Reading mode: Light Dark

1d-s2 samples

Go to last post
J

james russell

Leading Member
Messages
547
Reaction score
0
Location
New York - Los Angeles, US
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8 foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery, where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's 11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2 holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
 
You could see her a$$ in the S2 pic.

Anyway, yes, both are suitable for magazine ads.

The 1D looks smoother.

But the S2 looks more life-like.





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Does this matter for a magazine? I'm not a print master.

--

 
As far that I can see I can say only one thing. I am happy to have S2 Pro. The price and the quallity on the Canon is still too high for many many people who need this quallity per $....
Soon (maybe after the PMA) everything will change :)

Thank you James

Sorry for my english...

Regards

Todor
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
 
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
--
:: http://www.micke.info ::
 
Hi James,

Curious if you are/were using primes on the Fuji/Canon for this set-up and do you prefer primes or zooms for the Fuji. I have some older Nikkor primes I am thinking about having Rolland Elliott add the metering chip to?
Thanks for adding much to the collective knowledge base!

Christopher
 
At the risk of asking a question that is uninformed, the notes to the photos indicate that the lab "blurred a+b channel to kill noise" in post. You also make reference to the "lightness channel" In PS I see "channels" for R, G, and B and have performed various tasks in these channels before but I don't understand the process you're referring to. I know about adjusting lightness with the sliders in Hue and Saturation, as well as in brightness and contrast but don't understand these references. If it isn't obvious or a trade secret, could you explain these processes?

BTW, we very much appreciate this kind of generosity on your part James.

PS: For me, at twice the cost of my S2 and a new set of lenses, I'm not ready to switch (especially with three gallery shows in March), though the smoothness of the 1Ds file is amazing.
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
--
It has to be about the Art, but it is also about Science

Fuji S2Pro, Nikkor 35mm 2.0D, 50mm 1.4D, 85mm 1.8 AF, and 35-70mm 2.8D.
 
Well, I'm starting to get pretty good at being able to "see through" photoshop filters, like USM, to the data below, and I would venture to guess that the Canon lens isn't quite as sharp as the Nikon lens, perhaps not the same f-stop? Or more likely, to get the same framing, you are using the whole sensor on a 1D, so you're getting edge softness which on the S2 you just aren't getting all that way out to due to the 1.5x crop.

Another guess, you used the 1D first, then the S2. The S2 looks like the model is loosening up a bit, and that arm&leg out to the side seems like a conscious direction on the model. (nicely done, I might add)

Excal

PS: Couldn't you have done something about those waxing marks on her legs?! :)
 
Hi James,

Thanks so much for your generousity in sharing your experiences with these two cameras. As far as showing a comparison of what the two cameras are capable of for US to see, I think the noise caused by perhaps the tremendous jpeging(from almost a 50MB file down to below 2MB in size) sort of obliterates what is there in the original images. It would be nice to see perhaps a crop from each which does not have so much post processing and further jpeg downsampling to really get a feel for how these two cameras compare. Extremely nice imges though and thanks for taking the time to share even these. I also noticed the Waxing marks on the legs and find it sort of RAW and Sexy.

Tariq
Tariq.com
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
 
Tariq said:
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughts on the 2 cameras, James. I was surprised to see the quality of the Canon image, although, as Tariq says, it's hard to tell with a heavily compressed file. My own comparisons had put the S2 a little way ahead of the 1D (it wasn't a 1Ds was it?)

--
Richard C. South Australia
 
Thanks for the comparison. While it would be nice to have both, as an amateur I am delighted that I have a camera that compares so well to a high end one.

I do think the S2 pictures are more life like. I have noticed IMHO that the colors on the Cannon seem kind of flat compared to some of the other digitals. They seem to have the same problem our Nikon 990 had compared to say the Olympus 3030 which had more vibrant and rich colors. Has anyone else observed this too.

I am not trying to pick on the camera, but I would expect more from such a camera costing that much. Maybe Fuji just has color mastered. Color seems to be a real challenge for the majority of the camera makers. Our 990 can’t even seem to do blue correctly at all.

Not because I own one, but I think for what I use this camera for, I'd still opt for the Fuji at this time as opposed to the Cannon, the color being the key factor. A more rugged body would be nice though.

It will be something if Fuji makes a full sized Super CD, or even one with double the pixels. A lot of pixels will go to simply covering the extra space to reach full frame size. My guess is that someone is going to have to go to about 16M or higher on a full sensor to warrant a change, and its going to have to have the colors like the Fuji to get my money.

If Fuji takes the current size and packs in 12MP with a 24MP Interpolate mode it would make for a killer S3.

The cropping really doesn't bother me so long as they come out with a Wide Angle to over come it, which I understand Nikon is doing.

James, thanks again. It just makes me even prouder to own this camera since it looks to have been a great value as a purchase.

Have Fun all!
Mark
 
HI Richard,

I believe James is refering to the 1Ds as he mentions the original file is 11MB in size, the size of a 1Ds file.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Richard C said:
Richard C said:
James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughts on the 2 cameras, James. I was surprised
to see the quality of the Canon image, although, as Tariq says,
it's hard to tell with a heavily compressed file. My own
comparisons had put the S2 a little way ahead of the 1D (it wasn't
a 1Ds was it?)

--
Richard C. South Australia
Click to expand...
 
Tariq said:
HI Richard,

I believe James is refering to the 1Ds as he mentions the original
file is 11MB in size, the size of a 1Ds file.

Tariq
Tariq.com
Click to expand...
Thanks Tariq, I noticed the 11MB bit afterwards. A 1Ds would explain the good results. It's a pity a 1D can't do quite that well because you can buy them at very reasonable prices now
--
Richard C. South Australia
 
I will try to answer all the questions in one post.

I reallly didn't do this test to prove one camera is better than the other. I think both work very well and both have a important place in my work. As photographers we are very fortunate to have such choices.

I was really blown away by the 1d in the fact a 11mb file can easily hold detail in a 13x19 print. (Yes the jpeg downsampling does effect this). Most people on this forum know my fondness for the fuji S2 and it is the best bang for the buck.

We shoot two styles of work, beatuty/on figure fashion and lifestyle. The fuji file is a little warmer, more saturated than the 1d (initially) and works well for lifestyle. The 1d looks like fashion. Actually, (and I don't want to start a east/west thing) I think the Canon looks like NY and the Fuji looks like L.A. This would take a a while to explain, but that is my take.

For the techniqe of killing the noise, this has been posted by me and others. Just convert the file to lab and go into the separate channels and do some blur, sharpening tests and see what works for you.

For lenses I use the Canon 70-200 2.8 and the nikon 80-200 2.8 Both lenses are tack sharp and have used them for film. Both lenses were tack sharp in digital, though the 1d produces a sharper initial file than the fuji, probably due to Fuji's aa filter.

Both almost print identical, though have a different look, different feel.

I am completely impressed by what these cameras do. Compared to 2 1/4 chrome film I have shot with similiar images (even provia) they will print for publication almost identical, though shoot much easier.

The only thing I do not like about the Canon is it does not have a video out port and you cannot zoom on the image to enlarge. When the 1d comes in I will try to find someone to

customize a video out port. (I don't know if this is possible, but if I do I will report.)

I really have to thank Mastrianni for this test. He is a very fine photographer that really knows technique. He was so impressed by the 1d I had to find out for myself and he is right, the 1d is an incredible camera.

I have not tested the 1ds. I tried to rent one from anywhere and so far no luck.

Actually after seeing these samples, I don't know if the 1ds interestes me, though until I test it I cannot say for sure. As far as software Fuji and Canon are both OK, though bog slow on Mac, but as Mastrianni says, it is faster than the lab.

If I had shot this job on 2 1/4 film, my cost would have been approx. $1,200 in film and processing and $1,000 in drum scans and deliveries.

I shot 1,100 images on Friday and by Saturday afternoon (working through batch settings) produced color contact sheets on all.

As I have said before, I think these cameras shoot like film. I know you can make almost any digital camera emulate a certain film, but for the amount I shoot, it is much faster to shoot a camera that matches you look, rather than change it in post.

I have now tested the Kodak 760, Proback, S2 and 1d. I think all have a place, though the 760 is much more suited for commercial and still like applications, than my style of fashion.

As far as the waxing on the legs, this was very quick output, cut me some slack guys.

For Mr. Stacy, stop looking up the models dress.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
 
Whats with the spots on her hands and legs using the S2? Is that her skin? It seems rather unnatural. The D1 dosn't show any of this.

Althouh I would bet it is just dry skin when taking the S2 pictures for the leg and the difference between her top and bottom of her arm.

D1



S2




James Russell said:
In the process of a session, shot a non scientific tests with the
Canon 1d and Fuji s2.

For my work, the telling resolving strength of a camera, film or
digital is the ability to present detail of a full length subject.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

These samples show full length and how well each camera handles
high key detail of white on white scenes.

The key light is a profoto head with standard reflector and two
lightdome's for background fill. Subject fill is from 1 4x8
foamcore.

We are familiar with the S2 and it performed as expected. The
white balance on the S2 is manual and the 1d set to auto.

The S2 resolved well and held detail. The file is a little thicker
than the 1d, but required slightly more time in post. The 1d file
was sharper, but showed some Christmas tree lights in the jewlery,
where the S2 had slight moire on the hair, both fixed easility in
lab color.

I have always been impressed with the S2 though I found the 1d's
11mb file to be the cleanest digital file I have ever viewed. It
is smooth and sharp and holds detail well. The 1d file
interpolated to 50 mb with very light softness and almost no loss
in detail. Most impressive is it's lack of rasterization between
light and dark diagonal lines. It almost looked like it gained
detail. The 1d produces much more detail than the Kodak 760 in
this type of setting.

Naturally the 1d is a faster and more complete body, though the S2
holds it's own in focus and speed in this envrionment. I do think
all manufacturers could take a note from Fuji on menus and digital
settings/functions. The S2 is very intuitive and easy to use and
the 1d almost requires a manual.

I have to thank Mastrianni as he is completely correct in his
judgement of the 1d file. It is much more competent than the size
portrays.

Printing 13x19 proofs from both cameras the difference are minute
and either one of these cameras is very capable of double page
magazine ads. In fact with a 150 line screen I do not believe you
can tell the 1d file from any camera, film or digital.

Though I know we will use the S2's for many projects I will now ad
the 1d to our inventory.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
Click to expand...
--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929
 
Masgrada said:
her skin?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't judge skin from these samples. With this type of high key specular light, if the model turns 1 degree the results frame, by frame can be much different, cue to the reflector, light kicking from the background and the tube.

Also, great models usually have awful skin. Makeup on and off all day long, flying late, lousy diet contribute to this. This photo has not gone through final post where every pore will be analized.

I do think the best comparison of files is the overall look. As I said the 1d I hit in about 2 minutes and the fuji took 15 minutes to get the look I wanted. The fuji, even color balanced very flat is still very bias to the yellow/red.

Different cameras, different digital film.
Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
 
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