Reading mode: Light Dark

My S100fs - Compared ...

Go to last post
Lloydy

Lloydy

Forum Pro
Messages
19,595
Solutions
4
Reaction score
527
Location
TH
... Well, today is the first time I have had an opportunity to do a comparison of the S100fs with a DSLR.

I went out with an acquaintance who has a 400D and a Tamron 70-300 LD Di 1:4-5.6 Tele Macro 1:2 lens. He has other lenses also, but this one was chosen for the length comparison.

We both wanted to do some comparison images and see what the outcome was. After coming back to the gallery, we selected the following images for comparison sake.

There were many others, but the non-Fuji images were not useable, due to missed focus. Have to take my word for that :

The S100fs, of course, has it's own fixed lens and every image had DZ turned on. Both cameras were set to ISO200 and each had a UV filter screwed on.

We did not necessarily shoot at the same moment, but were using the LCD to (re) frame what the other had shot prior.

In every instance, the Fuji image is first, followed by the 400D and then followed by 100% crops from the Fuji and then the 400D.

Absolutely no PP work has been done other than cropping to get 'same' dimensions and resizing.

Please note :- All the 400D images have had the length cropped to match the length of the Fuji and all the Fuji images have been cropped to match the height of the 400D. The simplest formula to do this was to crop both to 12 x 17" (300ppi) and then re-size from that crop.

I would guess, this means about 10-12% (average) has been cropped off the image in favour of the other. As far as possible, each image was framed to match the image from the other camera.

























--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet
 
Hi Dave, I enjoy your picture threads but..... What is the point of this?

These kind of threads are just devisive and you know it. To post a bunch of OOF shots from a DSLR is a useless comparison and only serves to fan the flames. Everyone here is aware the S100 is a good camera, you and others are posting wonderful pics from it... So JUST DO THAT....

If that was my dslr & lens I would have taken both back a long time ago. It is either operator error or a defective lens, or camera with horrible auto focus. I could post lots of pics from that lens that would match your shots. But again, what would be the point?

Your S100 is a great bridge camera... Just post lots of pics from it and that proves it. But please stop with the horrible comparisons. It does not prove anything and is very misleading.

Love always
gus

--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious
 
What you neglected to mention is that the D400 was dipped in Karo syrup prior to each shot. :-) I don't think this is really a very helpful "comparison" in that almost any dSLR with a working lens would do as good a job as the S100. Its better to stick to more credible examples to make your point. Basically what you've proven is that your friend has a crappy lens and a high threshold for poor optics.

-- Bob
 
All that has been shown is that your friend cannot focus a camera properly, and that you have the inability to discern a proper test from an exercise in futility. What any "normal" engineer (yes you claimed to be one) would have done upon learning that "ALL" of the non Fuji images were misfocussed is scrap the comparison until such a time as decent samples can be obtained. Instead you chose to try and find a couple acceptable images and try and pass that off as having some value. I can do the same experiment and misfocus all the Fuji shots and it would be just as inconclusive. This is the reason I always point people towards results gleaned from properly run repeatable experiments. If you are so obtuse as to find value in this, I shall notify whatever university supplied you with an engineering diploma and have that rescinded immediately.

Nice try, but I think even YOU can see that the only value in this particular set of images is the fun I get from pointing and laughing (hint, I'm not laughing WITH you). ;)
Takle care, Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
... you claim to be a "professional" photographer ... yet you post some of the least technically competent data I have yet seen on this forum.

1) The first image shows a significant variation in sharpness, and a bit of a glow on the dSLR shot that looks like a significant drop in contrast. So what could cause that? Here is the answer:

The sharpness issue is caused by the spectacular difference in depth of field. How's that you say? The Fuji was shot at F5.3 and the Tamron at F5.6 ... very close. Not so, says the NxA rule ... there is approximately a 4x or 5x difference in sensor size, so you need to multiply the Fuji's aperture by that number to get a comparable aperture for depth of field purposes. Thus ... we are comparing a close shot at 5.6 on a dSLR (which is far too wide an aperture to get decent depth in a macro shot ... what was he thinking?) against an effective F21.2 or F26.5 ... very wide DOF indeed. I.e. these are hardly comparable at all.

Now, about the glow. Well, the 70-300 macro lenses are some of the cheapest long lenses made .... they are the softest and least contrasty lenses made. They also have some of the worst CA known to man (easily as bad as the Fuji in some cases) ... which is why these lenses tend to cost a couple of hundred bucks and are universally disliked for serious work. The only good consumer lenses in this range are: the Nikon 70-300VR, the Nikon 70-300ED and the Sigma 70-300 APO. There might be a Canon lense or two, but I don't know that line. These all cost about 350 to 500 bucks. And note that the Tamron lense was shot wide open, so of course the output sucked.

2) The second crop shows some of the worst PF you will ever see. That's what happens when you shoot these cheap lenses in macro mode. Once in a while you get a great shot from them, but not often.

The rest of the images need no comment since they are all more of the same ...

The fact is that this is a completely bogus comparison, as 3 out of the first 4 comments clearly stated.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
... This is a (DPR) 'Highly Recommended' DSLR with a very competent operator and the lens is recommended by several on this forum as making a viable DSLR combo. He also has ‘L’ lenses but no-one is really suggesting a DSLR body with $$$$ glass, are they ?

I, for one, was interested to see the results. Care was taken with the setups and focus points were the same for both cameras. The Tamron is 6 weeks old and in pristine condition. I was surprised at the PF and CA in the first image.

You tell me that you can produce sharp images from your Tamron yet you stated :

“The difference is, now that I realize the limitations of my cheap PF'n lens …… I lost some beautiful egret shots to the tamron 70-300 and I lost confidence in it”.

I was also surprised to see the PF and CA in the first image.

Divisive ? I just posted some pictures :

What is divisive is that the Fuji forum allows folk to denigrate an excellent Fuji product which is 'lauded' by it's owners and who continually turn out images the camera is not supposed to be able to do. I’m sure that as the Tamron is being recommended as a S100fs ‘equivalent’ then some folk will believe that it will produce S100fs quality images.

For example, in response to one of my posts where I stated I had never been a big Tamron fan :-

“The Tamron measures right up there with the Nikon (70-300VR) …… I think your experience is a little out of date”.

The Tamron may not be the greatest lens for the 400D, but the 400D as tested by DPR used lenses totalling somewhere between $US1500 and $US2000 (depending on whether the 70-200 f4L was IS, or not). This does not include the body.
EF-S 18-55 ($US100-181), EF-S 17-55 IS ($US1,038), EF 70-200 f4L ($US596-1,072)

I think many folk who want an excellent image solution would be put off at having to spend that sort of money, don’t you ?

I will post some more of my images soon - Always glad you like them.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet
 
... Why ?

Well, folk keep telling us that a DSLR with a good focal length lens will produce what the S100fs can.

“The Tamron measures right up there with the Nikon (70-300VR) …… I think your experience is a little out of date”.

Now, who could have said that to me ? Same person who is now telling me that the 'cheap' Tamron zoom cannot produce the goods. Have to laugh, don't we ?

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet
 
Dave, do you actually think the testing you did was valid? You yourself mentioned that all the "non fuji" images were out of focus, does that not have some meaning to you?

I swear you are so caught up in the fan boy zeal that you have lost the ability to discern meaning from sentences. Its hard to have a rational discussion with you because often when confronted with evidence the doesnt support your argument, you just make pithy little one line comments and move on. I guess thats fine if all you simply want to do is appear to rise above and not partake in argumentative type threads. But you start these same threads time and again. Its plain the images from the Canon are flawed, so you doing a comparison between two cameras and starting with completely invalid data from the one you are attempting to (your word) denigrate.

You have destroyed ANY credibility you may have had in my mind, I really can't take anything you say seriously anymore, the only upside to this is, it wont be long until you have lost any credibility period. Its one thing to be enthusiastic, its another to be completely disingenuous, I know I overuse that word but the alternative in this case is dishonest and I dont think that will help anything, so I will leave it as disingenuous period.
Ted
Lloydy said:
... Always happy if I can make you laugh :
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet
Click to expand...
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/
 
Dave do you really believe that is a good copy of that $149 lens? I have never had those kind of focus issues with mine. It does PF at some High contrast points but no worse than the S100 would do with the same shot. I just dont like dealing with PF in PP... so I dont use the tamron in those kinds of conditions.

But you are smart enough to know something is very wrong with those tamron examples and yet you posted them as a comparison. This I believe is misleading. I am just suprized to see this kind of post from you after our time together in the sony forum. I know you feel that some people do not share your love of this camera but most of think it is the best bridge cam going...

To all of us who know better it is not a big deal, but some people come here looking for real examples in making thier decision between a $700 bridge cam and an entry level DSLR... you have not helped them at all posting these sad examples. Thats all I am saying....

The tamron can be much sharper than your examples show and I just think you know that. That is what shocks me about this post.

--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious
 
I am off to vegas.... sorry if the post seemed harsh. I just know my copy of the Tamron is sharp. PF'n yes, but not OOF... dull.

You seemed to have got the response that you must have been expecting, so I will just say keep boppin' and weavin'. You left yourself a bit defenseless on this one.

--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious
 
Hey Ted...

BTW, was THIS one of the DSLR kits you were taling about getting for the price of a S100? ( Just kidding. Just kidding. )

Well if you make lemonade from the lemons, at least the S100 shots do look nice enough. I do like the delicate veining in the backlit leaf or stem thing.

I do have to wonder what is with our collective fascination with plant genitals. I'm assuming if these were shots of the corresponding parts of a cat, he'd be banned for life.

-- Bob
 
Fantastic (adjective): extravagantly fanciful, capricious, eccentric; grotesque or quaint in design etc. (Concise Oxford Dictionary - yes, only a part of the definition but it is the appropriate part)

Dave, you have posted many good and helpful things on this forum, and have done much to help popularise this camera.

I suppose everybody has an off day from time to time. I definitely have more than my share, and I'm going to presume that this was one of yours. ;-)

Come on Dave, I know you can do better than this... :-)
Cheers,
Nionyn
--
Been to http://www.fujimugs.com yet? Go on - you know you want to...
Scrappy excuse for a gallery at http://www.Nionyn.PhotoShare.co.nz
Also on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8969481@N04/
 
Hello Lloydy,
i have an S100FS too but please don't use macro photos to make comparisons.

Macro photography is very unstable and difficult to make a good comparison, so is probably that a DSLR or compact camera couldn't focus properly and are magnifiyng the difference between DSLRs and compact cameras DOF.

Make photos(no macro photos) in a controlled conditions like your room ,with tripod to an static object,then use similar settings except for diafragma (in a DSLR f11 and in the fuji f2.8 for example, i don't know the equivalent). I think that if you use this kind of comparison probably the people couldn't say nothing (one photo is better than words) and if the fuji is better or worse that will be the true but could help people to see the real difference.

for my kind of photography i know that i bought what i wanted so the result won't change my mind.

If the fuji is better(that will be a surprise) probably somebody will say that the DSLR or the lense is defective (to me the result will mean that will be more probable to buy a defective DSLR+ lens combo than a fujiS100FS,or that fuji has better image quality too)

At all thanks for your time and contributions

Best regards
 
You just love opening cans of worms don't you Dave? Go on enjoying your camera in spite of others. But with all the hate this camera inspires I would not worry about comparisons. If it works for you what difference do comparisons make? And to think I was taken to task for even bringing this subject up in the last "comparison" thread. Forget the comparisons, just show us what can be done if we put our minds to it. Everything else is about as useless as telling a hair-raising story to a bald man.

BTW, I am still waiting for some more portrait photos. I really need DC-based lighting (I shoot a lot outdoors and can't bet the farm on AC) and am trying to figure out which way to go so some real life equipment experiences would be appreciated. So far shootsmarter.com has been the best for this type of stuff. But I am interested in seeing others experiences with the S100 in a controlled light environment as well as uncontrolled. In other words, studio and outdoors where ambient light becomes an issue.
 
Lloydy said:
Well, folk keep telling us that a DSLR with a good focal length lens
will produce what the S100fs can.

“The Tamron measures right up there with the Nikon (70-300VR) …… I
think your experience is a little out of date”.
Click to expand...
Different Tamron ... I seem to remember that being the 18-250 ... a very different lense.
Lloydy said:
Now, who could have said that to me ? Same person who is now telling
me that the 'cheap' Tamron zoom cannot produce the goods. Have to
laugh, don't we ?
Click to expand...
Go back and find the original quote ... tell me that I said such good things about the Tamron 70-300 ... I don't think so.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
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