Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

Started Oct 18, 2011 | Discussions
PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

Here are some direct "s95 vs s100" comparison pics at higher iso and longer exposures.

Note - I'm not 100% sure these are valid. In some other attempts at taking comparison pics it became very clear that my s95 had developed a strong fuzzy area along the entire bottom 20% of the image or so for some reason (that does not appear to be a problem in pics I took when I first got my s95). It is entirely possible there is something wrong with my s95 that is reducing it's image quality.

I don't have time tonight to crop pics and stuff like that, but I thought people might find my pics interesting. I have my "View Original" link enabled so you can download them and view them at full size or screen size.

Maybe tomorrow I'll see if my local photo store still has an s95 display unit to test mine against.

s95 iso800 1/10

s100 iso800 1/10

s95 iso1600 1/20

s100 iso1600 1/20

s95 iso80 1 second (long exposure - I didn't seem to be able to get the camera to stay totally still for some reason)

s100 iso80 1 second (long exposure)

OP PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

P.S. The purpose of my shots is to compare the sensor. Yesterday I tried lining up shots the same, but the s100 being at 24mm and the s95 being at 28mm had more of an effect than I thought they would.

So this time I just set them the same - set the s100 to 28mm using the front ring, set both to use f2.2, and took the shot first with the s100 then used the same exposure settings on the s95. These were the widest angle and fastest aperture that both cameras supported.

These were all shot raw, then converted and exported from dpp to jpg using a jpg image quality of 10/10 (dpreview only accepts jpg the last time I checked, or I would have considered using png).

The more I look at these shots the more I think that maybe there's something wrong with my s95...man, I wish I knew for sure.

OP PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

To be specific, here's two shots from yesterday that really illustrate there being something wrong with my s95 -

(also note that the s95 shot was taken at 28mm while the s100 shot was taken at 24mm so they're not entirely directly comparable).

s95 - look at the grass on the bottom part of the frame, it's all blurry.

s100 - look at the grass on the bottom part of the frame, at screen size it's tack sharp.

B1ackhat Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

Thanks for posting these Paul. I do think something is up with your S95 as the pics are blurry throughout the frame.

I did first set though that the S100 seems to have the NR set much higher by default. At first I thought there was just less noise, but then I noticed that the wood pattern on some of the cabinets was wiped out, whereas it was retained by the S95. I think I read that NR can be turned down on the S100 though?

-- hide signature --

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

caissam Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

B1ackhat wrote:

Thanks for posting these Paul. I do think something is up with your S95 as the pics are blurry throughout the frame.

I did first set though that the S100 seems to have the NR set much higher by default. At first I thought there was just less noise, but then I noticed that the wood pattern on some of the cabinets was wiped out, whereas it was retained by the S95. I think I read that NR can be turned down on the S100 though?

You can, but this doesn´t effect the raws. And these pics are made of raws! But may be Paul used the same settings for both raws!? This might to much nr for the s100 whch is cleaner by default and does not need this?!

 caissam's gear list:caissam's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M10
ijustloveshooting
ijustloveshooting Veteran Member • Posts: 3,003
something wrong with your s95

since all the shots are blurry....

 ijustloveshooting's gear list:ijustloveshooting's gear list
Fujifilm X-A1 Sony a7 II Sony a7R IV Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS +17 more
B1ackhat Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

caissam wrote:

You can, but this doesn´t effect the raws. And these pics are made of raws! But may be Paul used the same settings for both raws!? This might to much nr for the s100 whch is cleaner by default and does not need this?!

ah yes, I didn't see that comment initially.

-- hide signature --

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

skyglider Veteran Member • Posts: 6,617
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

Thanks for posting your comparison shots Paul. The S100 has substantially less noise in the high ISO images. A lot better than I expected since it has a higher density sensor than the S95.

Good work,
Sky

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 14,097
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

If there is something wrong with your s95, then it's difficult to judge the images particularly as to sharpness. However, with regard to the high ISO performance, the s100 is the clear winner to my eyes.

If you look at the solid areas in the ISO 800 and 1600 shots, the ones take with the S95 are full of noise. Light colored areas such as the wall and boxes have a good deal of yellow blotches. The noise difference also is evident in the black table.

Considering its small size, I'm quite impressed with the S100.

Good luck with your camera; hope it doesn't cost too much to repair if it needs fixing.
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My Canon S100 Blog: http://www.digicamhelp.com/topics/camera-logs/canon-s100/

B1ackhat Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

gail wrote:

with regard to the high ISO performance, the s100 is the clear winner to my eyes.

If you look at the solid areas in the ISO 800 and 1600 shots, the ones take with the S95 are full of noise. Light colored areas such as the wall and boxes have a good deal of yellow blotches. The noise difference also is evident in the black table.

I definitely agree that the S100 is the winner at high ISO, but if you look at the wood grain pattern on the cabinets, you can see the S100 is using quite a bit of NR so the difference may not be as great as it appears if you apply to equal amount of NR to the S95 images. But yes, I still think the S100 will come out noticeably ahead at high ISO. One thing that bothers me though is that these were RAW files so the heavy-handed NR seems to be the result of Digic 5 and can't be undone.

-- hide signature --

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

SHood Veteran Member • Posts: 6,218
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

I believe DPP will take the RAW and apply the camera settings for JPEG by default. If you want less NR then you will need to do this in DPP.

B1ackhat wrote:

gail wrote:

with regard to the high ISO performance, the s100 is the clear winner to my eyes.

If you look at the solid areas in the ISO 800 and 1600 shots, the ones take with the S95 are full of noise. Light colored areas such as the wall and boxes have a good deal of yellow blotches. The noise difference also is evident in the black table.

I definitely agree that the S100 is the winner at high ISO, but if you look at the wood grain pattern on the cabinets, you can see the S100 is using quite a bit of NR so the difference may not be as great as it appears if you apply to equal amount of NR to the S95 images. But yes, I still think the S100 will come out noticeably ahead at high ISO. One thing that bothers me though is that these were RAW files so the heavy-handed NR seems to be the result of Digic 5 and can't be undone.

 SHood's gear list:SHood's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II OM-1 Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm F4 IS Pro Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 14,097
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

B1ackhat wrote:

I definitely agree that the S100 is the winner at high ISO, but if you look at the wood grain pattern on the cabinets, you can see the S100 is using quite a bit of NR so the difference may not be as great as it appears if you apply to equal amount of NR to the S95 images.

I shoot JPEG only. The S100 lets you adjust NR, so I set it to low.

One thing that bothers me though is that these were RAW files so the heavy-handed NR seems to be the result of Digic 5 and can't be undone.

I thought that when shooting RAW, the camera doesn't apply anything such as sharpening and Noise Reduction. Am I wrong?
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My Canon S100 Blog: http://www.digicamhelp.com/topics/camera-logs/canon-s100/

seri_art
seri_art Veteran Member • Posts: 3,065
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

The camera wouldn't apply those but they might be retained in DPP as defaults, and applied there unless changed.

gail wrote:

I thought that when shooting RAW, the camera doesn't apply anything such as sharpening and Noise Reduction. Am I wrong?

 seri_art's gear list:seri_art's gear list
Sony RX100 III Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM +3 more
technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

PaulRivers wrote:

s95 - look at the grass on the bottom part of the frame, it's all blurry.

s100 - look at the grass on the bottom part of the frame, at screen size it's tack sharp.

it's not just the grass, IMHO all corners of the S95 are very blurry; I think there is a lens problem on the S95. So not very useful for comparing, but the S100 shot looks decent to me (for 24mm equivalent).

Simon97
Simon97 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

Looks like a decentered lens to me. Depending on how the lens is out of alignment, it can cause blurriness around all edges. Usually, lenses are decentered from the factory, but if your S95 was initially better, It got out of whack somehow.

 Simon97's gear list:Simon97's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS Panasonic Lumix DC-G100
jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,880
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

I don't think DPP applies camera default jpg settings. neutral. otherwise, why bother using raw ?

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,880
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

thx op for posting. clearly, the S100 is vg at up to 1600 iso, and the lens is just fine for a cheap 400$ pocket cam especially. win win.

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
voz Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

jonrobertp wrote:

I don't think DPP applies camera default jpg settings. neutral. otherwise, why bother using raw ?

Then you think wrong. It applies the in-camera settings, but you have the power to change them.

OP PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

B1ackhat wrote:

Thanks for posting these Paul. I do think something is up with your S95 as the pics are blurry throughout the frame.

Yeah...

I did first set though that the S100 seems to have the NR set much higher by default. At first I thought there was just less noise, but then I noticed that the wood pattern on some of the cabinets was wiped out, whereas it was retained by the S95.

Yeah... I noticed that to. Unfortunately I cannot accurately compare (sigh) because of the issues with my s95. Looking at the pics at 100% it seemed like the s100 lost a *tiny* amount of detail but also lost a ton of noise and that some of the noise in the s95 shot may be appearing as false detail (it looks like it gives the cabinets more texture but is really just random noise). Unfortunately since my s95 is not in great shape it's impossible to tell whether this is an accurate overall assessment or whether the s95 would have noteably more detail than the s100 if it was in good working order.

I think I read that NR can be turned down on the S100 though?

I looked through the camera and could not find a way to do it - but Gail says it can be done. Gail - where did you find the noise reduction settings in the camera?

OP PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Re: Some direct s95 vs s100 comparison pics

caissam wrote:

B1ackhat wrote:

Thanks for posting these Paul. I do think something is up with your S95 as the pics are blurry throughout the frame.

I did first set though that the S100 seems to have the NR set much higher by default. At first I thought there was just less noise, but then I noticed that the wood pattern on some of the cabinets was wiped out, whereas it was retained by the S95. I think I read that NR can be turned down on the S100 though?

You can, but this doesn´t effect the raws. And these pics are made of raws! But may be Paul used the same settings for both raws!? This might to much nr for the s100 whch is cleaner by default and does not need this?!

No.

I used the same exposure settings for both. But I didn't not change any other settings on the raw files, those are just default, and dpp uses different levels of noise reduction for s95 and s100 files by default.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads