Which camera is best for me: F100 or S2 Pro?

Well, my N80 died! I need a replacement. I have been considering the Nikon F100 and the Fuji S2 Pro. I like the instant result of a digital camera, but am concerned about image quality, CCD dynamic range vs. flide film (Provia 100F), resolution & print size, hidden costs of software + hardware to fully realize the digital camera's potential. The ability to change ISO on the fly is also attractive. The lack for the cost of film and processing is nice on a student's budget. Since I do a lot of macro-photography, the issue of the S2 mirror vibration inducing at 1/4-1/60 sec is a real concern (I obtained this information from Thom Hogan's review of the S2 Pro).

I like the F100 for its build quality, flash sync speed for macro photography, reputation, lens compatibility (can use AIS lenses with limited metering; I have the 105 f/2.5 AIS). I also like slide for its ease of storage, relatively quick editing on a light table (I can take a look at 36 slides all at once on a 18x24 PortaTrace). The drawback is the time it takes to scan slides. Scanning is a second generation image as compared to the first-generation digital image.

My subjects range from landscape to people, and everything in between. I also do a lot of macro photography. At the moment, I am dabbling in portrait.

My largest print up to date, from an epson 1280 using epson inks, is 11x14 with Matt HeavyWeight Paper made by Epson. I have not tried 13x19, but will in the future if I feel compelled enough. 11x14 is pretty big for me already!

On the other hand, should I wait for PMA 2004 to see if Fuji will annouce an "S3"? I do realize that if one waits for the next better DSLR, one might never own a DSLR.

My current lenses are: 17-35 AFS, 28-70 Tokina ATX, 80-200 AFD, 105 Micro Nikkor, 105 f2.5 AIS.

Others things: SB28, WhiteLightning Studio strobes

I need some insight into which camera is better for me at this point. Any thought?

Thank you very much,

-Nghi

You're really talking about film versus digi here. Yes there are further costs with the S2 if you wish to use it properly, as any DSLR would incur. Because of the dynamic range I find that I have to filter for highlights, I use a set of Lee nd grads, expensive, but top class. However, if you shot a lot of slide then you have to be careful with your exposures anyway.

With regards to the mirror non lock-up. Yes, disappointing, but I do a lot of landscapes using a tripod and up to 4 seconds exposure time and the images are pin sharp. Take a look at my gallery and all the exif is there, especially on 'Local area'
The colours and contrast on the S2 are really first class.

The main thing about digi is the freedom that it gives you. Would you go out and shoot up to a 100 frames in a session on slide, doubt it. With digi you can, won't cost any more, and the rubbish is thrown in the trash can.

Finally, overall image quality. I used to use 645 and 6x7 medium format. Believe me when I say that the S2 is as good as, if not better than a 645 neg.

--
gibbsy
http://www.pbase.com/gibbsy

Everybody has different needs. I have a S2 and F100.The F100 has not seen the light of day since I got the S2. If there is a large camera store near you try renting an S2 body over the wekend and see what you think.

You would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to film. I just keep the body for a back-up.

Regards,

bp

As far as image quality goes I would take the S2, if used correctly its a very capable camera. You will need to shoot RAW, and it takes a bit of practice to get the best results, but once your there you will never go back to 35mm transparency. In terms of marketing work, all the 35mm standard stuff is required in digital, so originating in digital is a logical step.

However many markets still require more, if you want to maximise sales in these markets then look at 6x7 or possibly true panoramic medium format (as its in vogue at the moment).
I don't envy you your decision, buying into new technology is always difficult.

Good Luck

Simon

Dear N. H.,

Posting that question here is like walking into a mosque and asking which book the folks prefer, the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
Dan M.

I have and used (yes, used) a F100. I really like the camera, a couple of more features less than the F5, but half the cost.

I got the S2 a year ago, and found I had to work alot to learn the camera. The S2 compared to the f100 is disappointing at first. The focus system is no where near as good as the f100. It's harder or takes more work and effort to get a nice sharp image out of the s2 at first. After you learn how to get the camera to perform, it is outstanding.

Bottom line, in my case, I was a little disappointed going to the S2. I stuck it out, and learned to work with it. After I was happy, I started comparing past film work with the F100 to the present images of the S2. Up to 8x10 the film and digital seem about the same in quality, with film being costly, but a lot less work. Above 8x10, the digital stays high quality, and the film grain starts to be a problem.

I now rarely use my F100. The S2 has allowed my to shoot thousands of more images and no cost, and has helped develope better skills with all that practice, that I could not have afforded to get with film.

Even if you use the f100, but want to always have your images in the computer, and use your printer, you will still have an equaly difficult time with a digital workflow. So it makes more sense to start out digital with the s2.

I'm not trying to compare film to digital here, but comparing the f100 to the s2 is not easy. If they were both a film camera or both a digital camera, the choice would be easy, the f100 is twice the camera the s2 is. So because they are both a different media, your forced to compare film to digital as well in the decision.
Hope my experience is helpful, good luck, either choice is a good one!!

The S2 requires excellent lens's, patients with the focus system, and dead on exposer to get great images,

The F100 with pro film takes great pictures all the time easily with little effort.
Again, I rarely use the f100 anymore, and love my S2 choice.
-Benny Davenport

Nghi H. said:

Well, my N80 died! I need a replacement. I have been considering
the Nikon F100 and the Fuji S2 Pro. I like the instant result of a
digital camera, but am concerned about image quality, CCD dynamic
range vs. flide film (Provia 100F), resolution & print size, hidden
costs of software + hardware to fully realize the digital camera's
potential. The ability to change ISO on the fly is also attractive.
The lack for the cost of film and processing is nice on a student's
budget. Since I do a lot of macro-photography, the issue of the S2
mirror vibration inducing at 1/4-1/60 sec is a real concern (I
obtained this information from Thom Hogan's review of the S2 Pro).

I like the F100 for its build quality, flash sync speed for macro
photography, reputation, lens compatibility (can use AIS lenses
with limited metering; I have the 105 f/2.5 AIS). I also like slide
for its ease of storage, relatively quick editing on a light table
(I can take a look at 36 slides all at once on a 18x24 PortaTrace).
The drawback is the time it takes to scan slides. Scanning is a
second generation image as compared to the first-generation digital
image.

My subjects range from landscape to people, and everything in
between. I also do a lot of macro photography. At the moment, I am
dabbling in portrait.

My largest print up to date, from an epson 1280 using epson inks,
is 11x14 with Matt HeavyWeight Paper made by Epson. I have not
tried 13x19, but will in the future if I feel compelled enough.
11x14 is pretty big for me already!

On the other hand, should I wait for PMA 2004 to see if Fuji will
annouce an "S3"? I do realize that if one waits for the next
better DSLR, one might never own a DSLR.

My current lenses are: 17-35 AFS, 28-70 Tokina ATX, 80-200 AFD,
105 Micro Nikkor, 105 f2.5 AIS.

Others things: SB28, WhiteLightning Studio strobes

I need some insight into which camera is better for me at this
point. Any thought?

Thank you very much,

-Nghi

Click to expand...

Hi,

I have an S2, Bronica ETRSi (on ebay), F100(sold) & F80. The F80 stays as a backup just in case.

The F100 is very good, but it's film and therefore I'm not using it. Digital quality is up to th Job.
Alex

Benny Davenport said:

Nghi H. said:

Well, my N80 died! I need a replacement. I have been considering
the Nikon F100 and the Fuji S2 Pro. I like the instant result of a
digital camera, but am concerned about image quality, CCD dynamic
range vs. flide film (Provia 100F), resolution & print size, hidden
costs of software + hardware to fully realize the digital camera's
potential. The ability to change ISO on the fly is also attractive.
The lack for the cost of film and processing is nice on a student's
budget. Since I do a lot of macro-photography, the issue of the S2
mirror vibration inducing at 1/4-1/60 sec is a real concern (I
obtained this information from Thom Hogan's review of the S2 Pro).

I like the F100 for its build quality, flash sync speed for macro
photography, reputation, lens compatibility (can use AIS lenses
with limited metering; I have the 105 f/2.5 AIS). I also like slide
for its ease of storage, relatively quick editing on a light table
(I can take a look at 36 slides all at once on a 18x24 PortaTrace).
The drawback is the time it takes to scan slides. Scanning is a
second generation image as compared to the first-generation digital
image.

My subjects range from landscape to people, and everything in
between. I also do a lot of macro photography. At the moment, I am
dabbling in portrait.

My largest print up to date, from an epson 1280 using epson inks,
is 11x14 with Matt HeavyWeight Paper made by Epson. I have not
tried 13x19, but will in the future if I feel compelled enough.
11x14 is pretty big for me already!

On the other hand, should I wait for PMA 2004 to see if Fuji will
annouce an "S3"? I do realize that if one waits for the next
better DSLR, one might never own a DSLR.

My current lenses are: 17-35 AFS, 28-70 Tokina ATX, 80-200 AFD,
105 Micro Nikkor, 105 f2.5 AIS.

Others things: SB28, WhiteLightning Studio strobes

I need some insight into which camera is better for me at this
point. Any thought?

Thank you very much,

-Nghi

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Benny;

sound posting!

Benny Davenport said:

So because they are both a different media, your
forced to compare film to digital as well in the decision.

Click to expand...

With a little distance one should be able to argue that "stills" are "stills", independent of the medium. But also I do experiece the differences in workflow and in my use of the camera in such a way that I never toughed my nilkon slr again even though I only have a P&S digital... Just a few weeks ago I had to shoot a large group and did not dare to use my s45... so the F90x was quiqly found... Yes even the f90x is a far far FAR better camera then my canon P&S, I loved the feel of the glass clicking on the body.. I knew I could trust my "baby" that it would bring the desired results with harldy more efford then pressing the button and bring the film to the local drugstore to get developed... But digital brings in so much more that even the disadvantages of digital (e.g. much more work!) and the advantages of the more potent camera system can not prevent me form taking many digital photo's and no film based... I long for the days that I can combine/afford the best of two worlds: digital and SLR

--
my canon s45 portfolio can be seen at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwmars at
my 'recent archives' there. Reactions appreciated.

As an ex 6x7 user (with a whole filing cabinet full of chromes) I can say that the S2 rivals the images WHEN used in 12 meg raw format. As for exposure being right on as one person suggested.this really is NOT necessary as raw files can be adjusted when they are converted (-1 to +3) AND in 1/6 stop steps!!!!!!

Digital photography has a serious learning curve IF you expect to produce pro results. As an example see "10 stop range". This is an example of why digital CAN be superior. 90% of working pros have either gone to digital or areseriously considering it.

As for camera choice, the Nikon D-100 will work great. However, IF you need or desire the maximum in resolution, color, and lack of noise, the S2 is a better choice. Any camera without mirror lock up has the potential to produce SOME vibration at the 1/4 to 1/15 range. Longer exposures or shorter exposures are just fine. Funny thing, with my S2 mounted on a solid heavy tripod I can't see any vibration at 1/8 using my Nikon 17-35 set at 35. Of course there is always the old trick of laying something heavy on the camera. By the way, this is not to say it isn't there! Simply that I can't find what Thom found. And yeah, I sure had it on my Pentax 6x7 when I didn't use mirror lock. One heavy mirror!!!!!

Of course you will need a fast computer with a firewire card for the S2. And of course Photoshop (some version) will become a must.

Jan Willem Mars said:

sound posting!

Benny Davenport said:

So because they are both a different media, your
forced to compare film to digital as well in the decision.

Click to expand...

With a little distance one should be able to argue that "stills"
are "stills", independent of the medium. But also I do experiece
the differences in workflow and in my use of the camera in such a
way that I never toughed my nilkon slr again even though I only
have a P&S digital... Just a few weeks ago I had to shoot a large
group and did not dare to use my s45... so the F90x was quiqly
found... Yes even the f90x is a far far FAR better camera then my
canon P&S, I loved the feel of the glass clicking on the body.. I
knew I could trust my "baby" that it would bring the desired
results with harldy more efford then pressing the button and bring
the film to the local drugstore to get developed... But digital
brings in so much more that even the disadvantages of digital (e.g.
much more work!) and the advantages of the more potent camera
system can not prevent me form taking many digital photo's and no
film based... I long for the days that I can combine/afford the
best of two worlds: digital and SLR

--
my canon s45 portfolio can be seen at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwmars at
my 'recent archives' there. Reactions appreciated.

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Remember... All Digital Cameras will won't hold good value $$$.

If, you choice Nikon F100. How much will you spend money on Film rolls, drive to photo store to drop off and pick up, etc... You got poor or bad pictures.. You lost $$$

That's rough choice...

Thank you very much everyone. You have been very helpful and kind with your suggestions and opinions.

The main reasons that push me toward digital photography is the freedom to shoot, experiment and get immediate feedback. Other reasons include the lack of cost associated with taking photographs. As a student, cost is a concern for me. I can not really shoot ten rolls of Provia 100F without thinking and minding the amount of money involved in buying the rolls and processing them at a professional lab. It is frustrating sometimes.

Looking at Steve's website and his recent posts push me even further toward obtaining a Fuji S2 Pro. My concerns of image quality and dynamic range of the supper CCD in comparison to Provia 100F are answered. If I could get a dynamic range of 10+ from using RAW with the S2 Pro, I would be happy.

From what I have been reading, 11x14 prints from the S2 Pro should produce excellent results. I rarely go above 11x14 with 35mm. Anything I print bigger than the 11x14 size comes from 6x7 chromes or negatives (Mamiya RZ ProII).

I am no longer worry about the mirror vibration problem because it seems that proper technique plays a big role with this issue. I have a sturdy and heavy tripod from Bogen. I always shoot with a cable release and am very patient when out in the field. Besides, technique can always be improved! It is part of the fun!

I considered and discarded the idea of buying a D100 because of the fact that I would need to invest in a new flash system. With the S2 Pro, I can used my existing SB28 and studio strobes (PC terminal on S2 Pro!).

From what I have read elsewhere and here, the S2 Pro image quality is better than the D100. My reason for asking my question in the first place was image quality. Naturally, S2 Pro is the answer between those two camera. Of course there is the Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n, but I can not afford them. I am still a student, just one with an expensive hobby!

My digital darkroom is adequate. I have a home-brew PC that I built myself. It was built for graphic applications. At the time, a PIII750 and 1G of SDRAM was fast! It sports a Matrox G400 Max video card, driving a Sony 19' DPDG400 flat screen. It is calibrated with Eye-One Display colorimeter. I can always upgrade the computer when I see a need and have the fund. I am also familiar with Photoshop. In fact, I have used it since version 5.5 and know a bit here and there.

Benny mentioned excellent lenses are needed for the S2 Pro. I think I have some of the best glasses Nikon ever made. I am not sure if the Tokina I own is good for the S2 Pro, but I will just have to used it and see.

Regarding the equipment holding its value, I am not too concerned with that. I don't buy my photographic gear and think of it as investment. They are tools for me to express my creativity (or lack of it) and to have fun. I use photography also as an escape from my academic life, which could be too consumable sometimes. However, I think that when all is said and done, digital photography will have saved me a fortune in film and processing cost.

So I am now looking at an Fuji S2 Pro and an IBM 1G microdrive from B&H. I think the one BH sells comes with the EX RAW converter. Right?

If there is another place with cheaper price, but with the same reliability as B&H/Adorama, would someone please point it out to me?

Please feel free to add to my topic as I am always wanting to hear more about what you have to say. I have yet to order the S2 Pro.

Again, thank you.

-Nghi