The Superzoom which actually DOES it

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Well really I had a very careful look at the samples and I am feeling very lucky that I still have the Fuji S100fs instead if a super zoom lens for m43.

You honestly believe that a P&S with a 2/3" sensor and a 14.3x zoom (from 2008) is going to compete with an MFT with a modern 10x zoom.

I guarantee you the 14-140 will obliterate your Fuji toy. But, if you really feel strongly about it, let's see some samples from your Fuji at 10x zoom.

You have just remind me the days that I used to play little more with the Fuji S100fs TOY....

These are nice pics, but you missed the point. Look at these samples here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54348192

Look at them at 100%. It's pretty rare that you see this kind of detail at 100% zoom from a 10x zoom. In fact, it's almost unheard of. The intent of the OP was not to provide artistic pics, but to show the pure detail this lens can provide. I think that's why we're talking past each other.

Your pics are nice, but you haven't provided me with full-sized pics, nor the focal lengths necessary to judge how far into the zoom range you are. Almost all lenses can do well at the wide angle. It's when you get to the telephoto end that things tend to fall apart. It was simply my contention that your camera would come nowhere near the detail that the 14-140 lens could provide at 100% at 280mm eq.

People get into all sorts of nitpicky things about lenses, but, ultimately, it comes down to optical quality, and this lens provides it at an almost unprecedented level throughout it's 10x zoom range.

Well I didn't post these pictures in order to demonstrate any artistic characteristics of them if there any.... I post them in order to proof that all the super zoom's pics of m43 that I have seen to date have not impress me at all.

I don't understand what you're saying. What specifically doesn't impress you? As you've noted yourself, composition and PP a shot are two very important factors, and neither of these were done in this thread with the 14-140 II. All that was done was take some random OOC shots to demonstrate the pixel level detail of the lens. Most of that doesn't "impress you at all" has to do with the body's processing, not the lens itself.

You're trying to compare your finished, PP'd shots against some random shots the OP took with no composition in mind and no PP. It doesn't really make sense, and you seem to be missing the point of the thread.

All I really wanted was for you to demonstrate the quality of your lens at 280mm eq. Just take an OOC jpeg at 10x zoom of something with a lot of detail. It doesn't require PP or any work at all.

Firstly you commented on my initial post the S100fs as a toy camera of 2008, secondly as I was expecting, you demand full size pictures in order to pixel pip... SO I have to post some... although I have my own thoughts in this... given that all my pictures are developed RAW files I have the habit to develop them with mild sharpening because my own theory is that the sharpening of a picture never finish even if you think that you have done all the pp... sharpening is something that is applied to a specific size of a picture for monitor viewing or paper printing so... it is something very relative to the size... also is very relative to personal tastes and again I don't prefer the ultra sharp images... that are reflecting the photographer's mania for sharpness... Lastly I believe that a full size 11mpxel picture has to bee on a wall and human to be see it from a sufficient distance, that's why I use to post usually web sized pictures of 800X600 pixels...

Anyway I'll post some with both wide angle and telephoto shots in order to study the quality of this lens... The differences that you'll find are only based in 11 mpixels vs 16 , speaking for any other have in mind how a FF will be compared with a m43 in full scale pp...

First of all, I don't have focal lengths on these shots, yet again. How am I to know at what zoom level you shot them? Second, I don't think the only difference is going to be the 11 MP vs. 16 MP. There isn't a chance in hell that the lens on that Fuji is in any way going to match up to the 14-140 II. It ain't gonna happen. And all I need is an OOC jpeg at 280mm eq (10x zoom) to prove it.

And, this brings me to my final issue. Why do you believe that this P&S (with a 2/3" sensor) from 2008 is not only better, but so much better than MFT sensors and lenses from 2015. It doesn't make sense to me. The OP has already stated that he has the same Fuji camera and it wasn't within a missile's distance (or something to that effect) of the 14-140 II.

I don't ever recall this Fuji camera being discussed in 2008 as some revolutionary breakthrough in camera design. What makes this camera so special?

-- hide signature --

www.spiridakis.gr