What Did U Shoot/PP This Week > Today - 3/5

Started Feb 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,782
Re: Photoreddi ...

Lloydy wrote:



And many cameras that have less than perfect lenses also try to "fix the issue" in camera. But as you should know (at least I hope so), fixing the issue is done at a cost to image quality and detail, both of which are reduced when the PF is in effect, painted over. At least you're finally admitting reality. You once denied the S100fs's purple fringing, even going as far as trashing DPReview and their S100fs review because of their characterization of its massive purple fringing that was literally "off the charts".


Anyhows, I won't post more after this but if you bother to check my posting history you will know that my very first post on FTF was about the PF on the S100 fs and how to fix it. That was based on my experience of the Sony F828.


I would encourage you, or anyone else, to do so. Then I will gladly accept your apology.

No, your first three replies in this forum were posted in April, 2008 and are what are known in these parts as "attaboys". Your next post was made about a week later. That's the one where you wrote :

I've been following the S100fs with interest and will most likely buy one. It looks like a perfect camera for what I do.

One of the 'hot' issues seems to be PF/CA issues. This was also a major topic about the Sony 828 (which I own). In most situations, the 828 actually has very little problem and is easily fixed. Mostly I do this manually but that is another story

It's ironic that you so often harshly criticize others that comment on cameras that they don't own, yet that's exactly what you do. And just a couple of posts later on the same day that you bought the S100fs you did exactly that. Great timing!

Agree with all that you say and having just bought one have added some comments below. It's always amusing how the 'naysayers' don't actually ever own the cameras they deride


You also wrote :

Anyhows, I won't post more after this but if you bother to check my posting history you will know that my very first post on FTF was about the PF on the S100 fs and how to fix it.

If history is any guide you will "post more after this". Also, on that same day in the same thread :

Lloydy wrote:

Agree with all that you say and having just bought one have added
some comments below. It's always amusing how the 'naysayers' don't
actually ever own the cameras they deride :

Kim Letkeman wrote:

It is equally amusing how the hyper-sensitive consider that fact to be relevant.

Lloydy wrote:

What ...

In reply to Kim Letkeman, May 5, 2008

... A pathetic comment.

Fancy that.


Also, I criticised the DPR review with regard to the comments made about the EVF. Nothing to do with PF.

As I mentioned, at the time, the comments were less than what one would expect from a professional reviewer.

I remember it otherwise and while your memory may recall it more accurately, based on the above, I think not. Searching would probably take too long to verify what we both recall so I won't do it now but might in the future. In any case I do recall some of what you're claiming (about "a professional reviewer") but I'm pretty sure that you also harshly criticized what the review said about the S100fs's PF.

I also disagree with your assertion that the PF/CA is as easy to effectively remove as you think. These two quotes are also from the wayback machine, June 5 and 6, 2008 to be specific, by someone that really knows what he's talking about :

BobORama wrote:

The s100fs is a dog when it comes to CA. Sadly, it seems really great in every other respect. My hope is that Fuji will reissue it will better optics. Perhaps a more reasonable 10x with teleconverter so they can eliminate the compromises in the current optical system. Had they done this... people would have bought the S100 for IQ and paid more for the teleconverter if they really needed to see the phases of Venus or the warts on on a gnats....

Its a great camera / sensor crippled by Fuji not spending an extra $55 on lower

dispersion glass or additional AD correctors. Not a lot of money would have resulted in getting the CA from "hideous" to "tolerable." Sad, really. I'd already own one if it were not for the CA. But after testing on at the local camera hut, It took about 5 minutes to simply detest the optics in this camera.

For the Fuji Apologists Patrol:

Look, I like Fuji stuff as mucha s the next guy, but there are limits to what I will believe and say to be brand loyal.

Its not correct to believe that CA is "present only in certain" shots: I can assure you that every shot you take with the S100 has the same ( unacceptable ) levels of CA for given zoom and aperture - when I hear people say "this shot has CA and this one does not" they are wrong - they ALL do, it's just that your composition conceals it.

Its also not correct to believe that CA is, as one person put it, "easily corrected in PP" so why worry about it. The levels of CA in the S100 are on the boundaries of what can be concealed by commercial software. And do you really want to have to PP every blessed picture you take? The CA was visible in 4x6 prints made at the photo hut when I was testing it. The same shot from my F45 looked - hate to say it - much better, outside that inner 25%.

My pickyness aside, for me with what I use cameras for CA means having to correct 10000 shots, not just the odd 5 or 10. Don't underestimate the importance of initial quality - you can never reclaim what is already lost.



BobORama wrote:

GirinoFumetto wrote:

In fact the only possible correction of this kind of CA (Ca of S100FS
is surely of this type) consist in resizing two of the three

You know, I had to laugh... the one poster, dismissing the issue of IQ, made reference to the fact that a good photographer could be given a pinhole camera and make a great shot. I agree! The pinhole camera is the only camera that cannot suffer from chromatic aberration. Perhaps this is why.

I've written TCA reduction code for astronomical usage with spectrophotometer arrays attached to Ritchey-Chrétien design scopes. Believe me, the ONLY way to correct ( and not mask / conceal ) TCA is use of specially designed deconvolution algorithms which must be specially crafted for the particular optical system.

The image is not merely a stretched well focused image, but rather impacted by coma. The best easily accessible algorithms used radial varying USM to reduce blur and then convolve to bring the different wavelengths into coincidence. But because USM does not really restore the lost image data in the blur region, it just masks the damage done. Oh, and that assumes the focal point IS the center of the picture. If your shot is composed with an off center focal point, the CA may not be corrected by niave algorithms that assume a centered, radially symmetric blur.

Seriously guys, there is no reason for the S100's poor performance in this area. CA this severe is easily avoided by better lens design - not necessarily more expensive, but better designed. I'd bet $50 in additional cost would have resulted in a 70% reduction in the severity of the CA and we'd not be having this conversation.

Like I said, I LOVE the S100 in every other respect, but voting with my money, I'm telling Fuji to get their act together. Its a dismal offering and they need to know that the optics matter.

-- hide signature --




Recommended reading :


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow