My S100fs - Compared ...

[Lloydy]

... Have a really good time in Vegas. Cheers.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Kim Letkeman]

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.

The Tamron 70-300 is not particularly good. It does not matter at all how good its condition is.

But the real issue is that it was shot incorrectly for macro work. Wide open in macro mode is completely incorrect for that or any lense ...

As a professional photographer, this should be second nature to you ...

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.

Now, here is where you have failed to engage your brain before typing ...

When we have recommended a Tamron lense with, say, a stabilized sensor camera like the Pentax K100D to basically match the range of the Fuji F100fs ... we always mention the

18-250* ..... NOT the 70-300 .... that lense NEVER comes up.

Now ... is that clear enough for you? The two lenses are in an entirely different league.

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think your experience is a little out of date”.

Are you quoting me? Because, in your infinite fan-boy zeal, you have BOTH lenses wrong here. I was comparing the Tamron 18-250 to the Nikon 18-200VR ... both are very good, and are easily a match for the Fuji.

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)

So what? You used a cheap, kind of junky lense, shot it incorrectly, then confused the 70-300 lenses with the 18-250 and 18-200 lenses ... how does throwing in all this irrelevant info help your argument at all?

Honestly ... your inability to get the technical details right is scary sometimes ...

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 ?

What sort of money? The Pentax K100D and Tamron 18-250** is far cheaper than the irrelevant cam and lenses you quote above ... that stuff is not what Fuji competes with anyway.

There are a lot of people who are not put off by paying a grand for something as good as the Pentax K200D and Tamron 18-250. Or the Nikon D60 and Nikon 18-200VR. You get what you pay for after all ...

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

 

[Lloydy]

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?

Test ? My friend and I went out and shot side-by-side images to compare how the images would look from each machine. We were in a garden, not a laboratory.

Overcast sky, very low contrast light, using long focal lengths, etc. As I mentioned earlier, both cameras were set to ISO200. It wouldn't be comparable to have one set differently, would it ? Then I would be accused of other things.

The meaning for me is that the combination used would not do what the s100fs did 'in it's sleep'. In a real world situation, where someone may want to use this particular combo to take some flower images, it did not work.

OOF ? - Well, the images taken for comparison with the 400D and Tamron were not in focus. The camera's AF showed focus when they were not in focus. I mentioned that because, whilst I have posted three specific comparisons here, the other six, or so, were not useable. On the LCD, they looked (reasonably) in focus and, certainly, the first example I posted here looked fine on the LCD.

Most folk looking at a similar combination would believe they can go out with a DSLR/lens (same or similar) and produce nice images because it is a DSLR and, in particular, someone may think this combo will work for them - It may, but it was very difficult to get good images and to judge the results as they were taken.

Folk have been told often enough that a DSLR will do anything the S100fs can do and do it better. Doesn't work that way. I know to use such a combo requires more than just pushing a button, however, on the S100fs, all I did was push the button.

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.

This is the first comparison thread I have started. Why ? I had an opportunity to see images from a DSLR compared to the S100fs. All I did was post some images taken by two people in the same circumstances with similar cameras because I had an opportunity to have the cameras side-by-side.

My one line response was to your meaningless points about my educational background. I could not find an on-topic point in there, so I could only be happy you got a laugh out of it :

Its plain the images from the Canon are flawed,

I can see that.

Why are they flawed ? This was a DSLR with a 'good' after market lens that would fit many folks budget, and would be recommended by many as a good entry level combination.

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, I'm sure you think that is all true, but I am not sure why you would call me dishonest and write such a long paragraph to say that.

These are the type of images anyone could expect on that day, with that light, with those settings, etc., and from the equipment used.

I was not trying to denigrate the camera, I was trying to show resultant images.

The point for anyone considering a DSLR to understand is - Just because it is a DSLR does not mean perfect images.

I would have thought this was the sort of balance some would want to see. Not just a 'mine's bigger' debate, but actual images.

I post actual images and all you want to do is question my educational background, call me dishonest and tell all my credibility is in the toilet.

Well, if you feel that's what you need to do, so be it.

Take care.

Ted

... Always happy if I can make you laugh :
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

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

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

 

[Lloydy]

... 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.

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.

I really don't want to get more confused.

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

 

[Kiwi Rik]

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?

Test ? My friend and I went out and shot side-by-side images to
compare how the images would look from each machine. We were in a
garden, not a laboratory.

Overcast sky, very low contrast light, using long focal lengths, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, both cameras were set to ISO200. It wouldn't
be comparable to have one set differently, would it ? Then I would be
accused of other things.

The meaning for me is that the combination used would not do what the
s100fs did 'in it's sleep'. In a real world situation, where someone
may want to use this particular combo to take some flower images, it
did not work.

OOF ? - Well, the images taken for comparison with the 400D and
Tamron were not in focus. The camera's AF showed focus when they were
not in focus. I mentioned that because, whilst I have posted three
specific comparisons here, the other six, or so, were not useable. On
the LCD, they looked (reasonably) in focus and, certainly, the first
example I posted here looked fine on the LCD.

Most folk looking at a similar combination would believe they can go
out with a DSLR/lens (same or similar) and produce nice images
because it is a DSLR and, in particular, someone may think this combo
will work for them - It may, but it was very difficult to get good
images and to judge the results as they were taken.

Folk have been told often enough that a DSLR will do anything the
S100fs can do and do it better. Doesn't work that way. I know to use
such a combo requires more than just pushing a button, however, on
the S100fs, all I did was push the button.

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.

This is the first comparison thread I have started. Why ? I had an
opportunity to see images from a DSLR compared to the S100fs. All I
did was post some images taken by two people in the same
circumstances with similar cameras because I had an opportunity to
have the cameras side-by-side.

My one line response was to your meaningless points about my
educational background. I could not find an on-topic point in there,
so I could only be happy you got a laugh out of it :

Its plain the images from the Canon are flawed,

I can see that.

Why are they flawed ? This was a DSLR with a 'good' after market lens
that would fit many folks budget, and would be recommended by many as
a good entry level combination.

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, I'm sure you think that is all true, but I am not sure why you
would call me dishonest and write such a long paragraph to say that.

These are the type of images anyone could expect on that day, with
that light, with those settings, etc., and from the equipment used.

I was not trying to denigrate the camera, I was trying to show
resultant images.

The point for anyone considering a DSLR to understand is - Just
because it is a DSLR does not mean perfect images.

I would have thought this was the sort of balance some would want to
see. Not just a 'mine's bigger' debate, but actual images.

I post actual images and all you want to do is question my
educational background, call me dishonest and tell all my credibility
is in the toilet.

Well, if you feel that's what you need to do, so be it.

Take care.

Ted

... Always happy if I can make you laugh :
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

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

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

Hi Dave..I fully agree with you (above)...and it is exactly how I took your comparisons to be........On the day with the tools being used...the S100 would produce more keepers....than the more difficult to use DSLR...nothing more nothing less...so thanks
--
Cheers

Rik

 

[Lloydy]

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.

I hope you are enjoying your S100fs.

By the way, these are long focal length images - Macro was not used. It was simply zooming in on a subject. DZ was on, on the S100fs, so that the longer reach of the Tamron could be emulated if needed.

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

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

 

[Lloydy]

... Pretty sure it wasn't an -off day'.

Anyway, all I did was post some images and the temperature rose. Guess I shouldn't post the ones from today ?
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

 

[Dannyboy292]

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.
--
FUJI FINEPIX S100FS,FUJI FINEPIX S9000
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12031129733

 

[Kim Letkeman]

OOF ? - Well, the images taken for comparison with the 400D and
Tamron were not in focus. The camera's AF showed focus when they were
not in focus.

Actually, parts of the images are in focus. Enough that the camera is probably justified in lighting the indicator. The focus problem is more linked to extremely shallow depth of field caused by less than competent handling. You don't shoot that close wide open.

I mentioned that because, whilst I have posted three
specific comparisons here, the other six, or so, were not useable. On
the LCD, they looked (reasonably) in focus and, certainly, the first
example I posted here looked fine on the LCD.

The LCD is not a good measure of focus for a dSLR. You must use magnification on the LCD to judge.

Most folk looking at a similar combination would believe they can go
out with a DSLR/lens (same or similar) and produce nice images
because it is a DSLR and, in particular, someone may think this combo
will work for them - It may, but it was very difficult to get good
images and to judge the results as they were taken.

A competent photographer would (a) choose a better lense for the dSLR; and/or (b) shoot it properly. When going close and trying to get more than a sliver in focus ... stop down. That handles several issues ... it improves sharpness and contrast, it reduces CA, and it increases depth of field. This is extremely important when shooting such a cheap lense. To match the DOF field that the Fuji enjoys, one would need to stop down close to F22. But going to F11 should do the trick most of the time ...

Note that, when using that dSLR with that lense, a tripod is necessary for truly crisp images at long focal lengths.

Folk have been told often enough that a DSLR will do anything the
S100fs can do and do it better. Doesn't work that way.

Not in your hands ... I agree.

I know to use
such a combo requires more than just pushing a button, however, on
the S100fs, all I did was push the button.

You have trumpeted repeatedly your professional status, myriad publications, ownership of a gallery and so on ... so I expect a far higher level of competence from you when you embark on such a comparison.

Hiding behind "all i did was push a button" is rather lame ...

Its plain the images from the Canon are flawed,

I can see that.

Why are they flawed ? This was a DSLR with a 'good' after market lens
that would fit many folks budget, and would be recommended by many as
a good entry level combination.

This would not be recommended as a good entry level combination. An 18-250 or 18-200 might be ... but the cheaper 70-300 lenses are not that good.

And if one does recommend such a long lense for a beginner, a tripod is also recommended.

These are the type of images anyone could expect on that day, with
that light, with those settings, etc., and from the equipment used.

Shot competently, the images would be far better. Far, far better.

I was not trying to denigrate the camera, I was trying to show
resultant images.

Try harder ... you are a professional ... start shooting like it.

The point for anyone considering a DSLR to understand is - Just
because it is a DSLR does not mean perfect images.

Well, no kidding. You have certainly proven that some cameras and lenses require a higher level of skill to operate successfully ...

I would have thought this was the sort of balance some would want to
see. Not just a 'mine's bigger' debate, but actual images.

Actual images shot poorly only fuel more debate ...

I post actual images and all you want to do is question my
educational background, call me dishonest and tell all my credibility
is in the toilet.

Your credibility as a professional has been stretched pretty much every time you contribute something technical to the forum. But this set of images is so poorly shot that you've really dug a hole ...

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Hi Dave..I fully agree with you (above)...and it is exactly how I
took your comparisons to be........On the day with the tools being
used...the S100 would produce more keepers....than the more difficult
to use DSLR...nothing more nothing less...so thanks

Rik ... all well and good. But you must add one more caveat to the list ....

On that day, with those tools, and with that photographer ... the S100 would produce more keepers. Absolutely true.

But ... on that day, with those tools, and with a photographer that had a clue how to shoot a cheap consumer lense that long and close, the keepers would have been essentially identical. And possibly better on the Canon/Tamron combo because higher ISO could easily be used to speed up the shutter for crisper shots ...

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

... Pretty sure it wasn't an -off day'.

Anyway, all I did was post some images and the temperature rose.
Guess I shouldn't post the ones from today ?

If they were competently shot this time ... please do.

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

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.

DPReview generally shoot all cameras with variables equalized. They also shoot their images quite competently. They do not post mistakes. There is nothing wrong with what they do.

The images above, on the other hand, are nothing but mistakes ...

That's why Dave is taking such a pounding ... I am surprised you could not parse that from the responses.

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

 

[rennie12]

I found out I don't know what "disingenuous" means. Not exactly; I looked it up - Ted used it correctly and I agree with his conclusions about Dave. And Kim's, also.

Sadly.

I cannot imagine WHY Dave would post such a credibility-damaging comparison. I have the S100fs (like/use it) and gave my 350XT to a grandchild when I bought the K10D about a year ago. I also like/use the K10D...

Comparing an ultrazoom ("bridge camera" is a misleading bit of 'marketing-speak' imho) to a DSLR is dumb anyway - like comparing a cat to a dog - but this particular comparison is genuinely absurd.

Sadly.

I have much enjoyed and admired Dave's images and hope to do so in the future; but any conclusions he may come to to are now somewhat questionable...

Sadly.

--
bill wilson

 

[Dannyboy292]

i actually thought Dave's comparisons were pretty good....but then again im not a expert on it as other people seem to think they are, so im just going to back out now and observe from a far.........later
--
FUJI FINEPIX S100FS,FUJI FINEPIX S9000
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12031129733

 

[Greg Photo Sydney]

Oh Dave, haven't you ruffled some feathers here?

Who could guess that this forum doesn't deal with a single DSLR model!

It's said that the truth is painful... and in this place seems inevitably to lead to another outbreak of unbridled hysteria.

Whatever else is said about the S100fs, it could never be denied that it generates quite remarkable passion in its detractors.

This must be significant.

I have virtually a full slr system. I still use, enjoy and appreciate it's abilities (film). But I haven't bought a digital body because, for my kind of photography the system at this moment is not able to compete with a true digital camera. The S100fs is my third digital and the best by far.

Whenever I am at an event with other photographers (mostly using dslrs), occasionally I look away from the S100fs viewfinder to see my snapper colleagues peering with narrowed eyes at their camera back display. I assume they are trying to figure out whether the exposure is correct, whether they achieved focus or maybe, whether their composition has any merit. And if they aren't doing that they're fiddling away in the camera bag changing lens.

I can only shake my head and put my eye up to the viewfinder, zoom 28-400mm equiv, frame the shot, check that exposure is correct, click then check focus and composition in the short replay and move on to the next shot. How often do we read here how comparatively fast the dslr is?

When will they ever learn.

Status is important to the average human being and no less to photographers. So it's no surprise that long feature lists, variety of lenses .... and of course $cost, end up being very important to some people – especially in relation to their peers.

Face it, the Fuji is a very good camera. And it's superior to the slr model of camera in respect to the needs of many photographers.

Keep up the good work, Dave.

 

[tdkd13]

I had a point by point post all typed out, which was unfortuantely over the character limit and then the forum server puked and, well, here we are. I have opted to simply post a very brief bit in reply. I do appreciate you taking the time to try and explain your actions, but think its a fairly feeble bit of "aw shucks, I dunno why everyone is so annoyed". Frankly, its gotten a bit tired.

Anyways here is all I felt still relevant from my earlier reply which was lost in the internet somewhere.

Ted, I'm sure you think that is all true, but I am not sure why you
would call me dishonest and write such a long paragraph to say that.

I said dishonest was the only alternative to disingenuous that I could come up with so I chose to stick with a word I have overused. Lets look for a minute and please let me explain myself. The word disingenuous means:
1) Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating
2) Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated

You sit at your computer with what you had already described as misfocussed images, then attempt to pass them off as a comparison between the two cameras. You have many years of photographic experience and make a living with your work, you know the images are flawed yet you act as if the images truly are representative of the gears capabilities. That seems disingenuous at best.

I post actual images and all you want to do is question my
educational background, call me dishonest and tell all my credibility
is in the toilet.

I'm not going to lie to you Dave, I like your work, I like much of what your capable of doing artistically with the Fuji, but technically you have got NO credibility left. You have claimed on at least one occasion to being an engineer, but I have seen ZERO engineering skill in anything you have ever posted to this forum. Whats funny is after 5 to 6 years hanging around these forums I have run into at least 100 people claiming to be professional photographers but have not been able to show a decent image to save their lives. You on the other hand produce good images so I have no reason to doubt your claims to being a professional photographer, but if you have a degree in ANY science I would be shocked. I am being quite frank here, I just see no ability to discuss technical issues on any meaningful level. Your opinions on photography as an artform will always have value, at least to me, because I think you can compose, shoot and display decent shots, but on technical issues I may as well be talking to my cat, or a bowl of cereal.
Take care, Ted

 

[jjlad]

I thought the post was warranted in defense of the way the cam has become a punching bag for many posters. The comparison shots however reallly pointed to something being out of whack with the Tamron or perhaps the Rebel. One or both need to get tuned. So, seeing that ...it probably would have been good to first have that checked out. The f stop thing is perfectly valid...a bridge cam and a DSLR will produce vastly different DOF at the same aperatures, so the Rebel should have been imaging through a much smaller aperature.

Dave ..you're taking too much heat here and defending your position will only cause more reinforcements to join the opposing force, and you'll be overrun, Step up on this one, accept a manly hug, and re-do the test., incorporating the suggestions made in this thread. It's the only thing to do now.

Cheers!
jj

--
My photo collection:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjlad/sets/

 

[tdkd13]

As if thats possible ...
Ted

I really don't want to get more confused.

--
Rgds, Dave.

 

[tdkd13]

Are you implying that since he has ordered an S100fs he has to lose touch with his senses? One doesnt have to drink the Fuji kool aid to find good things in this Fuji.
Ted

... Didn’t you just order an S100fs ? Also, see my reply to Gus above.
--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

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

 

[Lloydy]

... Glad you like my work.

I think you are missing at least one point. I did not post the OOF images, as that would be disingenuous. I made that point right at the outset.

I posted the images which were focussed at the same point and this is what they are. If the first DSLR image looks the way it does, then that's the way it is.

I did not shoot the DSLR images. I shot the S100fs images.

As far as my technical qualifications go, I have actually detailed that in prior posts and very much doubt it is relevant here.

Suffice to say that was a few decades back and I spent 20 odd years working in my field at senior levels.

Later I went into management for many years.

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