-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Another S3 Review - Imaging Resource
- Thread starter twin
- Start date
Dillon James
Leading Member
First, a few things that popped out are that he mentioned good color accuracy. Others have differed here.
I think he was mistaken when he mentioned that teh R and the S pixels share one microlens, as it was my understanding that they have seperate lenses in this iteration of S-CCD.
Also, about his high ISO tests. Obviously they were done in jpeg. And jpegs from the S3 do have some fairly stiif noise reduction done to them, smearing detail as compared to the 20D, for example. But S3 raws processed through s7raw (with sharpening set to Custom, and both sliders to 0,) are phenomenal. They are the equal, perhaps a bit better than 20D images.
Overall a very positive review. "Absolutely amazing dynamic range" and "mind-boggling" dynamic range. Pretty strong words for a marketing gimmick, huh?
Also, he says it's an "easy Dave's pick,"
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
I think he was mistaken when he mentioned that teh R and the S pixels share one microlens, as it was my understanding that they have seperate lenses in this iteration of S-CCD.
Also, about his high ISO tests. Obviously they were done in jpeg. And jpegs from the S3 do have some fairly stiif noise reduction done to them, smearing detail as compared to the 20D, for example. But S3 raws processed through s7raw (with sharpening set to Custom, and both sliders to 0,) are phenomenal. They are the equal, perhaps a bit better than 20D images.
Overall a very positive review. "Absolutely amazing dynamic range" and "mind-boggling" dynamic range. Pretty strong words for a marketing gimmick, huh?
Also, he says it's an "easy Dave's pick,"
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
Intersting also that the D2x is - concerning DR - at the lower end of the scale.
I find the review quite balanced, it does justice to the S3 quite well and says where its very good, average and not too good - like RAW speed.
Only thing I dont agree is the preference to the Adobe RAW converter. I prefer the Hypers, they render a overall better photo.
Bernie
I find the review quite balanced, it does justice to the S3 quite well and says where its very good, average and not too good - like RAW speed.
Only thing I dont agree is the preference to the Adobe RAW converter. I prefer the Hypers, they render a overall better photo.
Bernie
Dillon James
Leading Member
I find that all three converters, depending on the situation, have their merits.
I wonder which converter he used for the images he printed? Or were they jpegs?
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
tom sugnet
Senior Member
Yeah!It got HIGHLY RECOMMENDED 
--
Fujifilm Finepix S5100 + Fujifilm Finepix F10
--
Fujifilm Finepix S5100 + Fujifilm Finepix F10
schphrst
Active member
I have the same experience as the reviewer. Adobe RAW is very good. Maybe, maybe
is HyperUtilty a very little beter, but slow and unnecessary cumbersome.
--
Jan
member: http://www.2point8.be
http://www.pbase.com/janschiphorst
OlaE Hofshagen
Forum Enthusiast
Finally, the results I got during testing last May has now been validated. I wrote about the 12 stop DR back then, and maybe now people will understand what I meant when I said that the S3 can certainly hold its own in direct comparison with the D2x, back in february .
12 stops!!
Ola
Dynamic Ranger.
12 stops!!
Ola
Dynamic Ranger.
Dillon James
Leading Member
Indeed!
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Dillon James
Leading Member
"In the case of the S3 Pro, the resolution capabilities of its SuperCCD technology translated into 13x19 inch prints that looked a fair bit better than I'd normally expect to see from what boils down to a 6.17 megapixel camera. While close inspection revealed some softness in 13x19s printed from the S3 Pro, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about selling them to clients were I a commercial, wedding, or portrait photographer."
It's nice to see a reviewer actually testing the camera in a way a real photographer in the real world will use it, namely making prints.
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
It's nice to see a reviewer actually testing the camera in a way a real photographer in the real world will use it, namely making prints.
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Herbert Bishko
Senior Member
Hello Twin,
Thank you for the link of the new S3 review at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PA.HTM
It's an excellent review and fully justifies what our eyes have been seeing since we first started using the S3. With lotsa graphs, charts and techie stuff to back it all up too.
I note with interest that one of the CONS that persistently comes up in all these reviews is the S3 1/2 exposure bracketing stop vs 1/3 F stop of the rest. This has never bothered me because of the "pliability" of S3 output. DR really does make a huge difference here. In a way I rather like having less choice - It cuts decisions and makes for a simpler work-flow.
Comparisons: Whereas Phil's DP review was only "Above Average", and in my opinion not 100% fair, the new Imaging-Resource "Highly Recommended" review finally does justice to a fine imaging machine - The Fuji S3 Pro.
Bottom Line from Imaging Resource:
"Fujifilm appears to have achieved exactly what they set out to do with the S3 Pro, delivering a camera with dynamic range that equals or exceeds that of film, with excellent color and tonal rendition in the bargain. Highly recommended, especially if your work involves a lot of tricky highlight detail. (An easy Dave's Pick.)"
So There You Go!
--
Herbert Bishko
Thank you for the link of the new S3 review at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PA.HTM
It's an excellent review and fully justifies what our eyes have been seeing since we first started using the S3. With lotsa graphs, charts and techie stuff to back it all up too.
I note with interest that one of the CONS that persistently comes up in all these reviews is the S3 1/2 exposure bracketing stop vs 1/3 F stop of the rest. This has never bothered me because of the "pliability" of S3 output. DR really does make a huge difference here. In a way I rather like having less choice - It cuts decisions and makes for a simpler work-flow.
Comparisons: Whereas Phil's DP review was only "Above Average", and in my opinion not 100% fair, the new Imaging-Resource "Highly Recommended" review finally does justice to a fine imaging machine - The Fuji S3 Pro.
Bottom Line from Imaging Resource:
"Fujifilm appears to have achieved exactly what they set out to do with the S3 Pro, delivering a camera with dynamic range that equals or exceeds that of film, with excellent color and tonal rendition in the bargain. Highly recommended, especially if your work involves a lot of tricky highlight detail. (An easy Dave's Pick.)"
So There You Go!
--
Herbert Bishko
Artichoke
Forum Pro
I have been taunted, teased and everything but beaten up for asserting what this reviewer said at the end of his review
"That said though, JPEGs straight from the camera do noticeably better with difficult highlights than even images processed from RAW files from competing d-SLRs"
I doubt any of my nasty detractors will be courageous enough to acknowledge how wrong they were, but that does not matter
among knowledgeable folks who can think out of the box the word is out
if IQ is of paramount importance to your photography, the S3 seems a great option
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
"That said though, JPEGs straight from the camera do noticeably better with difficult highlights than even images processed from RAW files from competing d-SLRs"
I doubt any of my nasty detractors will be courageous enough to acknowledge how wrong they were, but that does not matter
among knowledgeable folks who can think out of the box the word is out
if IQ is of paramount importance to your photography, the S3 seems a great option
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
Dillon James
Leading Member
Check out the Comparometer:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Download the image labeled "Indoors." Compare it to a 20D, or to the D70S. Down rez the S3 image to teh 20D's sixe using bicubic sharper.
Then uprez the D70 to the 20D's size.
Then tell me which has more detail in the flowers and hand and hair.
Amazing.
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Download the image labeled "Indoors." Compare it to a 20D, or to the D70S. Down rez the S3 image to teh 20D's sixe using bicubic sharper.
Then uprez the D70 to the 20D's size.
Then tell me which has more detail in the flowers and hand and hair.
Amazing.
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Herbert Bishko
Senior Member
Hello Artichoke,
Aw! Most of us were with you all along and for those of us who trusted our own eyes for judgement - we could only agree with you.
I don't want to throw a diversionary stick into this welcome Imaging-Resource S3 review thread, but regarding this forum - I feel that things have come round somewhat with many of the most vicious S3 nay-sayers now giving us a belated "Yeah - I guess but...."
Lately this forum has been a better place too - solid helpful info and supportive feedback and generally good vibes. With you all the way.
But truth be told, I'm still a bit uneasy about the REAL contents of Jonathan's Tiger Balm Jar.
Herbert Bishko
Aw! Most of us were with you all along and for those of us who trusted our own eyes for judgement - we could only agree with you.
I don't want to throw a diversionary stick into this welcome Imaging-Resource S3 review thread, but regarding this forum - I feel that things have come round somewhat with many of the most vicious S3 nay-sayers now giving us a belated "Yeah - I guess but...."
Lately this forum has been a better place too - solid helpful info and supportive feedback and generally good vibes. With you all the way.
But truth be told, I'm still a bit uneasy about the REAL contents of Jonathan's Tiger Balm Jar.
Herbert Bishko
Keith Aitken
Veteran Member
Hi
Very enjoyable review. It should persuade hundreds of fence-sitters
to break out their plastic Heck, it almost convinced me that the
S3 was worth it, over my S2, but now my pulse rate has gone down.
I am breathing normally again and clutching my S2 . . .
One aspect of the review was disappointing : Dave/E did not make
completely clear that the S3 is still a 6.17 MP camera ( as Dillon James
observed ). Several times, DE talked about 12 MP, and while those
little red and green pixies are separated, the final rating is still at the
6 MP level . . .
Anyhoo, the review was a wonderful read.
Keith
Very enjoyable review. It should persuade hundreds of fence-sitters
to break out their plastic
Heck, it almost convinced me that the S3 was worth it, over my S2, but now my pulse rate has gone down.
I am breathing normally again and clutching my S2 . . .
One aspect of the review was disappointing : Dave/E did not make
completely clear that the S3 is still a 6.17 MP camera ( as Dillon James
observed ). Several times, DE talked about 12 MP, and while those
little red and green pixies are separated, the final rating is still at the
6 MP level . . .
Anyhoo, the review was a wonderful read.
Keith
Dillon James
Leading Member
Results of the review:
-Excellent color!
-Excellent resolution. Just compare the "Indoors" picture to the 20D's and the D70, and tell me which one you'd like to make an A3 print from. Be sure to resize the pic to the same rez first. I used teh 20D's size as reference. Textures!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
-Unbelievable dynamic range.
Actuallly made prints to compare them. How novel!
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
-Excellent color!
-Excellent resolution. Just compare the "Indoors" picture to the 20D's and the D70, and tell me which one you'd like to make an A3 print from. Be sure to resize the pic to the same rez first. I used teh 20D's size as reference. Textures!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
-Unbelievable dynamic range.
Actuallly made prints to compare them. How novel!
--
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Dillon James
Leading Member
Read my post. If you compare the only pc that make sense to comapare, the "Indoor" shot, the S3 pretty much wipes up the field.
Downrez teh S3 to 3500 on teh long side, and up rez the D70 to 3507 too. Look at the face, hair, hands, and flowers.
Except for a bit of moire in the hair in the S3 sample, the nod clearly goes to the S3.
Where's the texture in the ladies face on the 20D shot? In Digic II land!
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Downrez teh S3 to 3500 on teh long side, and up rez the D70 to 3507 too. Look at the face, hair, hands, and flowers.
Except for a bit of moire in the hair in the S3 sample, the nod clearly goes to the S3.
Where's the texture in the ladies face on the 20D shot? In Digic II land!
--Hi
Very enjoyable review. It should persuade hundreds of fence-sitters
to break out their plastic
S3 was worth it, over my S2, but now my pulse rate has gone down.
I am breathing normally again and clutching my S2 . . .
One aspect of the review was disappointing : Dave/E did not make
completely clear that the S3 is still a 6.17 MP camera ( as Dillon
James
observed ). Several times, DE talked about 12 MP, and while those
little red and green pixies are separated, the final rating is
still at the
6 MP level . . .
Anyhoo, the review was a wonderful read.
Keith
The dynamic range of color negative film! Straight out of camera, no additional processing! Here:
l http://www.pbase.com/dillonjames/image/48536720/original
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
Are you saying that the nay-sayers are thinking with their buts? I wouldn't say that, but....
Getting back to the old days, the golden days!
I hear ya, brother! Me too, I have yet to open that puppy! I start rubbing that stuff in and I might grow whiskers and fangs. Ok, so I already have whiskers...
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
Artichoke
Forum Pro
Imaging Resources Comparometer is an excellent way to see the very real advantages the S3 offers ...thanks for suggesting this, Dillon
compare the real life shot of the the house with cameras costing 2 to 3 times the price of the S3
there is no question you SEE more of the house with the S3
look at the blinds in the window to the left of the doorway and compare them with the D2X or 1DsMKII
or the black window shutters
or the grey shingles on the roof
the 1DsMKII does get a bit more resolution in the ADC sign to the lower left ...there are some advantages to having > MP on the sensor of course, but even the foliage of the S3 seems more lifelike as the shadows and highlights have more information in them ...this is most evident in the shadow foliage detail to the right of the house ...the 1DsMKII foliage does look sharper, but you see more of it with the S3
resolution is surely more than just what a test chart shows
the cameras costing 2 to 4 times the price do offer many other advantages with their advanced bodies, for certain, but the S3 certainly matches them in IQ and almost certainly surpasses them in IQ if shooting jpgs
and at
the money you save could go to getting some killer glass that will serve you well beyond the life of your new camera body, I am certain
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
compare the real life shot of the the house with cameras costing 2 to 3 times the price of the S3
there is no question you SEE more of the house with the S3
look at the blinds in the window to the left of the doorway and compare them with the D2X or 1DsMKII
or the black window shutters
or the grey shingles on the roof
the 1DsMKII does get a bit more resolution in the ADC sign to the lower left ...there are some advantages to having > MP on the sensor of course, but even the foliage of the S3 seems more lifelike as the shadows and highlights have more information in them ...this is most evident in the shadow foliage detail to the right of the house ...the 1DsMKII foliage does look sharper, but you see more of it with the S3
resolution is surely more than just what a test chart shows
the cameras costing 2 to 4 times the price do offer many other advantages with their advanced bodies, for certain, but the S3 certainly matches them in IQ and almost certainly surpasses them in IQ if shooting jpgs
and at
the money you save could go to getting some killer glass that will serve you well beyond the life of your new camera body, I am certain
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
... To the better side. After the dissappointment about broken HiEnd dreams has settled down and a few overly excited and missionary guys have finally (!!) vanished, the general impression seems that most reviewers AND users like the S3 for its good sides: Color and DR:
Otherwise than DR its a good, but not excellent performer, and a bit slow.
However the importance of DR is still underrated by a lot of people. Also the amount of time that S3 shooters save by NOT having to deal with the lack of DR.
Although I dont think the S3 is the end of all things, this is a very good shift in perception.
Bernie
--
'Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see.' Cole, the 6th sense
Otherwise than DR its a good, but not excellent performer, and a bit slow.
However the importance of DR is still underrated by a lot of people. Also the amount of time that S3 shooters save by NOT having to deal with the lack of DR.
Although I dont think the S3 is the end of all things, this is a very good shift in perception.
Bernie
--
'Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see.' Cole, the 6th sense
Derrel87035
Senior Member
The S3's test results are very good in this review,approximately 1.3 stops wider DR than most of the competition when all cameras are shot in JPEG capture mode. Contrary to Artichoke's contention, the S3's wider dynamic range is truly MOST-evident in Adobe Camera RAW, which can recover from a staggering amount of overexposure with GOOD color, where the Fui HyperUtility software suffers from the same pinkish shift as did its predecessor when encountering really major,major overexposure blunders. ACR's recovery of accidentally-overexposed highlight detail is simply fabulous in both the Askey rewview here on dPreview and in the Dave Etchells review ot Dave's website. For highlight recovery in software post, ACR clearly,clearly beats Fuji's HU efforts,in both the Askey and the Etchells reviews. Dillon you ought to run your former sig file photo through ACR again,to try and recover the lost highoight detail on the boy's shoulder areas; the Askey review shows a 4-stop overexposure resurrected to respectable detail rendition using ACR and Fuji RAF files,and so if your exposure was within 4 stops's orth of error, ACR ought to be able to resurrect some of the burned out highlight detail. Your photo shows a slight yellowish-ness on the overexposed highlights
I think it's interesting to read Dave's verbal comments about the noise figures the various D-SLRs turn in. A few of Dave's testing methodolgies arew flawed,however. His referral to a +1.0 stop of overexposure on the D2x as being "fairly normal exposure compensation" is laughably in error with regard to the D2x and it's extremely sophisticated, distance-aware,and RGB-color metering awareness. He describes +1.0 as being about normal compensation--that is, using other digital camerras, about what one needs to render a white blouse as good and white-white.
However, if one bothers to go to the full thumbnail view of the D2x review, notice how the 0.0 metering photos the D2x turn in are very,very good on this white bliuse test Dillon is making so much of. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2X/D2XTHMB.HTM
Scroll thru this list,especially down to the tall shots of the woman,with the flowers; note that +.3 comp is AMPLE over-exposure to render the whites of her blouse as very white. THe 0.0 shot is almost perfect. THe .7 stop overexposure he's applied has been applied as if the camera is a dumb,cheap,color-blind camera. GO thru the sample pictures,and note that the D2x's in-camera, 3-D, distance-aware,and its 300,000 phoo memory bank is delivering a near-perfect exposure rewndering at 0.0.
Second-guessing the D2x's metering capabilities and appliying gross overexposure corrections like +1.0 and calling that "average exposure compensation" is not needed for the D2x and is a flawed approach to a very sophistiucated camera. Look thru his exposures...+.7 is too MUCH compensation becuas the meter is getting the whites placed as whites with NO comp needed.The D2x does not suffer from a dumb,cheap, color-blind meter.
Dave's verbal comments on the D2x show that it has "amazing shadow detail" to use his words, "with almost no noise"....he's not really apparently putting two and two together with the D2x. THe D2x,according to Dave Etchells, has some of the BEST,deepest,cleanest shadow detail of any D-SLR, and the D2x has the ability to LIFT that shadow detail without noise problems. Better than other D-SLR's. At least that's what Dave's review says. And yet, he's still using cheap-camera-think by applying +1.0 and +.7 stops of exposure compensation to get a white blisue to render as white!
That's not the way it needs to be done on a D2x--it can READ the COLORS or things,metering color temp to determine object color as well as reflectance,as well as distance. Basically, all the shadow detail he mentions is there....and there's no NEED to blow the highlights by telling a smart camera to stupidly over-expose what it already KNOWs is white. Concept: Nikon has tremendous shadow detail in the new camera, and the ability to lift that shadow up is contingent on not OVER-exposing color-metered whites by 3/4 of a stop.
Trying to out-smart the D2x's metering doesn't pay off. Look closely at all of Etchell's test photos,and see how often the BASELINE meter reading is the better exposure than his attempts are:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2X/D2XTHMB.HTM
Similarly, look at how BADLY the S3 BLOWS the highlights when it is set to +1.0 stop over. One the first sample shots of the white blouse test, Dave set the S3 to +1.0 stop over, and the camera blew all the whites until it got to Wide-2 DR mode. The S3 fared better when set to +.5 stop mode,by not blowing the whites so badly.
Anyway,not sure why dredging up a September 2004 review is so newsworthy here, but it does pay to LOOK at how incorrect use of the D2x by people trying to outsmart color- and distance-aware light metering ar emanaging to screw up simple,dead=easy scenes the D2x nails when allowed to measure the color temps, measure the reflectance values, and then run the exposure thru a bank of 300,000 actual photos. Approaching smart metering with dump ideas like Plus 1.0 overexposure as "average compesnation" amounts shows how applying old-thinking methods to high-tech flagship gear leads to ideas that the D2x is a narrow-DR camera. It has incredibly detailed shadows, with detail. But one cannot blindly dial in +7 and +1.0 all the time,trying to outsmart a computer that's smarter than the guy behind the eyepiece.
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D
I think it's interesting to read Dave's verbal comments about the noise figures the various D-SLRs turn in. A few of Dave's testing methodolgies arew flawed,however. His referral to a +1.0 stop of overexposure on the D2x as being "fairly normal exposure compensation" is laughably in error with regard to the D2x and it's extremely sophisticated, distance-aware,and RGB-color metering awareness. He describes +1.0 as being about normal compensation--that is, using other digital camerras, about what one needs to render a white blouse as good and white-white.
However, if one bothers to go to the full thumbnail view of the D2x review, notice how the 0.0 metering photos the D2x turn in are very,very good on this white bliuse test Dillon is making so much of. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2X/D2XTHMB.HTM
Scroll thru this list,especially down to the tall shots of the woman,with the flowers; note that +.3 comp is AMPLE over-exposure to render the whites of her blouse as very white. THe 0.0 shot is almost perfect. THe .7 stop overexposure he's applied has been applied as if the camera is a dumb,cheap,color-blind camera. GO thru the sample pictures,and note that the D2x's in-camera, 3-D, distance-aware,and its 300,000 phoo memory bank is delivering a near-perfect exposure rewndering at 0.0.
Second-guessing the D2x's metering capabilities and appliying gross overexposure corrections like +1.0 and calling that "average exposure compensation" is not needed for the D2x and is a flawed approach to a very sophistiucated camera. Look thru his exposures...+.7 is too MUCH compensation becuas the meter is getting the whites placed as whites with NO comp needed.The D2x does not suffer from a dumb,cheap, color-blind meter.
Dave's verbal comments on the D2x show that it has "amazing shadow detail" to use his words, "with almost no noise"....he's not really apparently putting two and two together with the D2x. THe D2x,according to Dave Etchells, has some of the BEST,deepest,cleanest shadow detail of any D-SLR, and the D2x has the ability to LIFT that shadow detail without noise problems. Better than other D-SLR's. At least that's what Dave's review says. And yet, he's still using cheap-camera-think by applying +1.0 and +.7 stops of exposure compensation to get a white blisue to render as white!
That's not the way it needs to be done on a D2x--it can READ the COLORS or things,metering color temp to determine object color as well as reflectance,as well as distance. Basically, all the shadow detail he mentions is there....and there's no NEED to blow the highlights by telling a smart camera to stupidly over-expose what it already KNOWs is white. Concept: Nikon has tremendous shadow detail in the new camera, and the ability to lift that shadow up is contingent on not OVER-exposing color-metered whites by 3/4 of a stop.
Trying to out-smart the D2x's metering doesn't pay off. Look closely at all of Etchell's test photos,and see how often the BASELINE meter reading is the better exposure than his attempts are:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2X/D2XTHMB.HTM
Similarly, look at how BADLY the S3 BLOWS the highlights when it is set to +1.0 stop over. One the first sample shots of the white blouse test, Dave set the S3 to +1.0 stop over, and the camera blew all the whites until it got to Wide-2 DR mode. The S3 fared better when set to +.5 stop mode,by not blowing the whites so badly.
Anyway,not sure why dredging up a September 2004 review is so newsworthy here, but it does pay to LOOK at how incorrect use of the D2x by people trying to outsmart color- and distance-aware light metering ar emanaging to screw up simple,dead=easy scenes the D2x nails when allowed to measure the color temps, measure the reflectance values, and then run the exposure thru a bank of 300,000 actual photos. Approaching smart metering with dump ideas like Plus 1.0 overexposure as "average compesnation" amounts shows how applying old-thinking methods to high-tech flagship gear leads to ideas that the D2x is a narrow-DR camera. It has incredibly detailed shadows, with detail. But one cannot blindly dial in +7 and +1.0 all the time,trying to outsmart a computer that's smarter than the guy behind the eyepiece.
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum