Reading mode: Light Dark

Any S100FS users Sell their DSLR gear yet ??

Go to last post
J

jayhuse

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
460
Reaction score
0
Well, i did not want to be dramatic but my question is to the S100FS users if any have sold their DSLR gear and just simplified their camera bag.

I recently was shooting my nephew's portrait with both my Olympus E-3 with the 50-200 f3.5 and the S100fs.

What I noticed was the results were very similar. So similiar I was wondering about why i should carry all this heavy and expensive gear around.

I recieved a much sharper focus and DOF with the olympus E3 gear but to me the skin tones looked more accurate with the S100Fs. It was basically i Tie between the 2 cameras.

That said I have alot of DSLR gear that I have bought in the last few months. I been doing some soul searching because I need some Lighting gear for portrait Studio work. I am considering selling off a good portion of my Olympus gear to get the lighting stystem. and just use the S100FS.

This is a big step and I will have to keep using the S100Fs for a little while longer until i am totally convnced it can do an adequate job. The only thing I have found that really bothers me right now with portrait work is the DOF seperation of subject. The s100fs does do some but not a 1.4 F50 or 3.5 at 200mm type of boken.

My thoughts so far are to do portrait and in studio or outside portraits, while doing a few landscapes. To me I have the following feelings but not totally sure about the pros cons.

S100FS pros.
1. 1 lens fior macro/portrait/birding/landscape shots
2. Costs I can buy 2 or 3 FS100fs per 1 Olympus lens.
3. In studio Flash speed is way blazing faster than 1/250 oly
4. Cheaper replacement costs
5. Skin tones seem a bit better

Cons,
1. Image quality in bad lighting.
2. Focuse speed.
3. Noise level,
4. More Resolution
5. Low light perfomance.

Just curious if any of you folks have considered getting rid of you DSLR gear?

Thanks,

Jay
 
--I would definitely keep the e3. I have to ask, though, why the 50-200? I would not want to use that one everyday, even in the studio. Do you have any other Olympus options for your portrait work?
 
I have the 14-54 lens as well. Other lenses are the 35mm macro, 25mm pancake and the 40-150 f4.5 which is nice as well.

The sharpest is the 50-200 or 35mm macro. I had the 50mF2 but that is 400.00 for a fixed single lens.

I was thinking of getting 3 stobe kit for around 1K and seems like alot of cash is sitting there in all different lenses. That said to equal the 50-200mm.
Thanks
jay
 
jayhuse said:
I have the 14-54 lens as well. Other lenses are the 35mm macro, 25mm
pancake and the 40-150 f4.5 which is nice as well.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder why you ended up with all these strange focal lengths in what I presume to be consumer lenses when you seem to want to do portraits?
jayhuse said:
The sharpest is the 50-200 or 35mm macro. I had the 50mF2 but that
is 400.00 for a fixed single lens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and maybe it blows all your others away. For example, you could have had that lense (which is I presume effectively a 100mm F2 on the E3) instead of the S100fs. Forgive me, but if you were going to do portraits indoors and out, I think you made the wrong choice.
jayhuse said:
I was thinking of getting 3 stobe kit for around 1K and seems like
alot of cash is sitting there in all different lenses. That said to
equal the 50-200mm.
Click to expand...
But what do you want to shoot? Owning a bunch of consumer lenses does little for your portrait career when you could settle down to one system and get really stunning images.

So here are two suggestions for you:

1) Handle the skin tone issue permanently by reading "Skin" by Lee Varis. You will never have to worry about what a specific camera thinks about skin tone again ...

2) Dump both systems. Get yourself a used D200 for $500, a 105mm F2.5 AIS lense for $200 (this is the legendary lense that shot the Afghan Girl image for National Geographic) and your lighting set. And when you can afford it, get yourself the marvelous 18-200VR for everything else (28-300 effective range.) Voila ...

Luckily you can completely ignore me, as the cavalry will be here shortly to tell you to dump the dSLR and go with the bridge cam.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
... Yes, but long before I bought the S100fs.

I have used it for portraits (studio with strobes and outdoors) and find it is excellent.

A friend has a D300 with a Voigtlander lens (58mm ?) he uses for portraits. Simply superb images. Yes, better than the S100fs. If I were only shooting studio portraits, I would look at something like that as a specialised setup.

I have not experienced slow focus issues with the s100fs, in any light. However, I did find that if 'High-Speed Shooting" was on, I had 'hunting' and focus lock issues.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Have a look at this also. It is quite enlightening.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=30539174

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

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Post processing (PP) Tips - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_7.htm
 
Kim Letkeman said:
Luckily you can completely ignore me, as the cavalry will be here
shortly to tell you to dump the dSLR and go with the bridge cam.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. I've just read Dave's post. And so should you. You already did, i presume.
Get a life man.

cAs
 
Perhaps that should read, I just read Dave's post and actually believe it, since that seems to be the key. I too read Dave's post and found it to be lacking in any real objectivity and counter to my own experiences. Personally I don't care what camera you want to shoot with and why, however I dont see a huge swarm or pro's dumping bulky DSLR kits to jump on the bridge camera bandwagon. Trust me, most pro's do not enjoy carrying large kits, but the job they are asked to do really does require it. You may not find that you can get by with a bridge and likely many will, but they wont be turning up on the sidelines of the super bowl any time soon.
Ted
PhcAs said:
Kim Letkeman said:
Luckily you can completely ignore me, as the cavalry will be here
shortly to tell you to dump the dSLR and go with the bridge cam.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. I've just read Dave's post. And so should you. You
already did, i presume.
Get a life man.

cAs
Click to expand...
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
PhcAs said:
Kim Letkeman said:
Luckily you can completely ignore me, as the cavalry will be here
shortly to tell you to dump the dSLR and go with the bridge cam.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. I've just read Dave's post. And so should you. You
already did, i presume.
Click to expand...
Well, he posted 3 hours after me, if you were implying that I was ignoring his ... and don't forget how Dave likes to throw a bone now and again so that the easily fooled will jump right in with posts like yours :-)

As for the D300, I know how good it is. And yes, it crushes a bridge cam for portraiture. So I agree with him there.

But what is always left out is that any Nikon can shoot the same lenses, and thus can return virtually the same quality of images. It's mainly the lenses that make the largest difference, as I was actually pointing out in my post ...

And regarding the link to the retoucher ... there are a few of those guys operating. Their work is extremely impressive. But very few people can really duplicate that level of retouching. It takes a massive amount of time and more skill than most can ever develop. So how does that help exactly?
PhcAs said:
Get a life man.
Click to expand...
Can I have yours? It is obviously perfect.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Lloydy said:
... Nicely veiled way to call me a liar, yet again.
Click to expand...
Now don't get upset ... Ted did not call you a liar. I actually think you like to make stuff up, but that might not be entirely malicious.
Lloydy said:
Never mind, doesn't change my opinion at all - At least, not of myself.
Click to expand...
Now what could that possibly have to do with photography? Your opinion of yourself I mean?
Lloydy said:
Of others - Now, there is an interesting point to ponder ...
Click to expand...
Your opinion of others is quite without mystery :-)

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Lloydy said:
... Yes, but long before I bought the S100fs.

I have used it for portraits (studio with strobes and outdoors) and
find it is excellent.
Click to expand...
You've posted a couple of portraits that were not bad, but certainly not magazine worthy. And since you post everything , one has to presume that you are stretching that small experience and the few attaboys it generated into excellent ...

The fact is that a sufficiently talented and motivated photographer would be able to shoot brilliant portraits with a bridge cam. Environmental (on location) portraits do not require a narrow depth of field, but do require extreme attention to details and lighting.
Lloydy said:
A friend has a D300 with a Voigtlander lens (58mm ?) he uses for
portraits. Simply superb images. Yes, better than the S100fs. If I
were only shooting studio portraits, I would look at something like
that as a specialised setup.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is your favorite tune. A $1500 body and $1000+ lense can do the job. What you always imply by that is that a $350 body (D40) and a $200 lense (105mm F2.5 AIS) lense cannot. Yet that setup could easily shoot a portrait that is indistinguishable from the D300 portrait. But easily distinguished from a small sensor portrait.
Lloydy said:
I have not experienced slow focus issues with the s100fs, in any
light. However, I did find that if 'High-Speed Shooting" was on, I
had 'hunting' and focus lock issues.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a different definition of what slow focus means. To someone who relies on the response of phase detect focus, contrast focus is brutally slow. I am perfectly happy with the G10's focus speed, despite reports that it is slow and sometimes unreliable. I have not found that. But when compared with the D300, it is slow ...
Lloydy said:
Have a look at this also. It is quite enlightening.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=30539174
Click to expand...
I wonder what that retouching site could possibly have to do with the average photographer?

Here's more what I was talking about ... this comes up on pbase as a portrait from a Nikon 990 ...
http://www.pbase.com/image/53054192

And here is David Roberts' amazing gallery of portraits, many of which were created with the Nikon 990 ... he knows how to pose people and to light a portrait. Which makes the camera much less relevant. Note though, that these are all environmental ... this is not quite the same as capturing people outdoors ...
http://www.pbase.com/image/840107

So if one chooses to shoot this these types of images, then one can get away with a bridge cam for sure.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Dave, I have called you a liar in the past and if I had intended to do so again simply would have. What I said instead was the the results of your test which you alluded to here are highly dubious and I choose to follow my own experience and many years of objective testing with tried and true methodologies. If you want to play a victim thats fine, it seems to be a role you enjoy so by all means have a good time.
Ted
Lloydy said:
... Nicely veiled way to call me a liar, yet again.

Never mind, doesn't change my opinion at all - At least, not of myself.

Of others - Now, there is an interesting point to ponder ...

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

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Post processing (PP) Tips - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_7.htm
Click to expand...
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
Kim Letkeman said:
Yes, this is your favorite tune. A $1500 body and $1000+ lense can do
the job. What you always imply by that is that a $350 body (D40) and
a $200 lense (105mm F2.5 AIS) lense cannot. Yet that setup could
easily shoot a portrait that is indistinguishable from the D300
portrait. But easily distinguished from a small sensor portrait.
Click to expand...
Wow !! I think you really believe the stuff you write.

I stated that a D300 with a Voigtlander lens produces simply superb images. I have seen this for myself.

It's amazing how you continually change your tune/scenario to suit the moment. That would most likely be the moment I post anything.

What happened to your statement about any DSLR/Lens combination will do ?

What I implied/stated/asserted/said/wrote, was a D300 with a Voigtlander lens (that particular lens) produces excellent images.

What I also implied, prior, prior, prior, was that a D40 with a kit lens does not. Now you say it will - Buyer beware, very aware.

Sounds a lot like the very similar/same/exact same things you have written before. A Tamron will do it, A Sigma will do it, Any kit lens will do it, etc., etc. However, we have all seen you change the type of lens/brand, etc., as folk point out their shortcomings.

Holy Cow ! - Anything but a S100fs will do it !!!

That's OK, believe and expound what you will. There are actually intelligent folk here who do see the difference.

Ok, respond and say I am misleading, lying, ill-informed, mistaken, attaboy, disingenuous, fan-boy, biased, etc., etc. - Ad nauseum.

Remember though - Anyone who does not support your 'legendary' expertise/opinion/knowledge is also being 'hammered' by your response. Not just me.

There are a helluva lot more than you think.

By the way, what is that in your lunchbox ? Is it your legend ?

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

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Post processing (PP) Tips - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_7.htm
 
... In the past, I asked if you were calling me a liar and you said not so. Now, you are saying that, in the past, you called me a liar.

Seriously, until this very moment in time, I have given you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I just see you as shirt-tailing 'Peanut' and laugh as I walk away.

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

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Post processing (PP) Tips - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_7.htm
 
Lloydy said:
... In the past, I asked if you were calling me a liar and you said
not so. Now, you are saying that, in the past, you called me a liar.
Click to expand...
It's not like you haven't opened yourself to the charge more than once ... don't assume that you and Ted are talking about the same point in time.
Lloydy said:
Seriously, until this very moment in time, I have given you the
benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
That behavior is not in your repertoire, you have never exhibited it on the forum to my knowledge. You have exhibited contrition from time to time, yes, but only as a brief interlude so you could deny your more common behaviors and set up another "victim" post.
Lloydy said:
Now, I just see you as shirt-tailing 'Peanut' and laugh as I walk away.
Click to expand...
Dredging up old insults and applying them to two people at once shows exactly how disingenuous your playing the victim so often really is ... if you could somehow perceive how sad these posts are ... it's a real shame.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Lloydy said:
... More fools are fooled by fools, than any who are never fooled.
Click to expand...
And yet again, that expression does not come up on Google, so you must have made it up yourself. Considering that it is not really parse-able (i.e. I can't figure out what you thought you meant), I have to assume that it sounded really clever in your head like the one you just did using variations on the word "mean" ...

But here are a pair of quotes that apply particularly well to your latest string of "posts written in frustration" ...

Abraham Lincoln

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Anatole France
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself a fool."

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Before I respond to what you wrote, I must point out that you completely ignored my references to people who shoot portraits with small sensor cams and do it very, very well. Were you in such a rush to vilify me that you did not even notice those?
Lloydy said:
Wow !! I think you really believe the stuff you write.
Click to expand...
Of course. Don't you? I mean, I and many others don't believe what you write, but I think we were all hoping that you at least did ...
Lloydy said:
I stated that a D300 with a Voigtlander lens produces simply superb
images. I have seen this for myself.
Click to expand...
Of course. Of that I have no doubt.
Lloydy said:
It's amazing how you continually change your tune/scenario to suit
the moment. That would most likely be the moment I post anything.
Click to expand...
Not at all ... go back and read over your posts to see how you tend to change how you discuss dSLRs to suit your purposes.
Lloydy said:
What happened to your statement about any DSLR/Lens combination will
do ?
Click to expand...
Sorry? I am pretty sure that we were discussing in a very specific context here ... portraits. That's not the same as the usual "general purpose" shooting discussions that dominate this forum.

But since you want to go there, let me be clear that I feel that the 18-200VR on an APS-C sensor would in fact provide a better overall portrait lense because of the cleaner pixels, better detail retention on fine, low contrast details like hair, and of course because there is a bit more subject isolation available if desired ...
Lloydy said:
What I implied/stated/asserted/said/wrote, was a D300 with a
Voigtlander lens (that particular lens) produces excellent images.
Click to expand...
As it naturally would. I agree with you completely.
Lloydy said:
What I also implied, prior, prior, prior, was that a D40 with a kit
lens does not. Now you say it will - Buyer beware, very aware.
Click to expand...
Um ... your reading comprehension here is letting you down a wee bit. I have been specifically suggesting that the D40 with an excellent lense like the 105mm F2.5 AIS would be perfectly capable of creating the same stunning portraits.

I did not mention the kit lense anywhere to my knowledge.
Lloydy said:
Sounds a lot like the very similar/same/exact same things you have
written before. A Tamron will do it, A Sigma will do it, Any kit lens
will do it, etc., etc. However, we have all seen you change the type
of lens/brand, etc., as folk point out their shortcomings.
Click to expand...
For general purpose shooting, they will. I have many lovely images from the Sigma 18-200 first generation mega-zoom. I have some gorgeous images from my Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro, a superb macro and portrait lense. And also some terrific images from my Tamron 180mm F3.5 macro.

Only the cheapest kit lenses have any significantly visible flaws for general purpose shooting. And those in only a few brands .... most of Nikon's kit lenses are particularly good.
Lloydy said:
Holy Cow ! - Anything but a S100fs will do it !!!
Click to expand...
More of your extremism. I'll ignore the bombast for now ...
Lloydy said:
That's OK, believe and expound what you will. There are actually
intelligent folk here who do see the difference.
Click to expand...
I am counting on it.
Lloydy said:
Ok, respond and say I am misleading, lying, ill-informed, mistaken,
attaboy, disingenuous, fan-boy, biased, etc., etc. - Ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your victim persona has worn itself completely out by now .... a great big YAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNN .....
Lloydy said:
Remember though - Anyone who does not support your 'legendary'
expertise/opinion/knowledge is also being 'hammered' by your
response. Not just me.
Click to expand...
So you want this to be a real polarized discussion .... what you are saying here is that anyone who does not think exactly like me is being insulted here. Well, I don't buy it. I am laying out some thoughts based on my experiences and my readings. I do not "make it up" as I go along, so I don't see how I can be insulting anyone here ...
Lloydy said:
There are a helluva lot more than you think.
Click to expand...
Uh huh .... you really do like the thought of being at the center of some sort of evil empire ...
Lloydy said:
By the way, what is that in your lunchbox ? Is it your legend ?
Click to expand...
That's just embarrassing .... you've used this inscrutable saying twice now ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top