Reading mode: Light Dark

HS20, 30, or the 50 ?

Go to last post
painterdude said:
painterdude wrote:

LOL hummm..indeed..You know Bill who used to be on here a lot, spoke highly of those little cams . Thanks for referencing them again. Perhaps an option.
Click to expand...
I vaguely recall, but I've learned most about the CX cameras from threads in the Nikon 1 System Talk forum and from assorted "pro" hands-on reviews like this one

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/...e-nikon-6-7-13mm-lens-review-on-the-nikon-v1/

I don't yet have the cash to add this little fella but it looks like an even better lens

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/07/22/the-nikon-1-system-nikkor-32-1-2-lens-review/
 
If you`re going to get a mirrorless , may as well get one with a decent sized sensor - Micro-4/3 is the most cost and size efficient system , there`s tons of decent glass, "last years" bodies are almost Free (stuff like the Panny G3) .......
 
Painter you may have other issues With fz200 but I think the color issues can be addressed easily , the fz200 has a 4 section (2 axis crosshair) grid for base wb, a set and forget to taste menu option.
 
painterdude said:
painterdude wrote:

hey there Andy..

Well I shoot only RAW with my DSLR s now ..but not in any other cams.

One note however on what you said. You mention that you add sharpening in your pp ing. I have never ever found pping added sharpening was better than adding sharpening in camera. My sharpening in pping always looks nasty - it adds crap rather than clarifies anything so I rarely use it .I most often simply work on dumbing down any luminance noise or color aberrations and adding in some of Light rooms "clarity".

All the best
Click to expand...
Hmm, as I understand the way Raw works, and it always has in the past, things like sharpening, WB etc. are only basic parts of the meta data that is used by software when loading the image for viewing/processing. Not all software makes use of this - other than proprietary software - and more often calculates its own application of base settings.

With Raw, in camera sharpening should not be important, so some PP sharpening is usually essential. It'll usually be applied as part of the profile for that camera, and more often not adjustable - indeed, Apple's Aperture is the only software I've come across that does allow fine tuning of the Raw profile.

I've been viewing a few LR tutorial videos this morning, and experimenting more with the adjustments in LR. I've found that applying small amounts of all the adjustments is giving quite good results, so that you get a gradual incremental improvement with each one.

Another thing I found, is that the exposure controls don't work in a 'flow'. According to their instructions, the tools should work in a linear manner from top to bottom. However, this is not entirely true. Their instructional video shows that you need to set the black and white points before adjusting the highlights and shadows adjustments, despite them being the wrong way round. Similarly, the sharpness and noise tools are the wrong way round too - traditionally I'd apply some NR before going to the final sharpen adjustment, yet these too are also the wrong way round. They also put the crop and distortion adjustments at the end, where traditionally you'd do these first.

It's a strange beast for sure.
 
Adam-T said:
AdamT wrote:

If you`re going to get a mirrorless , may as well get one with a decent sized sensor - Micro-4/3 is the most cost and size efficient system , there`s tons of decent glass, "last years" bodies are almost Free (stuff like the Panny G3) .......
Click to expand...
Ah, you're assuming. If I had to use only one camera format m4/3 would get strong consideration, but the N1 isn't my "decent sized sensor" system. For that I have a non-mirrorless full frame camera with great glass that makes m4/3 sensors seem almost pinheady in comparison.

The N1 system is my lightweight portable system that has a much more decent sized sensor than any of Fuji's small compacts or DSLR size bridge cameras. I already have tons of decent and better glass, and much of it also works on the N1 system so I don't have to pay extra for additional m4/3 decent glass. My N1 bodies are last year's models so they were almost free as well. Just $269 for a new V1 bought about a month ago (from Kai Man Wong's favorite Hong Kong camera shop) and then I picked up a refurbished J1 locally for about $200 and a refurbished 30-110mm (81-297mm) for another $99. Both bodies included the usual 10-30mm kit lens for those prices and they are quite good despite being surpassed optically by all of Nikon's other CX lenses. No smudged low contrast corner detail with these lenses, at least by Fuji standards.

Kai's the Man (Leica Camera Blog interview)

DRTV London Special (video)

Kai being Kai
 
Andy Hewitt said:
Andy Hewitt wrote:
Andy Hewitt said:
painterdude wrote:

hey there Andy..

Well I shoot only RAW with my DSLR s now ..but not in any other cams.

One note however on what you said. You mention that you add sharpening in your pp ing. I have never ever found pping added sharpening was better than adding sharpening in camera. My sharpening in pping always looks nasty - it adds crap rather than clarifies anything so I rarely use it .I most often simply work on dumbing down any luminance noise or color aberrations and adding in some of Light rooms "clarity".

All the best
Click to expand...
Hmm, as I understand the way Raw works, and it always has in the past, things like sharpening, WB etc. are only basic parts of the meta data that is used by software when loading the image for viewing/processing. Not all software makes use of this - other than proprietary software - and more often calculates its own application of base settings.

With Raw, in camera sharpening should not be important, so some PP sharpening is usually essential. It'll usually be applied as part of the profile for that camera, and more often not adjustable - indeed, Apple's Aperture is the only software I've come across that does allow fine tuning of the Raw profile.

I've been viewing a few LR tutorial videos this morning, and experimenting more with the adjustments in LR. I've found that applying small amounts of all the adjustments is giving quite good results, so that you get a gradual incremental improvement with each one.

Another thing I found, is that the exposure controls don't work in a 'flow'. According to their instructions, the tools should work in a linear manner from top to bottom. However, this is not entirely true. Their instructional video shows that you need to set the black and white points before adjusting the highlights and shadows adjustments, despite them being the wrong way round. Similarly, the sharpness and noise tools are the wrong way round too - traditionally I'd apply some NR before going to the final sharpen adjustment, yet these too are also the wrong way round. They also put the crop and distortion adjustments at the end, where traditionally you'd do these first.

It's a strange beast for sure.
Click to expand...
 
Adam, why do they make these lenses so huge? Why cant we have a superzoom camera with, let's say a 40.5mm filter thread size lens? That would be ideal. And I wouldn't mind a larger sensor with less zoom, keep it at 600mm and increase the sensor size to 1/1.7"

The HS20 and HS30 both had BSI, they ditched BSI for the HS50 to get the faster focusing.

From a German review site that I've seen the HS30 is better in some attributes and the HS50 in others, with the HS20 being a middle ground. The HS50 and HS20 both have better dynamic range than the HS30 at lower ISO, at higher ISO the HS30 almost catches up to the HS50, while the HS20 drops off. Regarding resolution of the lens, at lower ISO, the HS30 and HS20 are better than the HS50, while, again at higher ISO the HS50 comes close to the HS30, while the HS20 falls behind.

--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com
 
Last edited:
That's not actually the best zoom length for shooting macros, you can do even better with the HS20/30, use the LCD and slowly move the zoom up to 5.0x and you will get a focusing distance of 1.2 inches and be able to do TRUE macros. The HS50 cannot come close to matching this.
 
alexisgreat said:
alexisgreat wrote:

That's not actually the best zoom length for shooting macros, you can do even better with the HS20/30, use the LCD and slowly move the zoom up to 5.0x and you will get a focusing distance of 1.2 inches and be able to do TRUE macros. The HS50 cannot come close to matching this.
Click to expand...
 
alexisgreat said:
Adam, why do they make these lenses so huge? Why cant we have a superzoom camera with, let's say a 40.5mm filter thread size lens? That would be ideal. And I wouldn't mind a larger sensor with less zoom, keep it at 600mm and increase the sensor size to 1/1.7"
Click to expand...


The XS1 basically is what yiu ask for 2/3" is only a posh name for 1:1.5" only a bit bigger than the 1:1.7" you mention all lenses are down to physics , you wanna see 1000mm in full frame !
alexisgreat said:
From a German review site that I've seen the HS30 is better in some attributes and the HS50 in others, with the HS20 being a middle ground. The HS50 and HS20 both have better dynamic range than the HS30 at lower ISO
Click to expand...
The HS30 definatly does NOT have worse DR than the HS20 anywhere (I`ve had both and shot both in harsh sun) - in fact due to the better noise processing (less NR artifacts and less Noise) at LOW ISOs the HS30 beats the HS20 comfortably in the field due to being able to pull the shadow areas better when recovering DR - I find little difference in noise or DR performance at high ISOs.
 
Adam, if a lot of the differences between the cameras image quality are due to noise processing, if you just worked with the RAWs, would those differences go away?
 
painterdude said:
painterdude wrote:

welp I am only asking about IQ just now. I think the HS50 shares its sensor with F770 . which shows a similar look . Here's one of my shots with my F770. Just as nasty and at a lower ISO -100! The color here is way messed up and the image is less than sharp..

2face2e248ee42a6914bd611d9c5d66b.jpg

BTW..I do not consider myself a good photographer ..nor a good painter. As Someone rather important once said ..there is no one good but ..God.

all the best

g

--
http://skylightvistas.weebly.com/index.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/69422935@N00/
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. I troubbled with the HS50 settings for a long time. I almost gave up on the camera. I thought they were about the same as the settings for the HS20 and HS30. They are not. When I adjusted the settings I was convinced the HS50 is the best HS camera so far.
btw I do not like the RAW setting with the heavily PP, it is inferior to JPG imo.

Peter
 
painterdude said:
painterdude wrote:

The hope has been that Fuji would continue to up the IQ with its cams..I think everyone was waiting for something spectacular as a follow on to the S100fs ..but alas we got a step down to the S200EXR..a camera that looked like a cheap re tool of the S100fs.

The great cams seem to pop out of the blue for no apparent reason ..fizzle in sales and are discontinued with no heirs.The R1 in Sony was a good example of that.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1

I am not holding my breath hoping that Fuji will up its game in what follows the X-S1 or the HS series.Things are getting rough out there for p&s sales and it will be interesting to see where that pushes manufactures with bridge cams ..besides out of business!
Click to expand...
 
alexisgreat said:
Adam, if a lot of the differences between the cameras image quality are due to noise processing, if you just worked with the RAWs, would those differences go away?
Click to expand...
Yes but EXR RAWs are so horrible to deal with , and the 1/2" EXR sensors so noisy that RAW is painful to use ........

what makes the HS30 a big deal over the 20 isn`t the image processing - its the vast improvement in viewfinder including Finder lag when focussing and that they got the useless sensor shift-stabilizer to at be of SOME benefit at full zoom (its still a way behind proper lens IS but at least now it does something past a 70mm FOV)
 
interesting Alex..looks like a win for the HS30 in my books if you throw in the lower price!

all the best

g
 
Adam-T said:
AdamT wrote:
Adam-T said:
Adam, if a lot of the differences between the cameras image quality are due to noise processing, if you just worked with the RAWs, would those differences go away?
Click to expand...
Yes but EXR RAWs are so horrible to deal with , and the 1/2" EXR sensors so noisy that RAW is painful to use ........

what makes the HS30 a big deal over the 20 isn`t the image processing - its the vast improvement in viewfinder including Finder lag when focussing and that they got the useless sensor shift-stabilizer to at be of SOME benefit at full zoom (its still a way behind proper lens IS but at least now it does something past a 70mm FOV)
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that's simply not true. It may have been true if early HS20's had poor stabilization or if all of the ones you used had defective stabilization. I bought one of the last HS20's still available new instead of an HS30 so Fuji may have improved its stabilization or not. But I've found that zoomed all the way in to 720mm it's stabilization while not great is decent. Photos shot at ISO 100 look worse when stabilization is off, but become roughly equal to the stabilized ISO 100 shots when the ISO of the unstabilized shots is raised to almost ISO 800. If I could play with the exposure settings and take enough shots, I think that it would probably be equivalent to about ISO 600. To me, doing this well at 720mm FOV is doing something way past 70mm FOV.
 
Hey I like the way you measure IS in terms of ISO haha that never occurred to me, I just use the 1/focal length ratio rule lol. Anyway at full wide, I get very good 1/10 sec shots and at full zoom, 1/60 to 1/80 seems to be fine......... so I'd say I get about 3 stops of IS at full zoom? When did you buy yours? Serial starts with 1C?

--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com
 
Last edited:
alexisgreat said:
alexisgreat wrote:

Hey I like the way you measure IS in terms of ISO haha that never occurred to me, I just use the 1/focal length ratio rule lol. Anyway at full wide, I get very good 1/10 sec shots and at full zoom, 1/60 to 1/80 seems to be fine......... so I'd say I get about 3 stops of IS at full zoom? When did you buy yours? Serial starts with 1C?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's about what figured, about 3 stops, maybe a little less. As I said, it was one of the last in the pipeline. I don't recall the exact date that I bought it but I think that the HS30 had been selling for at least a month or two. My S.N. starts with 1DA05, whatever that means.

Did you see the thread about the difference between the HS30 and the HS35? I thought that the HS35 was like the HS25, no RAW and AA powered. Turns out that it's virtually the same as the older HS30 (shoots RAW, uses Li-Ion batteries) but it can be bought for a lot less from Amazon, $275 vs $371. I probably should get one before it gets discontinued or the price goes up.
 
If you get the HS35 can you do me a favor and compare how it does in IR vs the HS20? It would be an interesting test as HS series cameras seem to do well in IR.
 
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