Many thanks

Steve thanks for your reply. What is trolling?
tony

Steve Bingham said:

My 70-200 f2.8 seems to focus fine - 99% of the time my images are
in focus. Actually my other 5 lenses also work perfectly with the
S2. Pros all over the world are even using the the S2 for fast
moving sports and having great luck - even in arenas ahooting wide
open at ISO 1600.

It simply does NOT MAKE SENSE that all THREE of your S2s had a
focusing problem! I mean if you had manually focused on the old
lady and ended up with the wall behind her in focus something is
SERIOUSLY wrong with your technique. Sure, there might be that rare
camera where the mirror is misaligned or the lens mounting flange
is faulty, but three in a row? No way.
Either you are trolling or should seriously consider another
profession.

Again, you said you MANUALLY focused the lens. Even a dioptor
adjustment wouldn't cause this.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Click to expand...

--
its a good day

Hi Tony

There have been a lot of people complaining about focus on the S2 since it came out but most of the problems ended up being user error. Turning off closest subject priority fixed most of the problems, there have been a few that solved their focusing problem by removing their UV filter and a few of the complaints were solved when the user realized that they had moved the focus selector without realizing it. Now, with that said, there have also been a few cameras that just failed to focus properly and were sent in to Fuji for repair(some being fixed and others being returned with the technicians saying that the camera was within spec). I also remember at least one person whose camera would focus accurately with AF but not in mf even using the focus assist dot. There have also been a few that hated the S2 and everything about it. If you were to listen to them the S2 couldn't do anything right. I don't think that the S2 is perfect but I do think that if you take the time to learn the plus and minuses of the camera that you'll be able to consistently deliver top quality images with it.

I read a post of yours where you said that you were using the camera in manual focus, if it were me, I think I would take a little bit of time and test out the auto focus and manual focus using the focus assist and see if either one worked better for you.

I just did some tests with my camera using mf and I wasn’t able to always get it in focus without the aid of the focus indicator dot in the viewfinder. Also, if you haven't adjusted the eyepiece dioptor for your eyesight, I don’t think it will be possible to accurately judge focus unless you're using the focus assist dot.

Personally, I think the S2 is best used with AF. The small viewfinder and the lack of a split prism make it really hard for me to determine if I've achieved focus or not.

Anyway, I really hope that you're able to solve your problems.

Good luck,
Tim

Hi Tony

Here's a link to an online depth of field calculator. You can choose fuji s2 from the list which uses a .020 COC or you can scroll down further and choose .016 which I believe is what Thom Hogan suggest for the S2.
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html

Tim

you live up the road from me. I am in Hampton Roads and you are in Richmond. I lived there for over 5 years and loved it.

I saw your web page and I too love your photos. Great job. I have a question about the the photos that look old from different decades. Are they really from the period of time that they look to be? If not you did a great job making them look very vintage...Melissa

tony sylvestro said:

Robert Rains2 said:

I can not seem to find your site address..... Please post.

Thanks,

Robert

http://www.ifpdigital.com

tsylvestro said:

--First I want to sincerely thank those of you that went to my web
site and left such kind comments. I am truely humbled. I really
mean that.
Then I want to thank you all for your detailed thoughts.
I am unfortunately one of those that has intermittent problems with
focus. I agree that when you do get the shot in focus it is
amazingly sharp.
I will try to articulate what is happening. The other day I shot
photos of a band for a CD cover. I used just the 250 watt modeling
lights. I was shooting with an 85mm 1.4 lens at the highest
resolution. I had recently talked to Fuji and they gave me new
settings for my camera. Now I was shooting at about 1/60th at f2
and Ill bet I had about an 80% success rate of focus on the eyes.
Something to note here from Fuji. This camera, because of the 1.5
multiplier of the lens, renders 1/3 the depth of field the the lens
would have on a standard 35mm camera. Did you note that YOU HAVE
1/3 THE DEPTH OF FIELD AT ANY SETTING. This is very important.
Now fast forward to yesterday I was on location in a retirement
home photographing a retired lady working out on an excersize
machine. I was about 6 feet from her. 90% of the photographs were
out of focus on her and sharp on the wall 20 feet past her. I was
shooting with strobes at 1/60 at f5.6. Man I freaked when I pulled
up the images on the computer and so many shots were out of focus.
Oh one other thing I had just gotte a new 28-70 2.8 zoom from
Nikon. It replaced the exact same lens that I had thinking it was
bad I sold it. Thats the lens I used.
Now this camera is going back to Fuji after I try the test that
someone suggested.
I will keep everyone informed as to what happens, but I must say
that I am going to a Canon demonstration of the new Mark 11 camera
and am considering a change of equipment. My reputation is much
more important than aligining myself to a camera that gives me so
much trouble.
In this business you are only as good as the last photo you take.
thanks everyone
tony sylvestro
I know I can focus better than this S2 shows

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
I know I can focus better than this S2 shows

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mnewco/inboxf/4.5-5.6 E

See my profile for equipment
I have an email. Pbase supporter

BJN said:

tsylvestro said:

This camera, because of the 1.5
multiplier of the lens, renders 1/3 the depth of field the the lens
would have on a standard 35mm camera. Did you note that YOU HAVE
1/3 THE DEPTH OF FIELD AT ANY SETTING. This is very important.

Click to expand...

It's also very wrong. The smaller sensor delivers MORE depth of
field for a given angle of view.

Click to expand...

He didn't say the same field of view; he said "the lens". The 1/3 number is wrong, but the DoF is indeed LESS on the smaller format if you shoot the same lens from the same location. It's just a crop-and-enlarge operation to compare prints, so your focal-plane CoC needs to be 1.5X smaller to get a given CoC on the print.

Eddy Smit said:

Yes, you have to use a shorter
focal length to deliver a comparable angle of view, but if you
frame up the same scene with the same perspective from the same
spot, the depth of field will be slightly more for the smaller
sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes you CAN use a shorter focal length, if what you want to keep constant is the field of view. But that's not enough information to say whether the DoF changes or not. What else are you keeping constant? E.g. f-number? or total amount of light gathered from the subject and delivered to the sensor per unit time? Different answers for those two cases. You answer is correct is you specify constant f-number, but then you lose a lot of light. Keeping the light constant requires constant absolute aperture diameter, not f-number, in which case the DoF remains constant (same on the small sensor as on full-frame, for same subject and camera positions and same field of view).

Eddy Smit said:

The same phenomenon is why you have to use small apertures to get
decent depth of field with a large format camera and why the
consumer digicams with tiny sensors have such great macro
capability - the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field
(using shorter focal lengths to deliver the same field of view).

Click to expand...

Actually, for ALL formats, the aperture needed to get a given DoF is constant, given constant camera and subject positions and constant field of view. That's the actual aperture, not the ratio f-number = FL/aperture. Try it out: f/45 on a normal 4x5 lens is about the same aperture as f/2 on a 1/3-inch sensor.

tsylvestro said:

BJN
I was repeating what the tech at Fuji camera told me yesterday.
But thanks for the note. Ill have to think about your example, but
just off the cuff I think it would be just the opposit. You have a
smaller area to cover a larger image. Thats why a 300 becomes a 450
well we will give it more thought.

Click to expand...

A lens never becomes any FL other that what it is. What you mean is that the 300mm lens on the 1.5FLM-camera has a 35-mm-field-of-view-equivalent focal length of 450 mm (meaning that if you would put a 450mm lens on your 35mm full-format camera you would get the same field of view).

So what are you comparing? Same len? Same field of view? Same lens but moved back to fit the same subject in? You can't reason about the answer without pinning down the problem.

You might ask: what lens FL and f-number on my 35 will give the same FoV and same DoF as this particular lens on my digicam? The answer is that you need to multiply BOTH your FL and your f-number by the same 1.5X multiplier to get the 35mm-equivalent FL and f-number.

It's a lot easier to reason about such a case, with SAME FoV, SAME positions and distances, SAME DoF, SAME amount of light collected, and just different camera formats. It turns out you even get (approximately) the SAME amount of diffraction blur in the final image, so there's a pretty strong equivalence.

Eddy Smit said:

Evan Effa said:

Sorry but the DOF is exactly the same as on a fullframe 35mm camera
for any given focal length. The 1.5x factor is actually only a
crop factor not a magnification effect.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No and yes. Since it's a crop, you need to magnify to compare sharpness at a given print size, so the DoF is worse for the smaller format in that case. Unless you move back from the subject, in which case it gets to be about equvalent again.

Eddy Smit said:

Eddy Smit said:

A better term to use is
probably to refer to it as a smaller field of view (FOV). You have
the same effect if you take a full frame image & just crop it.
This is not the same as having an APS sensor in a point & shoot
where the lens is designed to give a full APS frame coverage in
which case the DOF would be larger.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Actually, what format the lens was designed for has absolutely no bearing on the question. Focal length and f-number are enough.

Eddy Smit said:

Eddy Smit said:

But if you use a zoom lens, and you want to take the same picture
at the same distance, you have to zoom out with your S2. And
zooming out gives you more DOF. So in that way you get 1/3 more of
DOF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You don't have to zoom out, but if you do, and get the same FoV, then you'll get the 50% more DoF at a given f-number. You could just as well switch to a prime with the same FoV.

Eddy Smit said:

Evan Effa said:

I agree too....in somw ways this is a matter of semantics & I guess
I was thinking primes...
My 12-24 at 12 mm gives me 12 mm DOF but with an 18 mm FOV so I do
get bigger DOF for any given FOV.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Huh? What do 12mm DoF and 18mm FoV mean? Nothing.

Semantics is important. Without meaning, words are useless.

Eddy Smit said:

with primes, you have to get further away from your object, so you
also get some more DOF, I think...
OK, OK it is a matter of semantics.
You winn.

Click to expand...

Primes versus zoom is irrelevant.

Semantics matters more than winning.

j

Thanks Derrel for your comments... I guess I have justified the cost of the S2 already! heheheh

Derrel said:

ArchieP said:

Is it OOF our soft?
http://www.pbase.com/image/27926124/original

Click to expand...

Archie,
This photo of the infant boy is in focus where it counts. You have
good focus on his face and mouth...we can clearly see his four
little bottom teeth are sharply rendered. This photo has only about
three inches of depth of field,and it has been placed very well!
The out of focus areas begin right behind his head,and his shirt
and jeans and just slightly out of the range of sharpest depth of
field. The carved wood furniture piece in the background is more
out of focus. Given the lens focal length and aperture used to make
this picture, this is a good result.
If you wished to pull more of photo into sharper,better focus, at
this magnification on the boy you would need to have been stopped
down another three full stops before you'd have seen any really
truly significant,meaningful added depth of field. The kid's big in
the frame....this shot is what one would expect shooting this type
of shot...good focus on the face,body a bit OOF, backdrop more OOF.
This is a good shot considering how the light was used.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

Click to expand...

BJN I hate to tell you this but you dont know what you are talking about. But God knows you do like to pontificate. on and on and on and on and on.....snoooooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
tony

Just Looking said:

BJN said:

tsylvestro said:

This camera, because of the 1.5
multiplier of the lens, renders 1/3 the depth of field the the lens
would have on a standard 35mm camera. Did you note that YOU HAVE
1/3 THE DEPTH OF FIELD AT ANY SETTING. This is very important.

Click to expand...

It's also very wrong. The smaller sensor delivers MORE depth of
field for a given angle of view.

Click to expand...

He didn't say the same field of view; he said "the lens". The 1/3
number is wrong, but the DoF is indeed LESS on the smaller format
if you shoot the same lens from the same location. It's just a
crop-and-enlarge operation to compare prints, so your focal-plane
CoC needs to be 1.5X smaller to get a given CoC on the print.

Just Looking said:

Yes, you have to use a shorter
focal length to deliver a comparable angle of view, but if you
frame up the same scene with the same perspective from the same
spot, the depth of field will be slightly more for the smaller
sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes you CAN use a shorter focal length, if what you want to keep
constant is the field of view. But that's not enough information
to say whether the DoF changes or not. What else are you keeping
constant? E.g. f-number? or total amount of light gathered from
the subject and delivered to the sensor per unit time? Different
answers for those two cases. You answer is correct is you specify
constant f-number, but then you lose a lot of light. Keeping the
light constant requires constant absolute aperture diameter, not
f-number, in which case the DoF remains constant (same on the small
sensor as on full-frame, for same subject and camera positions and
same field of view).

Just Looking said:

The same phenomenon is why you have to use small apertures to get
decent depth of field with a large format camera and why the
consumer digicams with tiny sensors have such great macro
capability - the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field
(using shorter focal lengths to deliver the same field of view).

Click to expand...

Actually, for ALL formats, the aperture needed to get a given DoF
is constant, given constant camera and subject positions and
constant field of view. That's the actual aperture, not the ratio
f-number = FL/aperture. Try it out: f/45 on a normal 4x5 lens is
about the same aperture as f/2 on a 1/3-inch sensor.

tsylvestro said:

BJN
I was repeating what the tech at Fuji camera told me yesterday.
But thanks for the note. Ill have to think about your example, but
just off the cuff I think it would be just the opposit. You have a
smaller area to cover a larger image. Thats why a 300 becomes a 450
well we will give it more thought.

Click to expand...

A lens never becomes any FL other that what it is. What you mean
is that the 300mm lens on the 1.5FLM-camera has a
35-mm-field-of-view-equivalent focal length of 450 mm (meaning that
if you would put a 450mm lens on your 35mm full-format camera you
would get the same field of view).

So what are you comparing? Same len? Same field of view? Same
lens but moved back to fit the same subject in? You can't reason
about the answer without pinning down the problem.

You might ask: what lens FL and f-number on my 35 will give the
same FoV and same DoF as this particular lens on my digicam? The
answer is that you need to multiply BOTH your FL and your f-number
by the same 1.5X multiplier to get the 35mm-equivalent FL and
f-number.

It's a lot easier to reason about such a case, with SAME FoV, SAME
positions and distances, SAME DoF, SAME amount of light collected,
and just different camera formats. It turns out you even get
(approximately) the SAME amount of diffraction blur in the final
image, so there's a pretty strong equivalence.

Click to expand...

Just Looking said:

j

Click to expand...

--
its a good day

tony sylvestro said:

BJN I hate to tell you this but you dont know what you are talking
about. But God knows you do like to pontificate. on and on and on
and on and on.....snoooooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
tony

Click to expand...

tony,

Did you mean to address that comment to me? or to BJN?

If I don't know what I'm talking about, a pointer to any portion that is erroneous would be useful.

Sorry if details bore you.

j

Hi Melissa,

Thanks for your email. I think you are talking about the Gum Bichromate prints. Those are all new. The process is 160 years old. It is very difficult to learn and I have only scratched the surface. It is wonderful when you get on though. You can email me at [email protected] and we can talk about it in more detail.
Thanks
tony

PS sorry for the late return I am still trying to figure out how to find all the messages to me.

MelissaM said:

I saw your web page and I too love your photos. Great job. I have a
question about the the photos that look old from different decades.
Are they really from the period of time that they look to be? If
not you did a great job making them look very vintage...Melissa

tony sylvestro said:

Robert Rains2 said:

Hey Tony,

I can not seem to find your site address..... Please post.

Thanks,

Robert

http://www.ifpdigital.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MelissaM169251 said:

MelissaM169251 said:

--
I know I can focus better than this S2 shows

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mnewco/inboxf/4.5-5.6 E

See my profile for equipment
I have an email. Pbase supporter

Click to expand...

--
its a good day