Reading mode: Light Dark

S95 first impressions: overrated if you have used a Fuji F20/30 before.

Go to last post
Let's start with low light. The 2.0 lens of the S95 is worth a full stop over the F20. Shooting in RAW for serious photographers who know what they are doing is easily worth a stop. So that is two stops right there, meaning the S95 only needs 1/4 the light of the F20. Meaning conditions where the F20 needs ISO 1600 - the S95 only needs ISO 400. So, blows the F20 away for IQ with moving subjects in low light.

Then you have those tricky tradeoffs with moving subjects. With the S95 you have a live histogram, giving you the live info you need so can quickly and easily adjust shutter speed and/or aperture for the precise best combination that you feel is best for the circumstance, aided in your task by those sweet 1/3 stop ISO adjustments. For the F20? Nada.

How about still subjects? I forget whether the IS is rated 3 or 4 stops, but let's say 3 stops. So that is 5 stops altogether (adding the lens/RAW from above), meaning the S95 only needs 1/32 the light of the F20 for equivalent ISO for still subjects. So, for what the S95 can record at ISO 100, the F20, would need ISO 3200, except it only goes to ISO 2000, so can't even get any shot when the S95 can do ISO 100.

Oh yeah, no difference there, right...

Then add in the wider angle lens, the smoother and easier to use controls, the HD video, and so forth.

I don't doubt the OP loves his F20, and good for him. But, there is no comparison between these cameras.
 
The f2.0 lens quickly increases in aperture once you zoom in a little. To me it is not a big selling point because I don't like wide angle. Most of my shooting is 50mm or beyond (35mm equivalent).

Yes, no doubt the S95 is a better camera. IS alone is a nice feature that the F20 lacked. The HD video is clearly superior.

All I'm saying is that the low-light capability that people rave about is not all that compared to cheaper 4-year old cameras of the same size.
 
I agree. What about the LCD ? The one on the Fuji series is an ancient relic compared to the one on the S95.
Simon97 said:
I don't think anyone claimed the S95 was in the same league as an SLR at 800 or even 400 or 200. Its larger than normal P&S sensor is still far smaller than a SLR's.

When comparing, sample the S95 image down to 6mp, like the fuji. The S95 image should be sharper and have less noise.

The S95 has much more versatile controls, lens and video.

It is not even a contest, really.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury
 
MikeM1977 said:
The S95 is a nice camera, but I'd say it is overpriced and garners more hype than deserved.
Click to expand...
After years of using an F30 as a compact camera, I don't even want to anymore since I got the S95. The S95 simply has too many things I can't live without (a decent LCD, good stabilization, much better colors, highlight blinkies, 4MP more, RAW, etc.)

--
http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury
 
MikeM1977 said:
All I'm saying is that the low-light capability that people rave about is not all that compared to cheaper 4-year old cameras of the same size.
Click to expand...
What people are these you keep speaking of? The people who don't understand the difference between F2.0 and F4.0 in terms of sharpness, focus, or low light? The people who don't understand what sensor size means to low light and IQ? The problem here was your expectations - not the camera. The S95 performs on par with other enthusiast compacts in its class. In some ways it is better; in other ways, it is not.
 
MikeM1977 said:
The f2.0 lens quickly increases in aperture once you zoom in a little. To me it is not a big selling point because I don't like wide angle. Most of my shooting is 50mm or beyond (35mm equivalent).
Click to expand...
And the F20 doesn't...? By the specs the F20 aperture might ramp up slightly less quickly (due to starting @ f/2.8 @ 36mm) but at the very most you're talking about 1/3 stop. A moot point considering the S95 is a good 3-5 stops better at any focal range. Though in all reality, what reason is there to try and shoot at 50mm in low light unless there's some lens IQ issues at other focal points.
MikeM1977 said:
All I'm saying is that the low-light capability that people rave about is not all that compared to cheaper 4-year old cameras of the same size.
Click to expand...
3-5 stops is quite a bit in 4 years. Hell, having IS alone is a huge selling point for any of these new(er) cameras. Many people can now shoot at 1/10 handheld and have very sharp pictures. Without IS, that's nearly impossible. Plus being able to shoot at iso 1600 and still have very usable pictures, while you probably have to cap yours at iso 400 or 800. I fail to see the point you're trying to make.
 
+1 !

Very well put Adam - precisely my thoughts..
AdamT said:
The Key is RAW and it Buffers RAW files- I don't like the messy detail lacking JPG engine of the S90/95 either, even the scruffy 6yr old Ixus-750 beats it !! (SD550 from 2005) but in RAW with the likes of capture one, the results at all ISOs beat the Fxx series easily at all ISOs and at base ISO get close enough to a RAW shot 450D+Kit lens for detail (assuming the 450D has actually focussed properly or you used Live View AF)..

same goes for the LX3, LX5, EX1, G11, G12, P7000 as well .. for some reason, all the cams with these 10Mp 1:1.6" sensors seem to be trying to prove a low noise point and end up screwing the image quality in JPG - all are superb in RAW, especially the Samsung EX1 .

S90 - RAW versus JPG 100% Crops , the rest of these cams gain similar benefits



--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

Click to expand...
--
Less is more
 
I reckon I should use the manufacture's software as they have the algorithms to best extract the best out of their sensor's data. I'm sure LR and PS are good (and expensive) but I would guess they only make a best guess of sensor data of all brands out there.

I find the best results with DPP for my s95 than I can get otherwise.
 
new_newbie said:
I find the best results with DPP for my s95 than I can get otherwise.
Click to expand...
You'd be amazed at how good S95 raws look in C1-6. Their algorithms are the best of the best. I believe detail rendering, sharpening and NR are superior to DPP, and this is coming from a long-time DPP user.

--
'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'
 
While I agree as I posted above that S95 is a better overall camera than FXX series Fuji. I would not attribute 3-4 stops to IS as Canon want you to. Canon's IS is not the best to begin with. Just compare it with Panasonic, if you want to know what good IS is. Canon 95 IS is at most 2 stops. I am typically able to handhold 1/5 ss photos with my 2009 Panasonic ZS3. With S95, I need 1/15 to get a good sharp shot, I am yet to take a good 1/5 ss shot with it handheld.

--

 
The era for Fujifilm F30 and F31fd are over but they are still the very first legendary compact camera for iso1600 no doubt. So before you spoil them, clean them well and the camera and charger in a airtight sandwich box with lots of silica gel (battery out of camera in box as well).
 
Absolutic said:
With S95, I need 1/15 to get a good sharp shot, I am yet to take a good 1/5 ss shot with it handheld.
Click to expand...
that's down more to the camera body than the IS system - you gain the best part of a stop by adding the Franiec Grip - the G11's IS really is better , it's better than the LX series too by quite a margin but then it has a bigger lens with probably a bigger IS system (and the grip and OVF help too)

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
Robert Hoffman said:
You'd be amazed at how good S95 raws look in C1-6. Their algorithms are the best of the best. I believe detail rendering, sharpening and NR are superior to DPP, and this is coming from a long-time DPP user.
Click to expand...
C15 is also a LOT better than DPP - part of the reason is that DPP does the RAW convert, adds too much hidden NR at base ISO even , Corrects the image for distortion, crops and upsizes the resultant 9Mp to 10Mp ...... ever wondered why DPP is better with the G10, G11 and G12 - because they're natively rectilinear optically and there isn't any cropping / resizing going on .. I think the other reason C1 is better is that the S9x is trying to prove a low NR point more than the G cams and they load on the hidden NR at all ISOs ..

C1 gives you about 26mm of wide with the S9x , a lot of images get away uncorrected, some need PT-Lens correction and a bit trimming off the top and bottom ....... here's the wide advantage you get by using C1 over the JPG engine and DPP regarding wide angle



--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
OK here's a FULL SIZE Image from the S90 Please remember

1:- this is WIDE OPEN at F2.0

2:- it's in Capture One so you're seeing ALL the sensor (about 26mm FOV) and not the straightened, cropped and upsized mess from the JPG engine or DPP so

3:- Both these explain why the very extreme corners are blurry - it's gone at F4 and lets face it you're making use of the parts wasted in JPG or DPP so the lens is doing very well .......

4:- this is a top sample of the camera , both my Brother and myself have had ones with a blurry side and others have seen it in samples of the S95

5:- the Samsung EX1 eats it for breakfast at F1.8 (and about 22mm FOV in the same converter) but that's a far bigger camera, the S90 is really the replacement for the Ixus-980IS (SD990)

Click on "Original" to see the full 10Mp output from the sensor from Capture one V5





--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
AdamT said:
3:- Both these explain why the very extreme corners are blurry - it's gone at F4 and lets face it you're making use of the parts wasted in JPG or DPP so the lens is doing very well .......
Click to expand...
Thanks Adam...very interesting how the lens (or sensor) drops off so quickly at the extreme corners...I would have thought it would be more gradual.

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
 
Don_D said:
Thanks Adam...very interesting how the lens (or sensor) drops off so quickly at the extreme corners...I would have thought it would be more gradual.
Click to expand...
we're not meant to see that bit, it's way outside the designed FOV , I'm glad it does fall off quickly as if it was gradual, it'd invade a lot further into the image .......

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
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