 27, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
to raise the shitter speed

Kim, I think you have that set way too high already...

-- Bob

Lloydy · Jun 27, 2008

John Carson said:
Naive doesn't begin to describe it. LLoydy has been posting
misleading information for weeks (e.g., claiming 800 mm on the
s100fs, without mentioning that he was counting digital zoom). He is
one of the worst fanboys you could find.

Misleading ??? DZ was always stated. Fanboy ? For a Fuji camera on a Fuji forum - Guilty.

Surprised you didn't jump in earlier John. Usually, you post right after Kim. Almost like you're his shadow :

John Carson said:
John Carson said:

This leads to my challenge to Ted and Kim. Both of you tend to
critique others' posts rather than start discussion threads of your
own. Perhaps you think that is your place in this forum but I hope
you would strive for more positive contribution. So, how about
starting some threads to post shots made with your Fuji cams, or
share some interesting discoveries found while using your Fuji cams?

Click to expand...

John Carson said:

Better yet, since no one has been able to conduct a proper
comparison, show us how it is done.

Click to expand...

Neither owns the s100fs, so that is going to be difficult. On the
other hand, they have shown numerous comparisons in the past.

Lloydy doesn't own a DSLR either.

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

jjlad · Jun 27, 2008

I'm just inserting a comment here..perhaps out of sequence but it seemed like one spot was as good as another.

I like the test idea but to me the proper set up with both cams would be to simply take a few shots with each, manipulating settings until the best possible result could be obtained, and then compare images. I think that would be the only fair way when the specs for the two cameras and the two lenses are so dissimilar. Sort of like pulling a really heavy trailer with a Jetta or a Silverado. The idea is to get there ..with the trailer, and if the Jetta did so in second gear and the Silverado did it in overdrive ..just say that and compare how long it took, how much fuel was burned etc. But don't put them both in Drive and then compare everything ..since the Jetta would probably expire before reaching the destination.

Those two cameras with such different lenses and sensors, are like that, but I'm sure the SLR could be driven in a gear that would get it there.

jj
--
My photo collection:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjlad/sets/

John Carson · Jun 27, 2008

Lloydy said:
John Carson said:

Naive doesn't begin to describe it. LLoydy has been posting
misleading information for weeks (e.g., claiming 800 mm on the
s100fs, without mentioning that he was counting digital zoom). He is
one of the worst fanboys you could find.

Click to expand...

Misleading ??? DZ was always stated.

As per usual, you are misstating the facts. Here is the post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=28238237

No mention of DZ at all (you only conceded it later when Ted picked you up on the issue).

I don't know what the issue is with you; whether you are being deliberately dishonest or are just so obsessed with your cause that you can't think straight or just what the problem is. You produce some really nice photos and I don't begrudge you your love for the s100fs, but you are doing everyone here a disservice with your misleading advocacy.

Lloydy said:
Fanboy ? For a Fuji camera on a Fuji forum - Guilty.

You aren't a fanboy merely by liking a camera. You are a fanboy when you misrepresent the facts in acting as an advocate for a camera. You are indeed guilty.

--
john carson

Copusmaximus · Jun 27, 2008

that ends up as a slanging match and will probably end with name calling.. same old names crop up..
--
Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
Latest addition the amazing Finepix F30
LX1(the new doorstop)
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

rennie12 · Jun 27, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
... So what if we don't OWN a camera? That is such a specious argument... which I thought would have been above you.

Congratulations - that is the most elegant insult to which I have been subjected !!! In the usual USA usage one says "that is beneath you" - to say 'above you' is very subtle and elegant. Wonderful !

I had to look up "specious"
1: obsolete: showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic

and sophistic -
1 : of or relating to sophists, sophistry, or the ancient Sophists
2 : plausible but fallacious

I assume you meant the "plausible but fallacious" - reasonable, from your point of view.

Btw I went to your blog and site and find you are a really EXCELLENT and skilful photographer, and actually quite knowledgeable. I think we could all learn from you; I know I can.

Again, I repeat - the squabbling is really what the site is all about, and most enjoyable. As you may have noticed (or maybe not) I basically agree with you about 80% of the time.

If you are interested in educating the readers, tho, I wish you would come on a lttle, ah, I don't know how to put it...gentler, maybe. You phrase things so harshly sometimes that you almost guarantee a negative reaction from the recipient.

I used to want to educate them but have pretty much given up...those who CAN learn will (no matter what you and I do or say) and those who WONT learn cannot be taught.

I also realized that my background necessitated a learning from the ground up in a way the usual casual digital camera user of 25 or so cannot even imagine.

My first good camera was a prewar Leica I bought in 1950 for $900 - I was earning $1.50 an hour, living with my parents, so this was a LOT of money (the standard work week was 60 hours - no overtime pay - so that was maybe 3 months aftertax income.

I shot 35mm for 50 years - etc etc - learned to print color with the first Kodak drum (wound up with 20x24 drum),

I am not bragging on this - these days are MUCH better and more fun - cameras are better, easier to use, and Photoshop (started with v3) is fantastic compared to a color darkroom.

But the background knowledge is and has been useful both for itself and as a yardstick for the modern photographic world.

I enjoy reading you even when you grumble at me...Best wishes
--
bill wilson

rennie12 · Jun 27, 2008

You may possibly have read some of Kim's comment's on MY posts - if so you will know I am NOT one of his favorite people.

NEVERTHELESS - before commenting on Kim's posts - GO TO SEE HIS PHOTOS AND HIS BLOG. (They are listed at the bottom of his posts).

They will do more than anything I can say - or he could say - to justify his credentials. He is a marvellous photographer and a most discerning person.

That said - I still don't understand why he tries to lead people in the way of righteousness...I am unable to understand why he cares.
--
bill wilson

ASR45 · Jun 27, 2008

I mean that, i for one always found you respectful, and always reply to folk like me in fact it was you that inspired me to get the S100FS because i loved your photos. You showed what the camera can do, right or wrong there is to much negative and flaming remarks given to you, you dont deserve it.If folk cannot see what you are really about and attack you ignore them they will eventually go away and bored someone else, just dont give them the ammunition to shoot you. There will always be and have been trouble makers on these forums, Ive been on here several years now and seen it all, so my final word to you on this my friend just ignored and dont let the B grind you down, keep posting regards and best wishes Alan.

jim yeats · Jun 28, 2008

Having talent doesn't excuse the actions of some in the fuji forum. There are several that come here, ranting and raving day after day, that makes me wonder if they are stable or not. Why does it upset some if others likes their fuji camera?

Greg Photo Sydney · Jun 28, 2008

Congratulations to Dave Lloyd in getting the S100fs to number one in the top 20

discussions on this site. It's been a rough ride but has certainly exposed some sacred cows to serious scrutiny.

So it's a good time to look back and make some preliminary observations.

Dave kicked off with a comparison of the much-maligned Fujifilm camera pitched

against a top-selling DSLR with popular lens option and found the Canon/Tamron combo failing spectacularly.

Right on cue the usual suspects in this place shrieked in fury at the results, cried foul and proceeded to hurl abuse and insults at the author.

Only problem is that these characters have zero first-hand experience with the camera in question. That's right, no hands-on experience, no useful knowledge, no credibility and no qualification to comment.

Their argument was that the comparison was set up to demonstrate the strengths of the S100fs against those of the DSLR combo. And they claimed, it was just so unfair (in their terms: it used unequal variables).

Of course, they can't know what the author's motive was any more than I can.

And also, much more importantly, so what if that was the motive. The proof is there none-the-less.

Here is a demonstrated instance where the Fuji is obviously and significantly superior to the DSLR combo.

So after the initial hysteria came the specific complaints. The comparison was not fair because of the S100fs' natural advantages. So now they want 'equal variables' like the Canon getting a tripod, faster shutter speeds and higher ISO so it can match the Fuji. This they say, is because the DSLR combo has retarded depth of focus at large (well not that large, actually) apertures.

But wait, there's something wrong here. These 'experts' want a tripod AND higher
shutter speeds along with higher ISO to get better depth of focus.

Guys, the subject here is not disappearing ducks' butts but stationary flora. In your panic you are insisting on serious overkill. A tripod alone is enough to get the smaller aperture and improved depth of focus (first principals) you want to 'equalise the variables'.

But wait again, the Fuji doesn't need a tripod to achieve this result: thus the inevitable conclusion – it is clearly superior to the DSLR combo in this important respect.

But, but, wait again. These same 'experts' have been banging on endlessly (in other threads) about how superior the DSLR is BECAUSE it features retarded depth of focus and how fabulously superior that feature is in delivering blurry backgrounds. So the inevitable conclusion is that superior depth of focus capability in the S100fs can often be a real advantage.

While on the subject of depth of focus, these characters are clearly unaware that a number of the greatest names in photography have reputations totally built on the foundation of absolute maximum depth of focus in their work.

The saddest thing here is to see some less experienced correspondents being taken in by the torrent of nonsense from a couple of self-proclaimed 'experts' who wriggle and twist in every argument to obscure understanding. It's worth remembering that anyone who knows a little more than you appears to be an expert.

Unless the detractors are prepared to provide some first-hand comparisons themselves, it would be safe to disregard their bleating criticisms and occasional damnation by faint praise.

They should put up or shut up.

My S100fs - Compared ...

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts