Reading mode: Light Dark

California sunset Canon S-100 What do YOU think?

Go to last post
Erik Ohlson

Erik Ohlson

Forum Pro
Messages
22,062
Solutions
6
Reaction score
1,948
Location
Coastal California, CA, US
I was using my daughter's Canon S-100, experimentally, "just for grins" and just had to pull off the road for this sunset.

I love the rolling ("laughing") California hills with the silhouetted evergreen oaks:

5e3df0ec9f9e4dd19637695fbfab64f2.jpg


This is a crop from the full-size image. Interestingly, I had zoomed to about this size and taken a shot hoping to get the trees sharper, but with the Canon s-100 the zoomed shot didn't appear any sharper than this crop.

I wishe (as usual) that I had had my ZS25 with me instead of the Canon.

Here's another version with added contrast and a different crop.

218f35852a094ff190fb94fc3983d066.jpg








--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
Nice, Erik. Your Panny gear would be up to the task too.
 
Beautiful, Erik! I especially like the second one where the shapes of the trees are echoed in the area of dark clouds above.

Ian

--
Ianperegian
http://www.ianperegian.com/
 
Last edited:
Fine set, Erik.. second version is also my favorite, love the smooth contours of hilly countryside being contrasted by dynamically orientated early evening sky - impressive capture, thank you for sharing.

All my best, ;)
 
Good one Erik. I like the second one best because it shows less of the black foreground. Rolling hills dotted with oaks says California better than anything.

Jack
 
Thanks for your comments, all!

I prefer the second, also for the reasons some have stated: less black at the bottom (I cloned out 3 lights in both versions) - I prefer the vertical "rule of thirds".

But I was curious if others also preferred the 30% contrast increase in the sky - I did.

I wish I'd had the ZS25 - I really think the trees would have been sharper at moderate zoom than the Canon got even with it's larger 1.7 sensor. I usually prefer to crop with the ZS** camera's zoom rather than in PP.









--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
You might get to like that S100; you could downsize your ZS25 pocket-carry from a sandwich bag to a mere cookie bag. :-)

Both are attractive views, with different moods. My preference would be for more bottom-crop of #1, closer to the buildings but not eliminating them.

The presence of buildings in the picture has two benefits: 1. It gives the viewer an idea of time-frame in relation to progression of twilight, and 2. Habitations are a natural nudge to a viewer's vicarious entry to the scene.
 
Zindanfel said:
You might get to like that S100; you could downsize your ZS25 pocket-carry from a sandwich bag to a mere cookie bag. :-)

Both are attractive views, with different moods. My preference would be for more bottom-crop of #1, closer to the buildings but not eliminating them.

The presence of buildings in the picture has two benefits: 1. It gives the viewer an idea of time-frame in relation to progression of twilight, and 2. Habitations are a natural nudge to a viewer's vicarious entry to the scene.

--
Zin
Click to expand...
Hi, Zin,

I bought an LX7 and a Canon s-100 to check them out for myself & neither were any better than my (then ZS19, or (now) ZS25, and I found the LX7 too large for my use. But I keep wishing that the Canon which is a bit smaller than the ZS25 (but only in length, so it's not effectivly much smaller) could work out, but no, these other cameras slightly larger sensors and brighter lenses notwithstanding are no match for the ZS19 or 25 for my use. I do use the zoom, which neither of the others can touch - & same goes for LF1 which has not impressed me with the pictures I have seen from it on this forum.You must have Owl eyes - I am not aware of any buildings in this scene, although there are a couple of houses off to the right of this, when seen in daylight; however, I do disagree about their possible usefulness, and would clone them out if I saw them. IMHO, ordinary buildings have no place in such a photo.I'll check when I drive home this evening, and now that you have me curious, I'll check the original when I get back to my own computer.Of such stuff are horseraces made! :-D

For some reason this laptop I'm using as I babysit insists on putting everything in italics and I can't get it to stop - nothing "meant" by the italics.







--

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
Erik Ohlson said:
Zindanfel said:
You might get to like that S100; you could downsize your ZS25 pocket-carry from a sandwich bag to a mere cookie bag. :-)

Both are attractive views, with different moods. My preference would be for more bottom-crop of #1, closer to the buildings but not eliminating them.

The presence of buildings in the picture has two benefits: 1. It gives the viewer an idea of time-frame in relation to progression of twilight, and 2. Habitations are a natural nudge to a viewer's vicarious entry to the scene.

--
Zin
Click to expand...
Hi, Zin,

I bought an LX7 and a Canon s-100 to check them out for myself & neither were any better than my (then ZS19, or (now) ZS25, and I found the LX7 too large for my use. But I keep wishing that the Canon which is a bit smaller than the ZS25 (but only in length, so it's not effectivly much smaller) could work out, but no, these other cameras slightly larger sensors and brighter lenses notwithstanding are no match for the ZS19 or 25 for my use. I do use the zoom, which neither of the others can touch - & same goes for LF1 which has not impressed me with the pictures I have seen from it on this forum.You must have Owl eyes - I am not aware of any buildings in this scene, although there are a couple of houses off to the right of this, when seen in daylight; however, I do disagree about their possible usefulness, and would clone them out if I saw them. IMHO, ordinary buildings have no place in such a photo.I'll check when I drive home this evening, and now that you have me curious, I'll check the original when I get back to my own computer.Of such stuff are horseraces made! :-D

For some reason this laptop I'm using as I babysit insists on putting everything in italics and I can't get it to stop - nothing "meant" by the italics.



--

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
Click to expand...
Yes, the "right" camera for a person just has to fit his/her needs and shooting style. I rarely need zoom beyond 120, but it's nice to bring the ZS15 along in my car and/or small shoulder bag for contingencies.

In your #1 picture I see a good-sized outbuilding on the right side, and some trucks. On the left, there are some winky lights that might be houses. Maybe the brightness on your monitor is on a low setting?

I get to babysit too. Lots of fun, though this week it's not grandkids, only a cat. I've been trying to get a decent shot of him, but he's charcoal color, so it's an exercise. :-)

--
Zin
 
Zindanfel said:
Erik Ohlson said:
Zindanfel said:
You might get to like that S100; you could downsize your ZS25 pocket-carry from a sandwich bag to a mere cookie bag. :-)

Both are attractive views, with different moods. My preference would be for more bottom-crop of #1, closer to the buildings but not eliminating them.

The presence of buildings in the picture has two benefits: 1. It gives the viewer an idea of time-frame in relation to progression of twilight, and 2. Habitations are a natural nudge to a viewer's vicarious entry to the scene.

--
Zin
Click to expand...
Hi, Zin,

I bought an LX7 and a Canon s-100 to check them out for myself & neither were any better than my (then ZS19, or (now) ZS25, and I found the LX7 too large for my use. But I keep wishing that the Canon which is a bit smaller than the ZS25 (but only in length, so it's not effectivly much smaller) could work out, but no, these other cameras slightly larger sensors and brighter lenses notwithstanding are no match for the ZS19 or 25 for my use. I do use the zoom, which neither of the others can touch - & same goes for LF1 which has not impressed me with the pictures I have seen from it on this forum.You must have Owl eyes - I am not aware of any buildings in this scene, although there are a couple of houses off to the right of this, when seen in daylight; however, I do disagree about their possible usefulness, and would clone them out if I saw them. IMHO, ordinary buildings have no place in such a photo.I'll check when I drive home this evening, and now that you have me curious, I'll check the original when I get back to my own computer.Of such stuff are horseraces made! :-D

For some reason this laptop I'm using as I babysit insists on putting everything in italics and I can't get it to stop - nothing "meant" by the italics.



--

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
Click to expand...
Yes, the "right" camera for a person just has to fit his/her needs and shooting style. I rarely need zoom beyond 120, but it's nice to bring the ZS15 along in my car and/or small shoulder bag for contingencies.

In your #1 picture I see a good-sized outbuilding on the right side, and some trucks. On the left, there are some winky lights that might be houses. Maybe the brightness on your monitor is on a low setting?

I get to babysit too. Lots of fun, though this week it's not grandkids, only a cat. I've been trying to get a decent shot of him, but he's charcoal color, so it's an exercise. :-)

--
Zin
Click to expand...
Sure enough - a house on the right :-)

Not that I meant it to show - just an ordinary country house: I'll make that full black on the picture if I decide to keep it.

Scene with dark area lightened 100%, ruins the effect, IMHO, sorry:

f6ebc4de51fc4b2784af55666a032cb0.jpg


My monitor is - unfortunately - at "full Brightness" but is also a number of years old - I have been afraid I'll need a new monitor, inconvenient because it's an iMac with everything built into the monitor.

Unless someone knows a way to rejuvinate an old screen!







--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
Beautiful captures, Erik.
 
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