S100fs blurred photo's help

Started Oct 27, 2008 | Discussions
amc123 Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help
-- hide signature --

I did'nt mean to sound condescending. As with all small sensor cameras ie compacts, bridge cameras you get massive depth of field virtually everything is in focus. Only a full frame sensor will give you anywhere near the shallow depth of field associated with a film camera. If the DOF is so important to somone they would'nt purchase a camera with a small sensor. It's like buying a Ford Escort and moaning that it has'nt got the speed of a Ferrari. When I was discussing crop factor it was purely in relation to focal length. If you purchase a Fuji S100 you have 28-400mm and that does'nt change of course and that is the most used term for crop factors, the different focal lengths obtainable swapping interchangeable lenses between different sized slr sensors.

All you are trying to do is sound more scientific than each other and really you don't do people any favours by this at all. You confuse beginners by baffling them with science. What is the point in waffling about equations of depth of field on a relatively cheap camera with a finger nail sensor made to a price costing a 1/2 of a decent independant lens. Lets put things into perspective shall we.

If you won't less depth of field get a bigger sensor camera and faster lens. Thats really the only way.

At the end of the day your just talking about a bridge camera that has run of the mill iso performance a lens crippled with chromatic aberration and is quite slow at the telephoto end.

If quality was so so important to someone they would not buy this camera. Answer me this. If your friend asked you to photograph their wedding would you use an S100 or turn up with an SLR costing a little more. Don't forget you want him to remain a friend.

It sounds to me that some people here are fustrated professors of physics rather than just looking at things in a more logical and simplistic way. The saying " You can baffle some people some of the time but you can't baffle all of the people all of the time" springs to mind. Also " Bull* t baffles brains" is another

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
hmmm ...

amc123 wrote:

At the end of the day your just talking about a bridge camera that
has run of the mill iso performance a lens crippled with chromatic
aberration and is quite slow at the telephoto end.

Them's fighting words in this forum

By the way, the S100fs has state of the art high ISO performance for a small sensor camera. It just pales in comparison to cameras in a higher class.

I agree, though, that the lense has serious CA issues ...

If quality was so so important to someone they would not buy this
camera. Answer me this. If your friend asked you to photograph their
wedding would you use an S100 or turn up with an SLR costing a little
more. Don't forget you want him to remain a friend.

You are preaching to the converted. Perhaps you should look back through my posting history before trying to shove my own opinions down my throat

It sounds to me that some people here are fustrated professors of
physics rather than just looking at things in a more logical and
simplistic way. The saying " You can baffle some people some of the
time but you can't baffle all of the people all of the time" springs
to mind. Also " Bull* t baffles brains" is another

You may not be trying to condescend, but you are still doing a marvelous job of it anyway

The technical side of photography is actually deeply complex ... and these forums are gear forums ... they are about the equipment. So this is the place for these discussions.

There are plenty of people who do not believe that the laws of physics are at play and end up saying and doing things that invite responses that are fairly technical. And they get them.

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

GirinoFumetto wrote:

Human thought can easily remove the lens from an S100FS and put
it on a Nikon 700.

It is not prevented by the lack of interchangeability.

An interesting thought ... you'd get tiny circles of images filled with bright purple ... sounds like the new Holga ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +17 more
prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,203
... a friend asks you to photograph wedding

amc123 wrote:

If quality was so so important to someone they would not buy this
camera. Answer me this. If your friend asked you to photograph their
wedding would you use an S100 or turn up with an SLR costing a little
more. Don't forget you want him to remain a friend.

I can answer that directly. Our only child was getting married last month, and six weeks before the event I was in conversation with a very good friend of the family, bemoaning the fact that my own good camera is (an excellent) film camera, while our only digital camera is (a good for its category) Fujifilm F30, neither of which I regarded as ideal for the task of recording the most important day of our only child's life.

My friend asked me, "If you had your choice of cameras to shoot that wedding, what would you buy?" After some serious consideration of a lot of factors, I replied, "Fujifilm S100fs." She replied that she had been considering getting a new digital camera herself, and would be happy to buy herself an S100fs new and have it shipped to me (together with extra batteries and a pair of 4 GB SDHC memory cards and a polarizing filter), for me to use at the wedding, then send on to her after.

As it happens, another friend independently offered to lend me his Nikon D200 and two Nikkor zoom lenses, so I had nice alternative choices. I chose the Fujifilm S100fs, and do not regret the choice. During a ceremony that lasted about half an hour, I captured about 200 images, and during that time, I used both extremes of the zoom range of the S100fs's lens, and a lot of the range in between.

I have owned SLR cameras for 42 years, and I know how fast I can change lenses. If I had left either of the Nikon D200's zooms on the camera for the entire ceremony, I would have had the wrong lens on the camera to capture some scenes properly, and if I had changed lenses, I might have missed half of the best shots that I took at the wedding due to lens-change gaps. With the exception of purple fringing (almost exclusively at the edges of the frame, where it was not important) in the very wide-angle shots, I have no complaints whatsoever with the image quality that the S100fs yielded.

Having performed the exercise in real life, then, I can answer your (apparently rhetorical) question directly: if my friend asked me to photograph her or his wedding would I use an S100? Yes, definitely. Would I turn up with an SLR costing a little more? No.

Lloydy
Lloydy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,589
Re: S100fs blurred photo's help

amc123 wrote:

Also " Bull* t baffles brains" ...

Have to have a brain to be baffled. It's quite simple, OP has an issue - BS pops up and makes the issue worse. Reality ? OP has a usage issue - Not a tool issue.

-- hide signature --
Lloydy
Lloydy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,589
Prime ...

... Having shot dozens of weddings and using dozens of cameras, over the years (40 odd), my choice is the same as yours.

Sure, a little preparation, and understanding, would be in order, but I would still make the same choice.

I know, DSLR thingamees are so much better and I am an embarrassment to the forum and I am misleading and I am not honest about what I say and I am vacuous and, and ... - Forgot the rest ... :

Anyway, the S100fs is a jewel. If you learn how to use it, it delivers superbly.

-- hide signature --
tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: Prime ...

Lloydy wrote:

I know, DSLR thingamees are so much better and I am an embarrassment
to the forum and I am misleading and I am not honest about what I say
and I am vacuous and, and ...

Finally we agree on something

Ted

Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Post processing (PP) Tips - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_7.htm

tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: Dave ....

Funny how you went right past all the stuff where he said your S100fs was a mediocre run of the mill point and shoot yet latched on gleefully at the part where he seems to impune the reputation of another forum member you disagree with. The old my enemies enemy is my friend ploy. Are we to assume you see nothing wrong with the main body of his post whiuch is that anyone who cares about image quality will obviously not choose an S100.

Ted

Lloydy wrote:

amc123 wrote:

Also " Bull* t baffles brains" ...

Have to have a brain to be baffled. It's quite simple, OP has an
issue - BS pops up and makes the issue worse. Reality ? OP has a
usage issue - Not a tool issue.

mick stevens Regular Member • Posts: 116
Snowwolf is now Mick stevens

Sorry for all this confusion with my name.

Slides Regular Member • Posts: 457
Get your facts right

tdkd13 wrote:

Funny how you went right past all the stuff where he said your S100fs
was a mediocre run of the mill point and shoot

Actually, he didn't say that, you did...and "mediocre" is your word. He wrote this...

"At the end of the day your just talking about a bridge camera that has run of the mill iso performance a lens crippled with chromatic aberration and is quite slow at the telephoto end"

All of which has been refuted many times over on this forum and in fact corroborated by the much quoted dpreview of the S100fs. And I quote...

Conclusion - Pros

Very useful zoom range

Excellent resolution and good edge to edge detail

Sharp, generally high-quality lens

Expanded dynamic range option (and it works)

Excellent high-ISO performance for a non-DSLR

Full photographic control, huge range of SLR-like features (real SLR-like handling too)

Bright, sharp, electronic viewfinder (better than most) and articulated LCD screen

Macro modes make lens even more flexible

Fast RAW performance

RAW processing software included

A lot of camera for the money

Still quoting...

It represents an awful lot of camera for comparatively little money and one that is more flexible than a DSLR kit for the same outlay.

More quoting...

The extremely useful zoom range, which goes from genuinely wide-angle to super-telephoto, essentially means that if you think you can see a photograph, you can shoot it. Wandering around with DSLR users is a telling experience - they may have to stop and change their expensive lenses, while the S100FS user can just get on with composing their shot. And in terms of sharpness, the lens is excellent through most of its range....unquote...

...and on into the night, thank you dpreview.

Seems that the disparaging remarks on the S100fs are from individuals that don't own and use it regularly. Go figure.

Regards,
Slides

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
Re: Snowwolf is now Mick stevens

mick stevens wrote:

Sorry for all this confusion with my name.

No problem ... I spotted the second account right away, because you answered as the OP and your two accounts show similar infrequent posting history.

Don't worry about it ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +17 more
tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: Slides ....

Thanks for pointging out the misquote, you are indeed correct that he didnt say mediocre. He did however say "If quality was so so important to someone they would not buy this camera." My whole point in bringing any of it up was that it seemed to me that Dave let him slide completely on those comments only because he appeared to be arguing with Kim. What I think of this camera never entered into this post. I paraphrased his comments into mediocre and that was perhaps unfair but that is definately not my feelings on this camera.
Ted

Slides wrote:

tdkd13 wrote:

Funny how you went right past all the stuff where he said your S100fs
was a mediocre run of the mill point and shoot

Actually, he didn't say that, you did...and "mediocre" is your word.
He wrote this...

"At the end of the day your just talking about a bridge camera that
has run of the mill iso performance a lens crippled with chromatic
aberration and is quite slow at the telephoto end"

All of which has been refuted many times over on this forum and in
fact corroborated by the much quoted dpreview of the S100fs. And I
quote...
Regards,
Slides

amc123 Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: Dave ....
-- hide signature --

No Ted. The fuji S100 is a very nice camera and has a great focal range and has its faults like most cameras do but in the real world can not compete against a larger sensor slr. Someone in the tread also said they would shoot a wedding with one. Well I must say they are very brave indeed as you are probably at f4 by zooming to 40 or 50mm. A 28 - 400mm lens can not compare to an L class lens costing 3x the S100. If the S100 was satisfactory then we would not need cameras like the Nikon D3 but we do. I am saying if you need ultimate quality you would'nt use the S100. Some picture libraries will only accept enormous picture files from the likes of a Canon 5D etc. These people do know what they are talking about. If you go on a building site you will see carpenters using quality tools that make their working life easier and they need certain performance. I think you'll find very few photographers turning up to attempt a wedding with a Fuji s100 unless you want to pay for the wedding to be re done because you used the wrong tool for the job. Ultimately even with superb iso performance you still a serious lens ( without serious chromatic aberation issues ) for the extra speed and the creativity of shallow depth of field.

tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: amc123 .....

Actually you and I are on pretty much the same page. I inadvertantly ascribed the word mediocre to your earlier post and slides was kind enough to correct me. That said I think my main point was rhetorical and aimed at Dave.

As far as cameras go, I would definately not be one to choose an S100 to shoot a wedding, but there are some here who would, I cant agree with them at all but they are perfectly within their rights to do so and some may actually have valid reasons why they would make that choice.

Your kind of new around here aparently since you seem to be attempting to convince me of things I already agree with, suffice to say I agree with just about every point you have made in this thread.
Ted

amc123 wrote:

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,203
Stick to what you know

amc123 wrote:

Someone in the tread
also said they would shoot a wedding with one.

The "someone" to whom you refer would be me. And I did not say that I WOULD shoot a wedding with an S100fs, but that I DID shoot a wedding -- a wedding of great personal importance to me -- with one; and I also wrote that I had the option to shoot the event with a Nikon D200 plus two Nikkor lenses, and that I have no doubt that I made the right choice in selecting the S100fs over the Nikon.

Now, it happens that the couple being married, one of whom is our only child, hired a professional photographer -- who was well compensated, indeed -- to record the event,

and the pro -- who does upward of 200 weddings per year, knows what he is doing, and makes a career and living out of photographing weddings -- brought along two assistants,

and the hired gun has submitted to the married couple more than 1,000 exposures that the three professional photographers took at the wedding. The newlyweds have reviewed those images; they also have reviewed a sampling from the photographs that I took at the wedding; they have told me that the best images from that wedding were the ones that I recorded.

Now, the newlyweds may have been flattering me, and certainly the formal posed photos that the pros took are not duplicated in my set, so it is a very good thing that they hired the professional photographer. But, as to the images that I captured with the S100fs, the newlyweds are correct (he asserts, immodestly).

Well I must say they
are very brave indeed as you are probably at f4 by zooming to 40 or
50mm. A 28 - 400mm lens can not compare to an L class lens costing 3x
the S100.

Funny that you should mention L class lenses. The lens that I have fitted most of the time to my film camera, the film camera that I did not take to the wedding, is a Canon 85mm f1.2L, the best lens I have ever used on a film camera (and, yes, it was expensive). I love that lens; I have taken literally thousands of exposures with it; I am VERY familiar with what L class lenses can do. But I definitely made the right decision in leaving the camera with the L class lens at home and taking the S100fs to the wedding.

the wrong tool for the job. Ultimately even with superb iso
performance you still a serious lens ( without serious chromatic
aberation issues ) for the extra speed and the creativity of shallow
depth of field.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? The lens on the S100fs is a very serious lens, certainly better than any low-end dSLR lens you can name.

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
Re: Prime ...

Lloydy wrote:

I know, DSLR thingamees are so much better and I am an embarrassment
to the forum and I am misleading and I am not honest about what I say
and I am vacuous and, and ... - Forgot the rest ... :

All true ... didn;t realize you actually saw it ...

Anyway, the S100fs is a jewel. If you learn how to use it, it
delivers superbly.

Blah blah blah ... it's not really appropriate for a wedding. But if prime likes it and Dave likes it, well .... no, it's still not really appropriate for a wedding.

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +17 more
Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,435
nicely done .... laid on *real* thick ...
 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +17 more
mick stevens Regular Member • Posts: 116
Close up photos from S100 and Cheap Casio purple fringing on Fuji!

Ok all, sorry about the name change, more on this further down

Here is are few close up parts from the earlier photos.

http://public.fotki.com/snowwolf115/close-up-test-fujicasio/

What really annoys me is the fact the cheap Casio EZ850 has taken better photo's

The Fuji photo's def show the purple fringing in the left hand part of the photo, it also shows in the top trees right hand photo how blurred everything is.

I would like other S100 owners to check see if thay have the same problem, because at the moment, if I was going to take a camera out with me, it would be my cheap old Casio EZ850 which really has me shaking my head while writing that last bit.

tdkd13 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,410
Re: Close up photos from S100 and Cheap Casio purple fringing on Fuji!

You did read the reviews from any of the top 20 review sites before you bought it right? Every one of them mentions this issue. I'm sure any number of users will tell you either A) how to fix it, or B) they dont get the same out of their cameras.

In the shot named testfuji there is a white hose running through the lower right part of the frame, that white hose has a huge green fringe on one side and a purple one on the other. In the Casio shot you cant really see that hose so it can't be compared. The Fuji seems to be shot from a different location of a wider angle (I dont have an EXIF reader on this computer). If you want to accurately compare them shoot with the exact same settings on each including focal length. Not saying its right to have those huge fringes, just saying anyone surprised by it simply hasn't been paying that close of attention.
Good luck and hopefully you will get it sorted out quickly, Ted

mick stevens wrote:

Ok all, sorry about the name change, more on this further down

Here is are few close up parts from the earlier photos.

http://public.fotki.com/snowwolf115/close-up-test-fujicasio/

What really annoys me is the fact the cheap Casio EZ850 has taken
better photo's
The Fuji photo's def show the purple fringing in the left hand part
of the photo, it also shows in the top trees right hand photo how
blurred everything is.

I would like other S100 owners to check see if thay have the same
problem, because at the moment, if I was going to take a camera out
with me, it would be my cheap old Casio EZ850 which really has me
shaking my head while writing that last bit.
--

amc123 Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: Stick to what you know
-- hide signature --

Well Prime, lets comment on your photos as you've posted them and I'll show you what I do know.

Photo 1....Totally out of focus unless the tree in the background was your subject
Don't try and say you were being creative. Two main subjects cut in
half.
Photo 2....Foreground subjects in heavy shadow and totally unbalanced with the
reflected light coming off the ocean. Subjects left and right cut in half
again. Also subjects cropped through a joint ie elbow or knee ( basic
no no ) In focus this time though
Photo 3....Ocean in background blown out. Subject on left cut in half ( I'm
beginning to see a pattern emerging here ) Subject in middle cut
in half again but at least horizontally this time. Looks like the guy on the
right has a decent Canon slr and L glass. Is he a guest !
Photo 4....Colours, exposure and focus seem good. As a photo most of the
subjects have their backs to the camera and surprise surprise someone
on the left cut in half yet again.

You see Prime I also make money from photography and these pictures I'm afraid to say are pretty poor and I would'nt have posted them if I was you because you've shown what you know too and thats not a lot. If you're having this much trouble outside in good light what happens indoors in poor lighting when the art of using a flash or multiple flashes comes into play and inside the church were you can't use flash. You have broken all the basic rules of photography here with your composition and also not being able to realise how strong backlit situations affect the foreground
I'm sorry to be so brutal but you did ask for it. With both barrels.
I'll just stick to what I know and have learnt in 25 years of film and digital.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads