Comparing S2 photos

[moris]

I keep looking at photos posted in this forum and I try to compare S2 photos to Pro1 photos. I get the feeling that S2 photos are more soft, out of focus , not sharp as Pro1 or G6 photos. S2 photos are almost like my A510 photos in sharpness.
What do you say?

Moris

 

[Montana500]

the S2 is a bit soft, but Id say it's pretty close to the Pro1.

 

[imbsysop]

I keep looking at photos posted in this forum and I try to compare
S2 photos to Pro1 photos. I get the feeling that S2 photos are
more soft, out of focus , not sharp as Pro1 or G6 photos. S2 photos
are almost like my A510 photos in sharpness.
What do you say?

that your posting will be received here like "swearing in the church"

--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !

 

[imbsysop]

the S2 is a bit soft, but Id say it's pretty close to the Pro1.

ROTFL !!

--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !

 

[tkz4]

What you are seeing is true, but not a show stopper.

You cannot compare the 100% resolution crops of a dense 1/2.5" sensor (S2) and a 2/3"(pro 1). Its unfair. (It's really sensor density that matters.)

A smaller sensor allows for a larger conversion factor, allowing a smaller lens to have more equivalent zoom power. The S2 needs a small sensor to keep its lens size reasonable. On the S2 the 12X zoom is 6-72mm= 36-432mm equivalent (6X coinversion to 35mm film.)
The pro 1 uses a 7.2-50.8mm lens= 28-200mm equiv (so a 4X factor.)

If you wanted to put a 12X 36-432mm zoom like the S2 has on a 2/3" sensor cam like the Pro1 the camera would be enormous when compared to other p&s cams.

The new FZ30 has an 8MP sensor, but the sensor is smaller than the one on the Pro1 (1/1.8" vs 2/3"), and the fz30 is much bigger despite having a slower lens.

If you want a 12X zoom that can easily be carried like the S2 (or H1 or FZ5) then you have to be ready for the compromise- both optically with the lens and imagewise with a dense small senor.

The S2 is capable of taking excellent pictures. You just can't spend too much time overanylizing how 100% crops look. The 5MP files are meant to be printed to 8X10 or resized to fit a screen.
TK--
http://community.webshots.com/user/tk_gallery
http://tk-gallery.smugmug.com/
Coupon: http://www.smugmug.com/?referrer=3axwzVifLgTQw

 

[Simon Cowell]

It's difficult to make comparisons because most of the pictures posted on these forums are post-processed unless stated otherwise. The best thing to do is download dpreview's test images and compare at 100%. Again it's difficult to find like for like but this is generally more reliable.

 

[Harley2003]

Take a look at my gallery and tell me what you think........all taken with S2 and little or no PP..........

http://www.pbase.com/jpeless

 

[Lord of Things]

hhhhmmm...Soft? For a $500 camera, I would say that it is okay. What do you want for $500 besides everything?

































There's more where these came from if you need more to see how soft and useless this camera is.

 

[Nicky Steel]

Quote

""useless comparison .. different cameras .. ""

 

[moris]

Thank you all for the information and the beautiful pictures with S2.

I'm sorry I made some of you angry but I'm glad I saw all your galleries and pictures. They are all beautiful and much sharper than I had in my mind.
I change my mind about S2.

Thanks again...
Moris