Reading mode: Light Dark

Direct Test Comparison - S2 vs. SLR/n

Go to last post
Wow! Great testing! I appreciate the time you obviously spent putting it all together.

Actually, your testing makes me feel that my S2 is still a great camera and definitely still "a keeper." The ability to do high ISO shots in some ways makes the S2 a more "rounded" camera. I am nevertheless very impressed with the apparent resolution of the SLR/n.

Thanks for putting this test together!

Anthony
Jim Herndon said:
Hi,

I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:

http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm

I hope this helps answer questions you might have about the two
cameras.

Jim Herndon
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jim,

All your S2 shots appear to be out of focus. Its funny because when I look at the S2 shots in some cases I feel there is more detail. Are we really talking a difference in detail here or a difference in focus?

The comparison is also interesting from the perspective of how you went about shooting the pictures. Where you were standing and whether you cropped the images so they would look equal in size?

I think the color differences are subtle though, I am suprised out how close the colors are on the two cameras. The difference is noticable with the S2 looking a little more red but not as dramatic as comparing a Canon with a Fuji.

It would be nice to see this test done with focused images. It would also be cool to see it done in a three way with the 1Ds.

It would also be good to know how the cameras were set when you did the test. Sharpening on or off in camera, ect.

Thanks for sharing the test results. I am still very happy with my proce for performance factor on my S2 and this test convinced me that sticking with my S2 is the right thing to do for now.

--
Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro
Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro
Nikon's 24-120VR & 70-200VR, 80-400VR
Nikon's 20mm F2.8, 50mm 1.8
http://www.radphotos.net
 
Jim,

You have gone and put in quite a lot of effort in these tests

I really appreciate it, I have been tossing up over the Fuji gear or the SLR/n

To be blunt, it still looks like the Fuji has it when it comes to colours, but the Kodak has it in the resolution dept.

cheers,

--
  • Simon, Sydney
Jim Herndon said:
Hi,

I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:

http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm

I hope this helps answer questions you might have about the two
cameras.

Jim Herndon
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mark,

I'd have to argue that the S2 images are in focus. I was very careful on this matter. Please look at the full res JPEGs if you are not happy with my 'detail shots'. You're seeing sharper images from the SLR/n because it's a higher-resolving camera.

Also, I've given full specs on camera settings. Sharpening was set to STD in-camera.

But, I don't blame you for sticking with the S2. I think to justify the cost of the SLR/n, one would have to ask themselves very serious questions as to whether the strengths of the SLR/n will have significant benefits.

Jim Herndon
Mark Abraham said:
Hi Jim,

All your S2 shots appear to be out of focus. Its funny because
when I look at the S2 shots in some cases I feel there is more
detail. Are we really talking a difference in detail here or a
difference in focus?

The comparison is also interesting from the perspective of how you
went about shooting the pictures. Where you were standing and
whether you cropped the images so they would look equal in size?

I think the color differences are subtle though, I am suprised out
how close the colors are on the two cameras. The difference is
noticable with the S2 looking a little more red but not as dramatic
as comparing a Canon with a Fuji.

It would be nice to see this test done with focused images. It
would also be cool to see it done in a three way with the 1Ds.

It would also be good to know how the cameras were set when you did
the test. Sharpening on or off in camera, ect.

Thanks for sharing the test results. I am still very happy with my
proce for performance factor on my S2 and this test convinced me
that sticking with my S2 is the right thing to do for now.

--
Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro
Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro
Nikon's 24-120VR & 70-200VR, 80-400VR
Nikon's 20mm F2.8, 50mm 1.8
http://www.radphotos.net
Click to expand...
 
Jim,

Thanks for that excellent review. Not only did you do a lot of work, with a lot of consideration to the logic needed to keep this an "apples to "apples" comparison, but the web site organization is very pleasant and professionally done.

I am struck by two findings.

1. the Kodak seems to hold up well at higher ISO. 400 looks quite usable. Although I have been hearing that even slight under-exposure results in significant noise.

2. The S2 holds up VERY well in terms of resolution comparison. In fact, I believe that some of the S2 shots suffered from being slightly out of focus. I also feel that the sharpening of these shots was not at all optimal. I shoot just about exclusively in RAW mode and apply FlexSharp very carefully. I think some of the S2 shots in your test would have looked better under optimal post processing.

Of course the SLR/n may look that much better if optimally processed also.

Very good work. Much appreciated.

I think you're going to really enjoy that new camera.

VL
 
Jim,

I see in your review you brought you SLR/n in Dallas

If Im not being too nosey, how much were they there (in $USD) - just a ballpark figure is fine.

I'm tossing up the idea of buying one and getting it sent to Australia (and yes I'm aware of warranty issues too 8^)

many thanks again,

--
  • Simon, Sydney
Jim Herndon said:
Hi,

I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:

http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm

I hope this helps answer questions you might have about the two
cameras.

Jim Herndon
Click to expand...
 
I agee taht their is no HUGE jump in resolution. No one including Canon D1s, or Kodak and I guess Fuji have not shown enough improvements or quality improvements to move to the next generation. That's good and bad. Some want to jump to a new Camera just because it's time, and like me it confirms my convictions on getting the S2. For the S2 to be able to hold it's own aginst all others for so long is in my opinion nothing short of remarkable. Now note I also includes the S3, Fuji has not done 'enough" of a job to cause me to move up. For anyone to move up or over to anther camera will cost a few thousand, more if you need fresh glass, so for me someone has to develop a "must have" camera, and that has not happened YET.
 
Hi Simon,

I bought it from a place called Competitive Cameras. Sorry, I've been asked me not to reveal the price. They can be reached at 214-744-5511; they do a lot of shipping. I'm sure they'd be happy to get you one.

Jim Herndon
Simon said:
I see in your review you brought you SLR/n in Dallas

If Im not being too nosey, how much were they there (in $USD) -
just a ballpark figure is fine.

I'm tossing up the idea of buying one and getting it sent to
Australia (and yes I'm aware of warranty issues too 8^)

many thanks again,

--
  • Simon, Sydney
Jim Herndon said:
Hi,

I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:

http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm

I hope this helps answer questions you might have about the two
cameras.

Jim Herndon
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hey Jim, you know you can remove the color moire seen in your images that you comment on pretty easily with no loss in resolution... see my examples here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=7663398

Regards,
Sean
Jim Herndon said:
Hi,

I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:

http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm

I hope this helps answer questions you might have about the two
cameras.

Jim Herndon
Click to expand...
 
Kendall69 said:
I agee taht their is no HUGE jump in resolution. No one including
Canon D1s, or Kodak and I guess Fuji have not shown enough
improvements or quality improvements to move to the next
generation. ...For the S2 to be able to hold it's own aginst all
others for so long is in my opinion nothing short of remarkable.
Now note I also includes the S3, Fuji has not done 'enough" of a
job to cause me to move up.
Click to expand...
I agree with your comments about the longevity of the S2 & really appreciate the comparison

not a single S3 image has been yet posted ...the magic of Fuji engineering is in the processing of data off their chip ...I cannot believe they would have such a huge incremental leap in RAW file size if there was not a significant increase in resolution as well as dynamic range

while this belief may seem pollyannish (and I am prepared to be disappointed), I think it wise to wait until the S3 is released & we have the ability to fairly judge its capabilities
some folks just may be surprised
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
 
the SLR/n is not convincing ...
I agree with another poster (Think it was Mark)
that your S2 images look sort of out of focus ..
the detail in the high iso shots is not really
significantly better and the 1600 noise reduction
looks artificial and flat .. the dynamic range is a
good point but all in all the S2 images appear
nicer to me .. dont get me wrong .. very good work
you have done but the difference ... I have hoped
for a lot more to save the step to MF Digital ...
the over exposure problem was never a problem fo me
even at weddings .. I just dont do enough to be stressed
and when I do one I have sufficient light (flash or day and fill)
to make sure I get everything I want .. I guess if this was a concern
I would really look at the S3 ... depth of field ? opening up with a pro
lens and an ND2/4 does it for me ... I prefer 1.3 or 1.5
the below 50mm thing is another blow and does not
create any trust in me .. also I dont like the vertical grip
on the Kodak .. it's useless ...
I do hope you get the color cast fixed with a firmware upgrade
and that you can do good weddings with it to justify the expense
It's people like you saving us money and I am greatful for that
Thanks Jim
gmd
 
Jim,

Did you use CS or EX to convert the Fuji images? They indeed look softer than the Fuji is capable of, certainly with the lens you mention.

CS output contains much less detail when compared to EX output..
  • michael
 
Hi Jim,

I downloaded the full images and played with both. I still firmly believe the S2 shot is out of focus.

For fun I sharpened both and the S2 shot held up to sharpening better as the Kodak sharpened image produced some interesting artifacts and the Fuji did not.

After sharpening just the fuji image, which is both fair and unfair depending on how you look at it, the Fuji image clearly show more detail.

I selected the gentlemans head and croped both pictures equally.

I used Kodak GEM (Ironical isn't it) with it set at 12/11/82 on both images and sharpened. I then used focal blade and sharpened again set at medium. The Kodak image broke down just under the guys left eye (physically his right eye) Some verticle lines appeared.

Someone commented about the RAWS, it would be nice to play with the Fuji RAW.

I do not want to minimize the work you did here though because its one of the finest attempts at doing a comparison I have seen in a long time. Its hard to do all that work and then have people try to poke holes in it.

You should know that I am very open to purchasing a new camera even though I love my S2. To do that though, I'll have to see something significant in image quality to lay out the dollars. After working with the Fuji image I will gladly remain a Fuji user for the time being.

For a long time I took many images like the ones you took here where the S2 seemed to produce slightly blurred images. Today I still get that every once in a while when I get in a hurry, not to imply that you were or did not take great care in trying to get the images focused.

In any case, it really would have been great to see this test with nice sharp S2 images since so much detail can be lost when the images isn't sharp. Sharpness makes all the difference in a test like this.

Sharpen up the S2 image and leave the Kodak alone and post the images again, the results would look totally different but again it would be an unfair test the other way around.

IMHO for the test to be valid in measuring resolution one would need to make sure they have the absolute sharpest image the camera's can produce, then take them head to head. I believe a lot of benchmarks are skewed in this aspect since they plunk the camera down and just compare head to head without regard to the fact that CCD's and CMOS sensors behave in differnt ways.

Think about applying this concept in real life photography. It would be like saying that you need know skill to use a camera. It took me a long time to learn the specifics of how to get good photos from my camera. This has been the case with every camera I have ever had.

Well, long winded reply! Great test as I learned many other things from it!

Take care and Thanks again for all the hard work!

--
Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro
Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro
Nikon's 24-120VR & 70-200VR, 80-400VR
Nikon's 20mm F2.8, 50mm 1.8
http://www.radphotos.net
 
Mark, I agree with your points completely ..
Jim, please please dont be discouraged doing this ..
we are not picking on your work .. ok ?? very much appreciated
If you need space on a server ? I have plenty
let me know if this would help ..

regards
gmd
Mark Abraham said:
Hi Jim,

I downloaded the full images and played with both. I still firmly
believe the S2 shot is out of focus.

For fun I sharpened both and the S2 shot held up to sharpening
better as the Kodak sharpened image produced some interesting
artifacts and the Fuji did not.

After sharpening just the fuji image, which is both fair and unfair
depending on how you look at it, the Fuji image clearly show more
detail.

I selected the gentlemans head and croped both pictures equally.

I used Kodak GEM (Ironical isn't it) with it set at 12/11/82 on
both images and sharpened. I then used focal blade and sharpened
again set at medium. The Kodak image broke down just under the
guys left eye (physically his right eye) Some verticle lines
appeared.

Someone commented about the RAWS, it would be nice to play with the
Fuji RAW.

I do not want to minimize the work you did here though because its
one of the finest attempts at doing a comparison I have seen in a
long time. Its hard to do all that work and then have people try
to poke holes in it.

You should know that I am very open to purchasing a new camera even
though I love my S2. To do that though, I'll have to see something
significant in image quality to lay out the dollars. After working
with the Fuji image I will gladly remain a Fuji user for the time
being.

For a long time I took many images like the ones you took here
where the S2 seemed to produce slightly blurred images. Today I
still get that every once in a while when I get in a hurry, not to
imply that you were or did not take great care in trying to get the
images focused.

In any case, it really would have been great to see this test with
nice sharp S2 images since so much detail can be lost when the
images isn't sharp. Sharpness makes all the difference in a test
like this.

Sharpen up the S2 image and leave the Kodak alone and post the
images again, the results would look totally different but again it
would be an unfair test the other way around.

IMHO for the test to be valid in measuring resolution one would
need to make sure they have the absolute sharpest image the
camera's can produce, then take them head to head. I believe a lot
of benchmarks are skewed in this aspect since they plunk the camera
down and just compare head to head without regard to the fact that
CCD's and CMOS sensors behave in differnt ways.

Think about applying this concept in real life photography. It
would be like saying that you need know skill to use a camera. It
took me a long time to learn the specifics of how to get good
photos from my camera. This has been the case with every camera I
have ever had.

Well, long winded reply! Great test as I learned many other things
from it!

Take care and Thanks again for all the hard work!

--
Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro
Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro
Nikon's 24-120VR & 70-200VR, 80-400VR
Nikon's 20mm F2.8, 50mm 1.8
http://www.radphotos.net
Click to expand...
--
People who quote others have nothing to say - GMD

 
G K said:
I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
G K said:
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:
http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim,

First off, a nicely-formatted and presented comparison. Your depth of field comparisons show the subtle,yet real, differences between FF and 1.5x FOV, best seen on the breezeway photos of him in the blue hat. I think I'd rather have seen this comparison a few days later than the second day the camera began selling in limited quanities in the USA....

To those suggesting that the S2 samples seemed quote "out of focus"...I can not agree with that, but I do see what,to me,appears to be vibration of the up and down kind,on a few of the S2 shots. Also, and this is having shot the 70-200 extensively.....your sample photo at http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/temp/dr_f . (extension removed) shows the 70-200 VR in one of its absolute-weakest shooting environments....early or late afternoon backlighting....this shot is a very sub-par example at the file size....the 70-200 is showing some serious deleterious effects due to the backlighting you have here....this is a really,really problematic type of shooting scenario for the 70-200 lens,and the file you have here at this URL is,simply not representative of this lens...the S2 can do much better, as can the 70-200 on front-lighted subjects. This file just isn't very good....but this exact KIND of lighting with the 70-200 causes the resulting files to lose as much as 75% of their total image quality potential in my experience.

The breezeway shots,done in open shade, show the 70-200 lens in a much better-resolving,non-flare prone scenario,and yes, the Kodak does outperform the S2.The looks you got between EX and PhotoDesk are pretty similar....both have good color,very pleasing. Compare the breezeway photos and the backlighted shots for resolution..no comparison.

My biggest issue....is that the test were done with the VR off on the 70-200. I personally think the 70-200 is the S2's great equalizer...the little S2 is very,very prone to mirror slap,vibration,whatever....I think shooting the 70-200 VR on a tripod with VR off is not as good as using the lens hand-held with VR switched to Normal Mode,particularly at 1/90th second.I've shot probably 10,000 frames with the 70-200 VR on the S2. I still think I see vibration,of a basically up-and-down variety, in a few of the S2 shots. We have several people cliaming they are OOF...I don't read those slightly-blurred frames as OOF,but of very slight vibration. I disagree with the two posters suggesting focus...I think it's vibration...very subtle.

But hey....who cares what I think...you have the new Kodak!!!! You are an early adopter!!!

That's gotta be fun, and exciting. I think the DOF and just the distances involved in-studio with the FF chip make the SLR/n a very,very tempting camera.....these halfway-to-China shooting distances with lenses like the 105 and 70-200 on 1.5x FOV....the 28 as 42 issue....it sound like it'd be wonderful to have a FF camera in F-mount. On higher ISO's at the EV levels you tested at...wow...the SLR/n looks really quite,quite decent. Thanks for doing the tests and for sharing them Jim....I think you've got yerself a camera for several years with this puppy! I can see why you would be happy with the SLR/n as your camera & software setup for a while.Can't forget the software,or the ratios, and yes, the downsampled 6MP SLR/n file....I think it looks awesome!

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
 
Hi Derrel,

Me saying it was OOF in fact may be inaccurate. My real point was that these were not great samples of what the S2 can do, nor were they great samples to base a comparison on.

Points on the VR and the S2's love of VR is also true. As you can see i own three VR's now and my S2 does indeed love them. I would say that my images are much sharper using them.

So you take the money you say on the Kodak and you buy all three Vr's and your there right! Just kidding! ;-)

Great feedback as usual!

Mark
Derrel said:
Derrel87035 said:
I've posted a fairly comprehensive test comparison of the Fuji S2
Derrel87035 said:
to the Kodak SLR/n. It can be found at:
http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/comp0.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jim,
First off, a nicely-formatted and presented comparison. Your depth
of field comparisons show the subtle,yet real, differences between
FF and 1.5x FOV, best seen on the breezeway photos of him in the
blue hat. I think I'd rather have seen this comparison a few days
later than the second day the camera began selling in limited
quanities in the USA....

To those suggesting that the S2 samples seemed quote "out of
focus"...I can not agree with that, but I do see what,to me,appears
to be vibration of the up and down kind,on a few of the S2 shots.
Also, and this is having shot the 70-200 extensively.....your
sample photo at http://www.onlocationportraiture.com/temp/dr_f .
(extension removed) shows the 70-200 VR in one of its
absolute-weakest shooting environments....early or late afternoon
backlighting....this shot is a very sub-par example at the file
size....the 70-200 is showing some serious deleterious effects due
to the backlighting you have here....this is a really,really
problematic type of shooting scenario for the 70-200 lens,and the
file you have here at this URL is,simply not representative of this
lens...the S2 can do much better, as can the 70-200 on
front-lighted subjects. This file just isn't very good....but this
exact KIND of lighting with the 70-200 causes the resulting files
to lose as much as 75% of their total image quality potential in my
experience.

The breezeway shots,done in open shade, show the 70-200 lens in a
much better-resolving,non-flare prone scenario,and yes, the Kodak
does outperform the S2.The looks you got between EX and PhotoDesk
are pretty similar....both have good color,very pleasing. Compare
the breezeway photos and the backlighted shots for resolution..no
comparison.

My biggest issue....is that the test were done with the VR off on
the 70-200. I personally think the 70-200 is the S2's great
equalizer...the little S2 is very,very prone to mirror
slap,vibration,whatever....I think shooting the 70-200 VR on a
tripod with VR off is not as good as using the lens hand-held with
VR switched to Normal Mode,particularly at 1/90th second.I've shot
probably 10,000 frames with the 70-200 VR on the S2. I still think
I see vibration,of a basically up-and-down variety, in a few of the
S2 shots. We have several people cliaming they are OOF...I don't
read those slightly-blurred frames as OOF,but of very slight
vibration. I disagree with the two posters suggesting focus...I
think it's vibration...very subtle.

But hey....who cares what I think...you have the new Kodak!!!! You
are an early adopter!!!
That's gotta be fun, and exciting. I think the DOF and just the
distances involved in-studio with the FF chip make the SLR/n a
very,very tempting camera.....these halfway-to-China shooting
distances with lenses like the 105 and 70-200 on 1.5x FOV....the 28
as 42 issue....it sound like it'd be wonderful to have a FF camera
in F-mount. On higher ISO's at the EV levels you tested
at...wow...the SLR/n looks really quite,quite decent. Thanks for
doing the tests and for sharing them Jim....I think you've got
yerself a camera for several years with this puppy! I can see why
you would be happy with the SLR/n as your camera & software setup
for a while.Can't forget the software,or the ratios, and yes, the
downsampled 6MP SLR/n file....I think it looks awesome!

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Click to expand...
--
Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro
Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro
Nikon's 24-120VR & 70-200VR, 80-400VR
Nikon's 20mm F2.8, 50mm 1.8
http://www.radphotos.net
 
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