My S100fs - Compared ...

[Lloydy]

... Heat ?

Maybe, but I am yet to see anyone doing any other comparisons or contributing something other than rhetoric or personal slagging. The images were what they were.

I was going to post some other images shot today in better light and with other lenses - Not really much point in that as it will still lead to a p* ing contest, even if the DSLR ones looked better.

Manly hug ? Thanks, but no.

Keep well.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[ASR45]

Nice comparisons, i would agree the S100FS is a capable camera to some DSLRs, i think that the tamron lens might be the culprit here though. I had the 40D it was a fantastic camera with the right lens, which goes for any camera i had the tamron 70-300 some time ago and was not impressed with it very soft i found. Saying that i also had the Tamron 200-500mm lens which was awesome, so although the test shows clearly the Fuji is better i think the Tamron lens had a lot to do with it. It was a good comparison overall and shows the Fuji as we know is a great camera, all the best regards Alan.

 

[Incal]

.. but i admit that the f stop and DOF aspect of the question that Kim as told is very very interesting and shouldn't be ignored. All of the discussion should be stay around this fact.

Juste doing same test but using correct f stop equivalent for the dslr would be enough to me, because even if i love my s100fs i'm very surprised of the results of your test.

Keep cool and keep taking lots'a shots

--
Un sourire et ça repart. http://www.pbase.com/incal

 

[Timcredible]

im a little confused......everyone is ragging on Dave for comparing a
dslr to the s100fs and calling out his credability and what
not....but it was fine for dpreview to compare a dslr to the s100fs
in the s100fs review.....huummmm....mabey you should all give Dave a
break and through some of this critasizim at dpreview for doing the
same thing. I believe it was the Olympus E-510 they compared the
s100fs to in the review.

same thing i was thinking. this is as bad as the xbox360 vs. ps3 flame wars or the windows vs. linux flame wars i see on some of the other forums i frequent.

 

[sh5880]

and..... dpviews also compared the ca/pf for the s100fs with a D300 +

Nikkor 18-200mm VR , which is claimed that probably the best performing of the small number of super-zoom lenses available for DSLRs.

--
SH

 

[Kim Letkeman]

... You don't recommend this DSLR or this lens ? And I take it that
some Tamron's are OK and some are not ? Maybe you could post a
definitive list of which is good or not good.

Maybe you could take that chip off your shoulder and read what I actually write ... that dSLR is excellent ... that lense is not. Any dSLR is superior in almost any circumstances. That is an axiom. The question is whether you have the skills to use the dSLR. You clearly do not.

I guess I'll have to be more careful when I hear statements which
claim that any entry level DSLR will produce better results than the
S100fs.

You will have to learn to read and process ... not just read and discard.

I really don't want to get more confused.

Ted is quite right ... you are near the upper limit already ... you probably don't have much to worry about.

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

 

[tdkd13]

I dont think its a big issue to compare any two cameras, sometimes it makes less sense than other times (you wont find many tool magazine doing comparisons between a hammer and a nail gun even though they perform the same task in the end) but thats not what many are finding at fault here.

The issue here, at least as I see it is, Dave knew he had a batch of flawed images and simply made the comparison anyways. He knows what parameters are required to get a decently sharp image yet chose to disregard those for some reason. Case in point, the second image is shot at 480mm effective focal length on the Canon, the shutter speed chosen was 1/80 sec, this on a non image stabilized lens, the "comparative" image on the Fuji was shot at 1/450 sec using the Fujis stabilized lens. Obvious errors and ones which Dave knew full well were evident, but he does the old "well thats the best anyone was going to get on that day in that light" which OBVIOUSLY is not true. These are the reasons many are piling on poor ole Dave.

No one can really stop a person from making whatever claims they feel they want to make on a public forum such as this, the value of a forum like this is there are people who will question the merits of any given claim and will not simply say "well, hmmm, I guess the Fuji is better than the Canon DSLR" If any of you dont see the inherant flaw in this particular comparison, your simply not looking very critically, luckily for the average reader there are enough skilled, proficient and technically knowledgeable people that hang around here who can challenge falsehoods when presented. The most egregious aspect of the whole thing is Dave knows better, or should know better. He spent two or three paragraphs of the initial post explaining that he resized all images with great care and in such a way as to be very fair to both, but didnt bother to shoot the images with any care whatsoever, that is disingenuous and conspicuously offensive.
Take care, Ted

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

 

[vjayshutterbug]

Maybe you could take that chip off your shoulder and read what I
actually write

Hmmmm....Kim making that kind of statement to someone??? IRONIC.

 

[GirinoFumetto]

I have an S100 that takes wonderful macros, but
a friend of mine has a Canon, an XI.. something and a Tamron 70-300.

He, some months ago, succeeded in taking a macro photo of a flower.

I don't remember if the pistils were well focused, but I could clearly see the flower.

So, I'd try again

--
Furio

http://picasaweb.google.it/GirinoFumetto

 

[Lloydy]

... Not really sure how many times I have to say it, but this is the last time.

I did not post the flawed images and I have repeated that continually. I posted the ones that were focussed at the same point and framed in the same manner and had focus lock from the camera. I could have posted the others but decided that would be (to quote) disingenuous.

To my eye, the first is the worst - For PF and CA, but is actually focussed on the petal edges. This may be due to a slight 'back-focus' problem. What surprised me, however, was the PF and CA.

The others are what I would expect from a 400D in these conditions and, apart from a slight lack of DR, are eminently fixable in PP.

Again, to my eye, and seeing them large on-screen, there is nothing particularly wrong with them.

I did NOT make comments with my original post, except to say I had resized them to match each format. A fair enough exercise on my part, I would think. In fact, I was trying to anticipate reactions I may get which would come in the form of not comparing 'apples to apples'.

I posted images taken side-by-side. Others have made the 'mountain' and, unfortunately, folk like you have also made it a personal vendetta. Why would you stoop so low ? If anyone's credibility is damaged here, it is not mine.

I was going to post more comparisons from different lenses, but you, and your mate, have made that a stupidly pointless exercise.

You spout words of wisdom, yet, when it comes to someone doing a simple 'real world' post with side-by-side images so folk can make their own comparisons - All you can do is to resort to bully tactics. I liked TNT better.

If you do deem it absolutely necessary to quote my text here, at least have the 'gonads' to quote it all.

Take care.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Lloydy]

... These are not Macro images, but Telephoto.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Lloydy]

... Talking of reading - I was NOT shooting the DSLR. Try again :
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Lloydy]

... To be fair, I was going to pull the images. But, stupidly irrelevant personally attacking statements like this made me determined to leave them up.

If you really have nothing concrete to add here - Move on.

I will add, so we are really, really clear :-

I did not post the flawed images and I have repeated that continually. I posted the ones that were focussed at the same point and framed in the same manner and had focus lock from the camera. I could have posted the others but decided that would be (to quote) disingenuous.

To my eye, the first is the worst - For PF and CA, but is actually focussed on the petal edges. This may be due to a slight 'back-focus' problem. What surprised me, however, was the PF and CA. It is all fixable of course, but the focus is not.

The others are what I would expect from a 400D in these conditions and, apart from a slight lack of DR, are eminently fixable in PP.

Again, to my eye, and seeing them large on-screen, there is nothing particularly wrong with them.

I did NOT make comments with my original post, except to say I had resized them to match each format. A fair enough exercise on my part, I would think.

In fact, I was trying to anticipate reactions I may get which would come in the form of not comparing 'apples to apples'.

I posted images taken side-by-side WITHOUT comment. Others have made the 'mountain' and, unfortunately, folk like you have also made it a personal vendetta. Why would you stoop so low ? If anyone's credibility is damaged here, it is not mine.

I was going to post more comparisons from different lenses, but you, and your mate, have made that a stupidly pointless exercise.

You spout words of wisdom, yet, when it comes to someone doing a simple 'real world' post with side-by-side images so folk can make their own comparisons - All you can do is to resort to bully tactics. I liked TNT better.

If you do deem it absolutely necessary to quote my text here, at least have the 'gonads' to quote it all.

Take care.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Svein Eriksen]

Macro or not doesn't have anything to do with focal length.

... These are not Macro images, but Telephoto.

 

[tdkd13]

... Not really sure how many times I have to say it, but this is the
last time.

I did not post the flawed images and I have repeated that
continually.

Well then, if you dont think those images are flawed your seriously misguided, a 1/80 second exposure at 480mm with no image stabilization is not how people use a camera, you KNOW this. You can reiterate as many times as you care, its not going to change the fact that you did indeed post flawed images, your exposure of the SAME SCENE was 1/450 second. How do you call that not a flaw.

I posted the ones that were focussed at the same point
and framed in the same manner and had focus lock from the camera. I
could have posted the others but decided that would be (to quote)
disingenuous.

The entire post is disingenuous, you took great care in how you resized the images, but took NO CARE AT ALL with how you (or your friend) captured them, you know 1/80 sec exposure at 480mm will not produce a usable image, how can you not know that, and yet you claim thats one of the few good images.

Again, to my eye, and seeing them large on-screen, there is nothing
particularly wrong with them.

Even after my pointing out the capture conditions are FAR outside what any reasonable person would expect, you still see nothing wrong with them? Hmmm, well, alrighty then.

I did NOT make comments with my original post, except to say I had
resized them to match each format. A fair enough exercise on my part,
I would think. In fact, I was trying to anticipate reactions I may
get which would come in the form of not comparing 'apples to apples'.

So, 1/80 second and no IS vs 1/450 sec and IS and that is a fair apples to apples comparison, Dave, I know you know better, thats the worse part, everyone here knows you know better.

I posted images taken side-by-side. Others have made the 'mountain'
and, unfortunately, folk like you have also made it a personal
vendetta. Why would you stoop so low ? If anyone's credibility is
damaged here, it is not mine.

And what color is the sky in your world Dave, my credibility is not at issue since I didnt make any fantastic claims supported by completely erroneous proof.

I was going to post more comparisons from different lenses, but you,
and your mate, have made that a stupidly pointless exercise.

You spout words of wisdom, yet, when it comes to someone doing a
simple 'real world' post with side-by-side images so folk can make
their own comparisons - All you can do is to resort to bully tactics.
I liked TNT better.

How is pointing out the inherant flaws in your work being a bully. If someone came in here and posted something as equally inane which implied the S100fs was a horrible camera I would call them to task in the same fashion. Since I do not have a dog in this fight, what reason would I have for not being objective. You have lost any objectivity long ago, now you have lost any credibility as well, so be it.

Whats funny is I have said a hundred times here how much I like this camera, I have recommended it to numerous posters who outline their needs and what they have to spend, yet I am still considered a big critic of this camera, why is that Dave? I think that in order to be deemed a fan and not a critic of this camera, I would have to divorce myself from reason (as you have so obviously done), ignore any flaws in the camera design, and claim that this is indeed the finest camera ever manufactured. So far it has not been enough to say this is the best bridge camera on the market now and likely the most full featured bridge camera ever produced. I have said that a number of times yet its not enough for you, I need to go all the way, drink the kool aid and start chanting Fuji as I drift off to sleep.

If you do deem it absolutely necessary to quote my text here, at
least have the 'gonads' to quote it all.

Thats the best you can do? Geez, what next a spell flame, grasping at straws is a sure sign you haven't got much substance left, which is as I thought it would be. I knowe what happens next, you simply ignore everything that was said and carry on with your "My S100fs and the Library" series of posts. Great, can't wait.

Take care.

You too sir, its been real, Ted

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

 

[tdkd13]

... To be fair, I was going to pull the images.

So you now see that your comparison shots are unfair, great. But since I said it was not possible for you to become more confused than you already claimed to be your going to leave your unfair comparison shots up? This makes sense, how?

Your logic is amusing if nothing else, its amazing to witness thought processes which seem so counterintuitive.

Once I watched an orangutan trying to figure out how the cage door and lock mechnism worked, he/she was really putting thoughts together and concentrating mightily, it was great fun to watch. .... Oh wait, I'm not implying anything here, dont take it that way.

Take care, Ted

 

[Lloydy]

... Unfortunately, you're wrong.

Well then, if you dont think those images are flawed your seriously
misguided, a 1/80 second exposure at 480mm with no image
stabilization is not how people use a camera, you KNOW this. You can
reiterate as many times as you care, its not going to change the fact
that you did indeed post flawed images, your exposure of the SAME
SCENE was 1/450 second. How do you call that not a flaw.

The Exif from both images.

400D - 1/125', f5.6, 300 mm (480 equiv) ISO200

S100fs - 1/160', f5.3, 400 mm (x2) ISO200

Would you like, now, to rephrase all your points ? Really, not much point is there ?

You have turned it into something personal. I made NO comments on the images, left the Exif intact for all to read/assess/interpret and, yet, you still want to pull it down to a low level.

Seriously, I have no axe to grind with you, but please do get your data correct. It is about fact after all, isn't it ?

Take care.

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Lloydy]

... Classic. Made me smile.

By the way, read my 'empirical data' response to your (Dave, Dave, Dave) other incorrect post below.

Also, I was not going to 'pull them' because they were flawed, I was going to post other examples which were taken with other lenses to give a broader perspective for all. Quite pointless now, isn't it ?

As always, take care.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[tojkr]

When dpreivew compared S100FS with Oly-E420 with its 14-42 lens , because the price of Oly-E420 with its 14-42 lens is same as S100FS, the comparison looked 'fair'.

Fair except for one point. One side of competition has only a quarter of focal range of the other. Fairer would have been the comparison had dpreivew used on of those lenses that has range equivalent of 28-400mm (18-250mm) with suitable camera.

Anyways, Lloydy comparing only macro is not good too. Should try different photos.

 

[Lloydy]

... We have actually taken many images over the past two days with different lenses.

There seems very little point in posting these as a continuance to this thread, irrespective of strengths/weaknesses either showed.

However, thanks for your input.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet