Ever since last year when I joined here and asked about this camera,
people have been saying there are DSLR's out there that are
equivalent. Ive been asking what, where, but have YET to get an
answer. The D90 is a cam Im looking at too, but its MUCH more than
the s100fs and its original price of $795 that I paid, let alone the
$500 you can get one for now. If there is a DSLR out there with
equivalent features (film simulation - which I like, tilting LCD
screen, 28-400 lens, great ISO settings and low light abilities) for
the same price, Im still waiting to hear what it is. Id LOVE to
know, as Im looking to purchase a DSLR right now.
I don't think too many people suggested you could get an exactly equivalent DSLR for the same money, only that you could get a reasonably good DSLR kit for a similar amount of money. There are naturally tradeoffs to either route.
But...for what it's worth, given the features you list as important, one possiblity among many to consider is the Pentax K2000 kit with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, which B&H has listed for a bit over $600. These two lenses cover the equivalent field of view of 27 to 300 on a 35mm camera. It does not have live view (so you do have to use the viewfinder to compose your shots); without live view, I don't see any real use for a tilting/rotating LCD screen. It also doesn't have flim simulation modes as such, but you can get similar effects by adjusting the contrast, saturation, etc., as indeed you can also do on the s100fs.
And, like many
others, I have 12000 pics on this cam and FEW have CA issues. I dont
shoot in situations where Im going to get CA but if I do, it takes 5
seconds to correct in post processing. Everyone makes it out to be a
huge downfall for the camera, but I think the positives of this cam
far outweigh the negative. Ill never part with mine, even when its
replaced. I love this camera, and its one reason why I dont post in
this forum anymore: Its such a great camera that just gets trashed
on constantly here.
If people thought they were going to get a DSLR
equivalent with better features, better pictures, etc., then they
should have done more research. If you knew what you were getting
when you bought it, you love it. Its 10 times better than my $300
dollar Optio at only twice the price. Nobody can argue with that.
I'd certainly never say the s100fs is anything other than a good camera; it's main problem lies not so much with its features and capabilities, as much as with it having the misfortune to occupy a bit of a disappearing corner in the camera marketplace. With many low-end DSLRs costing similar amounts of money but offering some advantages (and, as I said, some disadvantages) on one side, and lower-specified cameras getting better below it, the "bridge camera" zone is kind of getting squeezed into a smaller and smaller niche.
I owned an S9000 for awhile, and then got a DSLR. The S9000 was (and still is) a good camera--not as capable as the s100fs, but still good. The differences in image quality between it and a DSLR with a good lens are nonetheless significant. I can reliably get pictures with the DSLR that were simply impossible to get decently with the S9000; and many others I can capture with greater image quality. Those made the change well worth while for me.
Others, of course, have differing wants and needs, and so come to different decisions.
--
--DrewE
