S100fs blurred photo's help

Started Oct 27, 2008 | Discussions
snowwolf Regular Member • Posts: 112
S100fs blurred photo's help

Hi all..... I have the S100fs and to me the photo's that the camera takes, seem blurred/out of focus, I have put a couple of the photo's I took recently and they are in the link below.

If you zoom in to any of the writing on the signs, it all looks out of focus.

I am wondering if it may be the sky light filter I have on the lens to protect it, has anyone else had the same problem with a protection filter?

Perhaps it's my eyes

Regards Mick.

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
what link?
 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
OP snowwolf Regular Member • Posts: 112
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

Whoops sorry, forgot to add link, here it is.

http://public.fotki.com/snowwolf115/fuji-s100fs-test-photos/

OP snowwolf Regular Member • Posts: 112
Just uploaded full size photo's

Sorry for the delay, just uploaded full size photo's, just click on original size, to view large.

OP snowwolf Regular Member • Posts: 112
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

Tomorrow I am going to take the same two photo's with my casio EXZ 850 and also with my Nokia N82 mobile phone, I bet the casio comes out better and the mobile phone comparable.

Moges Senior Member • Posts: 1,620
Original Size not available Re: Just uploaded full size photo's

snowwolf wrote:

Sorry for the delay, just uploaded full size photo's, just click on
original size, to view large.

Hello snowwolf. I use Fotki too. For people to view the original size you have to go to:

Album Properties --> Advanced Properties (blue link) --> Originals available to ---> choose "Anybody" --> Save Changes

-- hide signature --

Malinda
S8000, F20, S6000 and ...

OP snowwolf Regular Member • Posts: 112
Thanks for that info Malinda

Just made changes so anyone can see full size photos

DrewE Senior Member • Posts: 2,053
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

I just looked at the two photos, and they look pretty good to me. There are some chromatic aberrations visible at the edges, a little noise in the shadow areas, and a few artifacts here and there from the interpolation/sharpening/jpeg compression; but nothing beyond what would be expected. The general level of detail in the shots is quite good to my eye.

I suspect a fair bit of what you're seeing is a combination of the results of chromatic aberration (which can tend to make shots look somewhat less sharp) and comparatively less sharpening in the camera.

One easy way to see if your filter is causing you grief is to try the same shot with it on and off, and compare the results. Poor quality filters can certainly have a detrimental effect on image quality, as can dirty filters or lenses. (In particular, filters with poor coatings can quite noticeably increase the likelihood of lens flare in adverse conditions and decrease contrast in images.)
--
--DrewE

 DrewE's gear list:DrewE's gear list
Pentax K10D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL Pentax smc DA 40mm F2.8 Limited Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II +3 more
Waffelbcker Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

DrewE wrote:

I just looked at the two photos, and they look pretty good to me.
There are some chromatic aberrations visible at the edges, a little
noise in the shadow areas, and a few artifacts here and there from
the interpolation/sharpening/jpeg compression; but nothing beyond
what would be expected. The general level of detail in the shots is
quite good to my eye.

Agreed. Don't see any major problems in sharpness there.

nemo6666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,195
Really?

Pardon me...are u joking or just little bashing ?
U don´t wanna really put the T850 in line with the S100?
And the Nokia think...are u seriously?

snowwolf wrote:

Tomorrow I am going to take the same two photo's with my casio EXZ
850 and also with my Nokia N82 mobile phone, I bet the casio comes
out better and the mobile phone comparable.
--

-- hide signature --

nemo66...the best sniper in town!

H2O Junkie
H2O Junkie Contributing Member • Posts: 566
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

Actually the problem is so simple it is amazing. the first one is not too bad but the aperture is REALLY low at 4. That is not for a photo with this much stuff all around. If I wanted clarity I would bump the ISO up to the 7 range.

The second photo has two problems. First is the same low aperture issue. The 3 range is definitely too low for this photo. Couple that with the barrel distortion at maximum wide angle and you have what looks like poor focus.

Fotki was so damn slow this morning I didn't dig in too deep on the settings (manual vs auto vs scene mode, etc). I was happy I got the info I did. My opinion is it is user error, not camera error. I don't know how experienced you are or anything, but that is the direction I would head first.

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
are you sure?

H2O Junkie wrote:

Actually the problem is so simple it is amazing. the first one is not
too bad but the aperture is REALLY low at 4. That is not for a photo
with this much stuff all around. If I wanted clarity I would bump the
ISO up to the 7 range.

Shooting at F4 on this camera is like shooting at F16 on a FF cam. That's pretty much going to make everything pretty sharp. It's not like he's close to anything, it's all fairly far away.

The second photo has two problems. First is the same low aperture
issue. The 3 range is definitely too low for this photo. Couple that
with the barrel distortion at maximum wide angle and you have what
looks like poor focus.

The lense looks a little blurry at the edges in both photos. I think he's got one of those S100fs cams with poor clarity. Plus, he's got a lot of shadows, and he's seeing some fairly typical NR artifacts at the edges.

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
H2O Junkie
H2O Junkie Contributing Member • Posts: 566
Re: are you sure?

Yes I am sure. F16 my @#$. In case you haven't noticed, I use the camera daily and I can tell you clarity is NOT going to come across the frame at that low an aperture on this camera. I don't know whether the individual in question was shooting in fine mode and if not that may contribute to the problem. Kim, with all due respect, you REALLY need to use the camera for longer than 30 minutes and with something other than an axe to grind. You have NO CLUE as to the idiosyncrasies of the camera. I know you are going to call me an idiot or whatever, but I promise you, I have used this camera and have found the issues that I have discussed. Otherwise I wouldn't bring them up. I can guarantee you anyone who uses this camera on a daily basis knows more about this than you. All you have is your book knowledge. Unfortunately real life rarely is covered in books.

Kim Letkeman wrote:

H2O Junkie wrote:

Actually the problem is so simple it is amazing. the first one is not
too bad but the aperture is REALLY low at 4. That is not for a photo
with this much stuff all around. If I wanted clarity I would bump the
ISO up to the 7 range.

Shooting at F4 on this camera is like shooting at F16 on a FF cam.
That's pretty much going to make everything pretty sharp. It's not
like he's close to anything, it's all fairly far away.

The second photo has two problems. First is the same low aperture
issue. The 3 range is definitely too low for this photo. Couple that
with the barrel distortion at maximum wide angle and you have what
looks like poor focus.

The lense looks a little blurry at the edges in both photos. I think
he's got one of those S100fs cams with poor clarity. Plus, he's got
a lot of shadows, and he's seeing some fairly typical NR artifacts at
the edges.

tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: are you sure?

Not really up for an argument at the time but will mention one thing, DOF is a MATH problem period. It is not something that varies with respect to camera. What I mean is that acceptable DOF is calculated from a few different variables aperture, distance to the subject, focal length and sensor size being the dominant varaibles. Regardless of whether or not someone has used a specific piece of equipment or not, the calculation won't change. Using the camera daily will not make 4 + 4 = anything other than 8.

Now, I haven't calculated the actual depth of field equivelant from this camera to a full frame camera but Kim's numbers sound pretty close, if you would like I can run the equation and post the results here, this of course presupposes you actually agree that DOF is strictly a math problem. If we can't at least agree on that then it really sort of makes any further discussion on this subject moot.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_Field_01.htm

Also what do you mean by bump the ISO up to the 7 range, you stated that is what you would do to get clarity in this situation, I am unsure what exactly you mean.

Ted

H2O Junkie wrote:
Yes I am sure. F16 my @#$. In case you haven't noticed, I use the
camera daily and I can tell you clarity is NOT going to come across
the frame at that low an aperture on this camera. I don't know
whether the individual in question was shooting in fine mode and if
not that may contribute to the problem. Kim, with all due respect,
you REALLY need to use the camera for longer than 30 minutes and with
something other than an axe to grind. You have NO CLUE as to the
idiosyncrasies of the camera. I know you are going to call me an
idiot or whatever, but I promise you, I have used this camera and
have found the issues that I have discussed. Otherwise I wouldn't
bring them up. I can guarantee you anyone who uses this camera on a
daily basis knows more about this than you. All you have is your book
knowledge. Unfortunately real life rarely is covered in books.

Kim Letkeman wrote:

H2O Junkie wrote:

Actually the problem is so simple it is amazing. the first one is not
too bad but the aperture is REALLY low at 4. That is not for a photo
with this much stuff all around. If I wanted clarity I would bump the
ISO up to the 7 range.

Shooting at F4 on this camera is like shooting at F16 on a FF cam.
That's pretty much going to make everything pretty sharp. It's not
like he's close to anything, it's all fairly far away.

The second photo has two problems. First is the same low aperture
issue. The 3 range is definitely too low for this photo. Couple that
with the barrel distortion at maximum wide angle and you have what
looks like poor focus.

The lense looks a little blurry at the edges in both photos. I think
he's got one of those S100fs cams with poor clarity. Plus, he's got
a lot of shadows, and he's seeing some fairly typical NR artifacts at
the edges.

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
Re: are you sure?

H2O Junkie wrote:

Yes I am sure. F16 my @#$.

4x crop factor ... DOF is equivalent to 4xF4 == F16 ...

You can swear all you like, but you'd be better off reading up on the issue instead.

In case you haven't noticed, I use the
camera daily and I can tell you clarity is NOT going to come across
the frame at that low an aperture on this camera.

You guys are all so funny ... every retort must be prefaced with "I own" or "I use" ... this makes you all sound rather pretentious, like ownership of the camera is somehow akin to attending an Ivy League school

I don't know
whether the individual in question was shooting in fine mode and if
not that may contribute to the problem.

We (several members of the forum) have debunked the FINE versus NORMAL issue many times ... there aren't enough extra compression artifacts to muck with sharpness. In fact we can't really see any at all. Certainly nothing that wouldn't easily be overwhelmed by all the NR artifacts this camera is known to inject at pretty much all ISOs.

Kim, with all due respect,
you REALLY need to use the camera for longer than 30 minutes and with
something other than an axe to grind. You have NO CLUE as to the
idiosyncrasies of the camera.

I read them on this forum all the time. I see the reviews. I see many, many images. I download and process said images to see what they are made of and what you can do with them.

Idiosyncrasies ... a most interesting word in that context ...

I know you are going to call me an
idiot or whatever, but I promise you, I have used this camera and
have found the issues that I have discussed.

I don't call people idiots. If you require that service, please speak with Dave.

Otherwise I wouldn't bring them up. I can guarantee you anyone who
uses this camera on a daily basis knows more about this than you.

Yes, of course they do. You all post such balanced and objective information. Such as ... "F16 my @ss" ... that nugget comes directly from your extensive experience with the camera, of this I have no doubt.

All you have is your book knowledge. Unfortunately real life rarely is covered
in books.

Hmmm ... the "real life" argument ... another famous owner was recently using this stunningly vacuous argument with Ted. Didn't seem to fly there either.

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
rennie12 Senior Member • Posts: 2,844
snowolf - I am sorry to seem unsympathetic, but you

should not ask a question like "can it be the filter I am using?" This is bad thinking and promotes bad camera usage.

TRY IT YOURSELF - is it the filter or not ?

You think WE can tell you better than your eyes can ? Come on...

Also, test the camera on a tripod with a cable release or self-timer - so you KNOW there is absolutely NO camera motion.

If THAT is out of focus - send it in for repair. If it focuses on the tripod but not freehand - look to your technique.

Excuse what will seem brusque to you - but somebody needs to tell you these things.

It is good to ask questions in the forum - but some things you must learn how to do yourself.
--
Bill Wilson

mick stevens Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: snowolf - I am sorry to seem unsympathetic, but you

The filter question, yes you are right, I should have tried it without the filter, but I didn't notice the blurred photo's till I downloaded them onto the pc and then it was dark, so couldnt do test without the filter.

I did do comparison test shots yesterday, but because I was at work and in a bit of a rush, I completely forgot to do some test shots without the filter! which really annoyed me, but will do some tomorrow without the filter.

mick stevens Regular Member • Posts: 116
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

I have added comparison shots between my S100fs/Casio EZ850/Nokia mobile phoe.

I know it sounds a bad thing to do, but take a look, I am now quite unhappy with the results from my Fuji.

Take a look at the silver power station photo's between all 3 cameras in the link below.

http://public.fotki.com/snowwolf115/fuji-s100fs-v-casio/

mick stevens Regular Member • Posts: 116
Mick stevens is snowwolf

For some reason, "Mick Stevens" is my user name when I reply to posts here at work, when I post on here at home it shows "Snowwolf" not sure why it does it? I have looked in my profile but there is no option to change the name.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,214
Re: Mick stevens is snowwolf

Hah! Your cover is blown.

I did a check by clicking your name.

It seems Mick Stevens haven't been posting for 2.8 years, save for the last few post. Snowwolf on the other hand has been pretty consistent.

You must have saved a cookie in your workstation, but i'm quite surprised that the cookie still exist after 2.8 years.

-- hide signature --

Have fun and improve your photography skills at http://www.fujimugs.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads