My S100fs - Compared ...

[Dame_Blanche]

I guess Dave proved one thing... credulous people buy a dslr with a cheap lens assuming that it's the best value for money just because it's a dslr.

I don't believe Dave put a gun to his friends head to make these horrible pictures and I also assume his friend pressed the shutter release in firm believe that he was making a correctly focused picture.

It's not fair and even childish to assume that Dave set up this comparison just to prove all dslr's are inferior to a bridge camera.

As a member of a 'real life' photo community I often encounter people like Dave's friend.. they bought a dslr under false promises and they don't understand why their pictures aren't any better as the pictures they shot with their old simple compact.
That's what it's about, empty promises.
'Buy this body and the world of creative photography is yours.'

Soon those people discover that this piece of glass up front isn't capable of producing nice photographs at full open aperture and only then they start to learn about lenses and optical laws.

And then... they have to buy a lens that is able to fulfill their needs at the expense of an empty bank account.
Confusion and dissapointment is the result.

Craftmanship, excellent tools and perfect circumstances aren't just words, they have a clear meaning and in order to achieve the perfect photograph one should always be conscious of those facts.
The chain is as strong as it's weakest link.

I consider the attack on Dave as an utterance of weakness and an uncontrollable desire to stress the attention to one's own distinctive features.
So be it, I am not amused!
Grtz. Blanche

 

[tdkd13]

Have checked the EXIF twice with two readers Opanda and another, it clearly states 1/80 second for the Canon and 1/450 for the Fuji. As I was correct and you, once again were incorrect, I'll await your swift apology.

For the record, you pasted the EXIF exp times for the first image, my comment clearly stated the second image, regardlees, thanks in advance for the speedy and most sincere apology.

Take care, Ted

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

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

 

[tdkd13]

Agree with most things you say here, however, while Dave may not have set up the comparison to prove one cameras superiority or inferiority with the other, when he saw the images were flawed he should have looked at the reasons why rather than post them as if he was unaware of any differences. Even when asked point blank if he considered a 1/80 sec non image stabilized shot at 480mm was directly comparable to a 1/450 second image stabilized shot he sees nothing inherantly wrong there. Both you and Dave know that the Canon is capable of so much more than he has shown here when handled correctly. Perhaps your main point speaks best to this issue, simply buying the gear doesnt necessitate any ability to use it correctly. On this we agree 100%. However, I think Dave knows all the standard conditions in which someone can expect decent results and the comparison he performed yesterday flew in the face of his knowledge and experience, at best all he proved is the effectiveness of image stabilization.
Take care, Ted

I guess Dave proved one thing... credulous people buy a dslr with a
cheap lens assuming that it's the best value for money just because
it's a dslr.
I don't believe Dave put a gun to his friends head to make these
horrible pictures and I also assume his friend pressed the shutter
release in firm believe that he was making a correctly focused
picture.
It's not fair and even childish to assume that Dave set up this
comparison just to prove all dslr's are inferior to a bridge camera.
As a member of a 'real life' photo community I often encounter people
like Dave's friend.. they bought a dslr under false promises and they
don't understand why their pictures aren't any better as the pictures
they shot with their old simple compact.
That's what it's about, empty promises.
'Buy this body and the world of creative photography is yours.'
Soon those people discover that this piece of glass up front isn't
capable of producing nice photographs at full open aperture and only
then they start to learn about lenses and optical laws.
And then... they have to buy a lens that is able to fulfill their
needs at the expense of an empty bank account.
Confusion and dissapointment is the result.
Craftmanship, excellent tools and perfect circumstances aren't just
words, they have a clear meaning and in order to achieve the perfect
photograph one should always be conscious of those facts.
The chain is as strong as it's weakest link.
I consider the attack on Dave as an utterance of weakness and an
uncontrollable desire to stress the attention to one's own
distinctive features.
So be it, I am not amused!
Grtz. Blanche

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

 

[tdkd13]

Glad you can see the fun here, it is mostly good natured, although when your the one wearing the dunce cap I imagine it can sometimes seem like bullying, good for you that you can see beyond that. I responded to your post below and quite simply, not to be anymore palygroundish than we already are, I was right and you were wrong. The EXIF you quoted is not from the image I commented on, quoting directly from my post to Dannyboy "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." Read that EXIF and then come back and say your sorry.
Ted

... 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

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

 

[Dame_Blanche]

Agree with most things you say here, however, while Dave may not have
set up the comparison to prove one cameras superiority or inferiority
with the other, when he saw the images were flawed he should have
looked at the reasons why rather than post them as if he was unaware
of any differences. Even when asked point blank if he considered a
1/80 sec non image stabilized shot at 480mm was directly comparable
to a 1/450 second image stabilized shot he sees nothing inherantly
wrong there. Both you and Dave know that the Canon is capable of so
much more than he has shown here when handled correctly. Perhaps your
main point speaks best to this issue, simply buying the gear doesnt
necessitate any ability to use it correctly. On this we agree 100%.
However, I think Dave knows all the standard conditions in which
someone can expect decent results and the comparison he performed
yesterday flew in the face of his knowledge and experience, at best
all he proved is the effectiveness of image stabilization.
Take care, Ted

His friend considered 1/80s non image stabilized shot at 480mm perfeclty normal... else he wouldn't have made the photograph.

The only thing you can blame Dave for is that he didn't tell his friend it wouldn't work out.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about false promises... the expression "DSLR" has become a magic expression and a promise to enter the photographic world and a never ending stream of fabulous photographs.

I almost cry when I see the happy faces of new DSLR+kitlens owners because I know they will get a terribly cold shower right from the start when they try to make pictures in their living room with the packing still on the table.

I like your style and have confidence in your photographic knowledge Ted, but you have been unnecessarily harsh on Dave.
Grtz. Blanche

 

[tojkr]

I agree with you and feel that what Dave did as comparison is very fair. Dave did a good job of bringing the comparison with right set of DSLR & lens than dprview did.

and in Macro test Fuji S100FS won. In high contrast highlights? and perhaps others might have been different. I would even request Dave to do comparison of moon shot and another that tests edge to edge of the frame, but Dave should be able to invest lot of his time.

I have set of friends who became 'uncomfortable' to discuss about photograhpy with me, after seeing flower photographs I did with panny FZ20 turned far better than their proud Canon-300D and Nikon D50. What they did not know was, I have LEICA 2.8 in FZ20 and they have '$79' kit lens that can't do macro. But there are areas like iso400 - , skyshot in bright light where panny will have washed out , grainy pictures and theirs will win.

So we don't compare apples and apples. But people in this thread who are angry at Dave should prove something by placing some photos where the DSLRs beat S100FS than blaming him.

regards,
Jay

 

[tdkd13]

Well, you asked, and since you felt all was fair in the original post in this thread.

S100fs moon shot, this was the absolute best that can be done on that night in those conditions.



DSLR moon shot:



Ted

S100fs

I agree with you and feel that what Dave did as comparison is very
fair. Dave did a good job of bringing the comparison with right set
of DSLR & lens than dprview did.

and in Macro test Fuji S100FS won. In high contrast highlights? and
perhaps others might have been different. I would even request Dave
to do comparison of moon shot and another that tests edge to edge of
the frame, but Dave should be able to invest lot of his time.

I have set of friends who became 'uncomfortable' to discuss about
photograhpy with me, after seeing flower photographs I did with panny
FZ20 turned far better than their proud Canon-300D and Nikon D50.
What they did not know was, I have LEICA 2.8 in FZ20 and they have
'$79' kit lens that can't do macro. But there are areas like iso400 -
, skyshot in bright light where panny will have washed out , grainy
pictures and theirs will win.

So we don't compare apples and apples. But people in this thread who
are angry at Dave should prove something by placing some photos where
the DSLRs beat S100FS than blaming him.

regards,
Jay

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

 

[dpr101]

Blanche, I wanted to express the same thoughts. Glad that you did because you are certainly more eloquent than I.

In this Fuji forum, we've had many comparisons of various Fuji cameras vs. DSLR. Most, but not all, show the DSLR producing not so favorable photos for one reason or another. Perhaps I'm naive in this respect but I don't think the originators of those posts meant to mislead anyone. I believe they did their best, found unexpected outcome and wanted to share them with the forum.

This leads to my challenge to Ted and Kim. Both of you tend to critique others' posts rather than start discussion threads of your own. Perhaps you think that is your place in this forum but I hope you would strive for more positive contribution. So, how about starting some threads to post shots made with your Fuji cams, or share some interesting discoveries found while using your Fuji cams? Better yet, since no one has been able to conduct a proper comparison, show us how it is done.

Jerry

 

[Incal]

I'm confused.

You tell Dave he doesn't know how to make comparison and you show us 2 different focal shots without any exif.
Which comparison is done ?
That $$$ is better than s100fs ?

Ok, and i agree totally. I would have a d3 or 5D with a bunch of high quality lenses.
And then ?

Or perhaps explain me what you wanted to say with "Well, you asked, and since you felt all was fair in the original post in this thread." ?
That means you make a bad comparison just to be ironic ?

For the test of Dave i've already said what i think (and btw agree that the test is not fair if the first explanations of Kim about f stop and DOF is true and i thnk it is).

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

 

[ISO6400]

I almost cry when I see the happy faces of new DSLR+kitlens owners
because I know they will get a terribly cold shower right from the
start when they try to make pictures in their living room with the
packing still on the table.

Its because your dont know anything about the new Kit lenses (very sharp, good contrast and color with IS/VR for Canon/Nikon).

Quoting phtozone.de about the new 18-55 IS from Canon:

"There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images. Anyway, the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is nothing short of amazing. This is also surprising regarding the rather small changes in the optical design compared to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II. Still - the center resolution is excellent throughout the range even at wide-open aperture. Unlike most dedicated APS-C standard zoom lenses it is capable to keep a very good level even at the extreme corners of the image field. Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor! Field curvature is not an issue. So is it a perfect lens then ? No, naturally not. It has its weaknesses - notably strong barrel distortions at 18mm and very high vignetting at 18mm @ f/3.5. Chromatic aberrations are well controlled at the extreme ends of the zoom range but quite pronounced around 28mm. In the field the lens struggles in contra light situations whereas the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is pretty good within the limits of its depth-of-field capabilities. All-in-all the optical aspects are impressive and that's not only regarding the low price tag. The image stabilizer is quite efficient with a real world "gain" equivalent to about 3 f-stops. On the mechanical side things aren't so rosy."

 

[tdkd13]

comments in text.

His friend considered 1/80s non image stabilized shot at 480mm perfeclty normal... else he wouldn't have made the photograph.

The only thing you can blame Dave for is that he didn't tell his
friend it wouldn't work out.

Actually I wouldnt have an issue with him saying or not saying anything to his friend, what I hold Dave culpable for is trying to pass them off as comparative examples with which one could discern anything

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about false promises... the
expression "DSLR" has become a magic expression and a promise to
enter the photographic world and a never ending stream of fabulous
photographs.

Only by those with unrealistic expectations. Most of the DSLR users I know realize there will be a learning curve associated not just with the camera but with how best to process the resultant images. Of course there are always going to be those that think the camera does all the work, just like there are always going to be people that think buying a $4700 guitar will make them play better.

I almost cry when I see the happy faces of new DSLR+kitlens owners
because I know they will get a terribly cold shower right from the
start when they try to make pictures in their living room with the
packing still on the table.

That same emotion can be attributed to those S100fs owners that think they will get great subject isolation and nice crisp motion stopping images sitting in the stands at little Johnnies 6th grade basketball game.

I like your style and have confidence in your photographic knowledge
Ted, but you have been unnecessarily harsh on Dave.

I can see that, and its true I have been harsh on Dave, I just expected much more from him. Anyone that has been around these forums for 5+ years knows a lot more about comparing images than was shown here. Like I said, why take great care in how you resize the images if you werent going to when capturing the images. The obvious lack of any sharpness in the Canon images would have led any reasonable person to question why. And once that question lands in your mind you begin to look at shutter speed, focal length, etc. Anyways, I can see your point and I realize many see me as some big mouth that just wants to bag on a specific product, but if the test results he came up with were flawed in the other direction I would have spoken up just as vociferously.
Take care, Ted

Grtz. Blanche

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

 

[tdkd13]

Incal, of course I am joking.

Or perhaps explain me what you wanted to say with "Well, you asked,
and since you felt all was fair in the original post in this thread."
?
That means you make a bad comparison just to be ironic ?

EXACTLY, I was making a flawed comparison to be ironic, and for the record, the moon shot was made with a lens my co-worker built for about $150 in parts. We used to use it to calibrate big screen displays in sports stadiums.
Ted

I'm confused.

You tell Dave he doesn't know how to make comparison and you show us
2 different focal shots without any exif.
Which comparison is done ?
That $$$ is better than s100fs ?
Ok, and i agree totally. I would have a d3 or 5D with a bunch of high
quality lenses.
And then ?

Or perhaps explain me what you wanted to say with "Well, you asked,
and since you felt all was fair in the original post in this thread."
?
That means you make a bad comparison just to be ironic ?

For the test of Dave i've already said what i think (and btw agree
that the test is not fair if the first explanations of Kim about f
stop and DOF is true and i thnk it is).

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

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

 

[Accim]

Yes, now we see it again, again! None Finepix S100fs owner can feel secure in the ground if the roses or the camera positive. Typically, people who have chosen to buy the camera because of the great flexibility it provides. And do they make an independent test, not just meet all the requirements from a very few, but very active members of the forum, all small differences in the way the comparison is made comparable. That in such a degree that it is to vomit. So it is not the right lens is used, or shutter or aperture. The sun is not in the sky the same place all day!! In a very aggressive, condescending and demanding proof and sustained language, these individuals by their terrible demanding arguments and evidence. Believe, these people are well on the way to destroy this forum of photo enthusiasts. Personally I am very tired of the same condescending tone of the forum includes every day from the same people. They have their digital slr camera, and they will always argue that it is the only correct one. If this was a slr forum, I could understand they spend so much time in the forum, but it is not. You have to suddenly compare Fuji camera with twice as expensive equipment before that individuals believe it is a fair comparison.

 

[John Carson]

Blanche, I wanted to express the same thoughts. Glad that you did
because you are certainly more eloquent than I.

In this Fuji forum, we've had many comparisons of various Fuji
cameras vs. DSLR. Most, but not all, show the DSLR producing not so
favorable photos for one reason or another. Perhaps I'm naive in
this respect but I don't think the originators of those posts meant
to mislead anyone. I believe they did their best, found unexpected
outcome and wanted to share them with the forum.

Naive doesn't begin to describe it. LLoydy has been posting misleading information for weeks (e.g., claiming 800 mm on the s100fs, without mentioning that he was counting digital zoom). He is one of the worst fanboys you could find.

This leads to my challenge to Ted and Kim. Both of you tend to
critique others' posts rather than start discussion threads of your
own. Perhaps you think that is your place in this forum but I hope
you would strive for more positive contribution. So, how about
starting some threads to post shots made with your Fuji cams, or
share some interesting discoveries found while using your Fuji cams?

Again, your information is lacking. Kim, in particular, regularly initiates threads with shots from concerts made with his F20.

You are using the standard fanboy approach. If you can't fault the substance of what they say, then you try to shoot the messenger.

Better yet, since no one has been able to conduct a proper
comparison, show us how it is done.

Neither owns the s100fs, so that is going to be difficult. On the other hand, they have shown numerous comparisons in the past.

--
john carson

 

[Kim Letkeman]

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.

BUSTED. Now ask me if I care.

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

... Talking of reading - I was NOT shooting the DSLR. Try again :

You are the pro ... standing right next to the guy who was shooting them. You did not help him set the exposure appropriately to make it something of a reasonable test (similar DOF is a good start when you go close and then compare focus.)

You then interpreted the results without noting any of the mitigating factors ... it is obvious you don't even understand them, but then you are the one pushing a less than competently shot set of images ...

My point is that you are representing these, you are the pro, they were incomptently shot, you did not even notice that, and so on ... do I have to spell it out any clearer?

Why do you think you attract a lot of responses when you post this sort of technical comparison (make no mistake about what you did when you started the thread) ... do you think perhaps that it is because you have made such a big deal about all your published images, your many clients, your galleries, and the fact that you are a long standing pro? Do you think maybe we expect a lot from you because of all that?

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

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.

And do you remember that, on a scale where the 18-200VR did an acceptable job, the Fuji did not? They had to recalibrate to get the Fuji on the scale at all ...

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

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

Yes you did ... you continue to ignore the technical flaws in the comparison. Wildly different depth of field etc ... really cheap lense .... you have misrepresented the Tamron 70-300 in multiple posts without understanding its place in the entry level dSLR world at all. You have confused is several times with the Tamron 18-250 ... I don't really know what you think, because you have not articulated a coherent technical argument yet.

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.

You are ignoring the fact that you have not even attempted to equalize variables, thus allowing the images to be interpreted as sharp versus very soft. Because these variables would have been equalized in a competent comparison, this makes you either incompetent or disingenuous. Who is to say?

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'.

If you don't equalize variables, you are comparing apples to oranges. You have ignored that fact and continue to pretend that your comparison is perfectly valid. Stubborn? Or unable to understand why it matters?

If anyone's credibility is damaged here, it is not mine.

Ted has been pointed. Why not just counter his arguments with why technical data? While you are at it, why not counter mine?

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

Frankly, you are perfectly capable of accomplishing that on your own.

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.

You continue to defend your comparison without providing responses to the technical flaws that have been asserted ... you continue to chide and whine and expect that this alone will somehow make us all forget how poorly the images were shot.

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Have checked the EXIF twice with two readers Opanda and another, it
clearly states 1/80 second for the Canon and 1/450 for the Fuji. As I
was correct and you, once again were incorrect, I'll await your swift
apology.

The first and last images were shot at 1/125s and the middle was shot at 1/80s. Doesn't matter though ... the speeds were not adequate to get critical sharpness without very solid OIS. As I mentioned previously, and Dave ignored, the Canon should have been shot from a tripod.

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

 

[Kim Letkeman]

.. 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.

Agreed ... but the Canon should also be shot at slightly higher ISO to raise the shitter speed and should be shot from a tripod. That's how that kind of shot is made with that kind of lense. And even then ... a better lense should be used. That lense is just not commonly bought ... it is way too cheap to be any good. It's about $160 brand new ... I mean, come on ... who uses such a dog for macro photography?

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