Phil's Biased

[GC]

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and 4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours. I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination, where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700 get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the 4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4 megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9 (if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700, when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist) can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens, full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 - good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3 "grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended, very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference. Stay tuned.

 

[GaryO]

Phil has his opinion but to say he is biased is your conclusion.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[Frances]

S20 images from a user.
http://freespace.virgin.net/dan.mitchell/canon/S20.htm
I see problems with the images, noise, etc.
I will like to see some flash pictures with the S20 and 4700.
I don't think Mr. Askey is biased.

Frances.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[Michael Oersigh]

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

I can see you rather like the Fuji.............

Michael

 

[Michael Oersigh]

Excuse me for the flippant remark, but you have got one problem,from what I have seen, Phil has nearly always produced consistently good sample images from all of his camera reviews and indeed the Fuji ones look as good as you say. While I share some sentiment regarding the S20 ( it's no tenner) I cannot say he has ever been unfair, biased sure, but not unfair. Is'nt that right Phil!!

Cheer up, if I had a ton of cash I would buy the Fuji.

Michael

 

[Bill #13240]

I'll have to go along with Gary on this one. I have neither a 4700 nor an S20, but it would not surprise me to learn that Phil shows preference for the "camera" brands like Canon and Nikon.

In particular, it does seem clear that many people -- and I think Phil included -- are so infatuated with the Nikon 950 (and now, the 990) that they overlook some terrific cameras with fine images and exceptional feature sets.

And to say anyone is biased is of course an opinion, a value judgment. But Gary is as entitled to his opinion as anyone. And I would think that Phil would agree that life is more interesting when there are alternative opinions.

Regards.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[Mark Palumbo]

To Phil's defense (not that he needs defending...)...

He posts great un-retouched images from all cameras he tests. He posts those for everyone to see and compare for themselves. He goes into laborious detail of the operation of every camera for you to decide if it's a model you would feel comfortable operating. His conclusions are obviously just that, HIS, conclusions, certainly he presents enough information for everyone to form their own conclusions, you are welcome to agree or disagree with this conclusions. I really enjoy his reviews for one because he presents so much detail that I feel he really wants us to decide for ourselves.

You have to admit, somehow he gets great pictures from all cameras he reviews! He doesn't hide good images, only showing bad ones from cameras he's "biased" against does he? Certainly not. If he did, then I would think something fishy was going on but until then...

 

[GC]

Ok, I'm assuming that at least most people agree that the S20 has a very noticeable blue cast in most of the images it captures, no? And assuming that a "10" for image quality means "perfect", why on earth would the S20 score a "perfect 10" on this attribute? Even our beloved 950 only scored a "9" on this one, and I personally think that the 950's realistic colours and whilte balance beats the S20 and the 4700 hands down (yes, I used to own a 950, too). It performs MUCH better under low light conditions and gives even better definition than the S20 on a pixel to pixel basis.

My points are directed to Phil's S20 and 4700 reviews in particular and are not intended to discount his efforts and expertise in digital photography, nor his views in general. I do think that he, as an individual, is not biased; I'm simply suggesting, from strong evidence (having played with both cameras) that the S20 is worse than his review suggests and the 4700 is not nearly as bad. To those who have NOT had any experience with BOTH cameras, please don't take sides before you have a chance to look at more pictures from the 4700 and perhaps a chance to actually try to use it.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[GC]

Mark, have you actually had a CHANCE to take some pictures with the S20?? THe blue cast is REALLY noticeable.

Like you, I took PHil's words for it, because I've never doubted about his opinions or even "facts". But now that I've actually used the camera, I wonder how on earth he was able to produce images that look so good, on a consistent basis. Just go visit the S20 forum and you'll understand whta I'm saying. THese are REAL users of the S20 telling people about their REAL problems encountered in day-to-day shooting situations. I don't see how you can ignore the experiences of teh many users out there and still think that Phil's conclusion in this case is valid. I even read in another thread that he did not notice the blue cast on the pictures and thinks that it's like a "signature" to the S20's colours.

Sometimes you have to try the camera out to really see what it can do. Sure, PHil may be able to produce excellent pictures with the camera, but if the everyday use of the camera is not able to produce the same images most of the time, what good is the camera?

To Phil's defense (not that he needs defending...)...

He posts great un-retouched images from all cameras he tests. He posts
those for everyone to see and compare for themselves. He goes into
laborious detail of the operation of every camera for you to decide if
it's a model you would feel comfortable operating. His conclusions are
obviously just that, HIS, conclusions, certainly he presents enough
information for everyone to form their own conclusions, you are welcome
to agree or disagree with this conclusions. I really enjoy his reviews
for one because he presents so much detail that I feel he really wants us
to decide for ourselves.

You have to admit, somehow he gets great pictures from all cameras he
reviews! He doesn't hide good images, only showing bad ones from cameras
he's "biased" against does he? Certainly not. If he did, then I would
think something fishy was going on but until then...

 

[GC]

But his opinion is not justified, and that's where the problem is. Everyone is entitled to their opinions when they can support their claims with facts. But I don't see how Phil can justify giving a "10" to the S20 and ignore the severe blue cast problem altogether. My conclusion was actually an opinion based on facts.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[GC]

Do you think Mr. Askey saw these problems when he reviewed the S20? If yes, then he's biased cuz he ignore these problems and gave the S20 a perfect 10 on image quality. If not, then he might have overlooked some pretty obvious faults with the S20's white balance problem.

I still think he was biased against the 4700 because it didn't turn out to be what Fuji initially promised (4.3 megapixels). And for some reason, he just TOTALLY ignored the S20's white balance problem.

Frances.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[vincent #16939]

I'll have to go along with Gary on this one. I have neither a 4700 nor an
S20, but it would not surprise me to learn that Phil shows preference for
the "camera" brands like Canon and Nikon.

In particular, it does seem clear that many people -- and I think Phil
included -- are so infatuated with the Nikon 950 (and now, the 990) that
they overlook some terrific cameras with fine images and exceptional
feature sets.

And to say anyone is biased is of course an opinion, a value judgment.
But Gary is as entitled to his opinion as anyone. And I would think that
Phil would agree that life is more interesting when there are alternative
opinions.

Regards.

Hi, as much as I find this site useful and enjoyable, I must support gary in his conclusion. The 4700 is much better as an overall camera than his review suggests, and the S20 is not nearly as wonderful as his review suggests. I just don't understand why there is such an enormous tidal wave of negativity against Fuji? Obviously, we all follow and know that they "over promoted" their new CCD, but that does not change the actual merits of the actual camera!!

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[Daniel]

If you had been following "Ken"'s comments, you would not be surprised that the S20 behaves the same as the S10.

My points are directed to Phil's S20 and 4700 reviews in particular and
are not intended to discount his efforts and expertise in digital
photography, nor his views in general. I do think that he, as an
individual, is not biased; I'm simply suggesting, from strong evidence
(having played with both cameras) that the S20 is worse than his review
suggests and the 4700 is not nearly as bad. To those who have NOT had
any experience with BOTH cameras, please don't take sides before you have
a chance to look at more pictures from the 4700 and perhaps a chance to
actually try to use it.

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

 

[Daniel]

If i have the cash, I would spend additional 100 or 200 to get the new Cp990. It sure is going to be the camera of no-regret, at least compared to S20 and Fuji 4700. Being a owner of S10, I was completely pissed off by the soft focus and the blusih cast, and Fuji is a brand that is never on my purchase list.

Excuse me for the flippant remark, but you have got one problem,from what
I have seen, Phil has nearly always produced consistently good sample
images from all of his camera reviews and indeed the Fuji ones look as
good as you say. While I share some sentiment regarding the S20 ( it's no
tenner) I cannot say he has ever been unfair, biased sure, but not
unfair. Is'nt that right Phil!!

Cheer up, if I had a ton of cash I would buy the Fuji.

Michael

 

[Phil Askey]

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

I've been following your postings for quite a while Gary...

As far as reviews go I do spend ALOT effort in VERY little time to review a camera, to explain: I typically have a camera for 7-14 days (at the best), in that time I'll put in 16+ hour days each day writing up notes, doing timings, examining and comparing images, producing a draft, then final review... It's hard work and takes a lot of time.

However, the pay-offs are I hope the most UNBIASED site on the net with some of the most in-depth, quality reviews. Isn't it interesting that when I write a review which criticises something someone has spent money on I get flamed? (And I criticise in most of my reviews..)

When I reviewed the S20 it was the first 3+ megapixel camera I'd had my hands on, and YES it produced the perfect 10 image quality for its class, size and price.

Some digital camera manufacturers (read: Kodak, Olympus) choose a warmer cast to most of their images, some are fairly neutral (Fuji, Nikon) and some produce cooler (Canon). The choice for cooler white balance (what you extremely call "blue") is typically to create the "whiter whites" (do you know many shirt makers make the white in shirts slightly blue because our eye sees it as brilliant white?)...

This brings me to another point, I have the colour balance on my monitor set to 9300K.. alot prefer 6500K.. others have no idea and may have never calibrated their monitor. If I thought there were a REAL problem I would have commented on it.

The Fuji, a very very nice camera, did you read the rest of the review or only home in on my comments on image quality? I've received MANY positive comments re that review and I'm sorry if the truth hurts but the 4700 is lacking in the most important area: image quality. Fuji had a great opportunity to launch a really great camera at a time when 3 megapixel imagers are surpassing what anyone ever expected of digital cameras... Perhaps we'll see something new out of Fuji before long.

Whatever MY opinion I would expect all my readers to spend the time to examine sample images themselves, to look at the extensive original images I post (read: expensive bandwidth) SIMPLY to give you the opportunity to make up your own minds and not to preach to you about one camera or another.

Note also I give you a free forum to discuss what you like... including my own shortcomings...

 

[Fred H.]

Phil Askey:

Well, Mr. Askey, now I know why you did not knock the Nikon 950 or the 990 for its definite blue cast. The problem with your use of the 'whiter whites' explanation is that not only the whites are changed in color. I just happened to be browsing through your galleries and noticed your 950 vs Pro70 comparison and was struck by the HUGE difference in the appearance of the catherdral pic (#21 and #22, I believe - and I noticed the same HUGE difference in color of a brick buildiing in a comparison of the Canon S20 to the same scene shot with film). I think that you will understand my 'waxed paper' remarks that I was fond of using when I first started visiting this site and viewing the many samples. I think that the 'waxed paper' description is very apropos inasmuch as the effect of what you describe as a blue tint is to shade all tints (except blue) and thus my usual description of the images as 'dull'. I really think that you should rethink your consideration of the blue tint (or lack thereof) as a 'signature' of a particular camera. I can easily believe that you decided to use this rationalization because you DO have a bias ( and I will admit that I have biases - won't you?).

Fred H.

 

[Phil Askey]

Well, Mr. Askey, now I know why you did not knock the Nikon 950 or the
990 for its definite blue cast. The problem with your use of the 'whiter
whites' explanation is that not only the whites are changed in color. I

Show me a digital camera that can shoot a gray wall without ANY cast for less than $10,000...

 

[Sung Kim]

I looks like you are pissed about s20 praised so hi, cause people just won't listen to your preaching about 4700, being "guys, 4700 is not that bad!". Opinion is opinion, whether that is Phil, GC or whoever...accept this. Stop picking on s20.

But his opinion is not justified, and that's where the problem is.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions when they can support their claims
with facts. But I don't see how Phil can justify giving a "10" to the
S20 and ignore the severe blue cast problem altogether. My conclusion
was actually an opinion based on facts.

 

[Lin Evans]

Phil, while I have always appreicated your efforts in coming up with many
excellent reviews, I have to say, after carefully reading your S20 and
4700 reviews and actually having some experience (owning) with both
cameras, that you were obviously biased in those reviews.

The biggest protest that I have is that you gave 10 for the S20's image
quality and a 8 (quite low, for your standards) for the 4700. From my
experience with both cameras, the 4700's images have been consistently
warm and pleasant, with very accurate colour reproduction and great white
balance. On the other hand, the S20 consistently produces pictures that
have a bluish cast (especially on skin tones) and the colours always look
pale and are not accurate when compared to the real objects' colours.
I'm saying this after comparing the images coming from both cameras for
the same objectives under the same lighting conditions.

You also indicated that the flash on teh S20 seemed to be more powerful
than the 4700's, when indeed this is also not the case. Both flashes are
weak when compared to the 950, but neither performs any better than the
other. There are teh same level of dropoff at the corners when the flash
fires from about 2.5m away from the object.

I'm also quite skeptical about your score on their CCD/lens combination,
where the S20 scored a 9.5 and the 4700 a 7!! Where exactly did the 4700
get 2.5 marks taken off when compared to the S20? It's got a more
powerful zoom lens than the S20, and the CCDs seem to capture light just
as well as the S20, if not better (judging from their performance under
low light conditions).

While I understand that Fuji's initial marketing efforts in promoting the
4700 as a 4.3 megapixel camera was a faulty one (because it only has 2.4
megapixels), I hope when you were reviewing these cameras that you were
treating the 4700 as such, and not a true 4.3 megapixel digicam. Had you
done that, I think the 4700's image quality should deserve at least a 9
(if your definition of image quality takes into account anything more
than just resolution and definition, such as colour saturation, white
balance and colour reproduction accuracy), and S20 deserves at best an 8.

Feature-wise, I don't see why the S20 can score the same as the 4700,
when everything that can be found in teh S20 (except for Stitch assist)
can be found in the 4700, but the 4700 has a more powerful zoom lens,
full manual focus, portrait mode, average matrix metering, and an avi
movie recording mode.

Another shortcoming of the S20, which was not mentioned, is that
resolution is set at 2000x1500 in the automatic mode and can't be
altered. This is pure stupidity in my opinion. Why can one only choose
to save in different resolutions when using the manual mode?

I have based my decision to buy the S20 almost solely on your S20 review
because of your credibility and expertise. And it is also because of
your 4700 review that, even after buying the 4700, I went out to get a
supposedly "better" camera (the S20), as it scored almost higher in every
single category than the 4700. I strongly believe that your final
ratings for the two cameras (S20 - very highly recommended; and 4700 -
good) do not reflect their true abilities and are not justified. I
simply can't see why the S20 can be rated as being a camera that is 3
"grades" better than the 4700 (Good, recommended, highly recommended,
very highly recommended???). If I were to rate these cameras myself, now
that I have thoroughly explored them both at the same time, I would give
the 4700 a "highly recommended" and the S20 a "recommended".

Just to back my arguments, I'll post pictures taken with both cameras of
the same objects under the same lighting conditions for your reference.
Stay tuned.

Bottom line is that a perceived blue cast can be easily adjusted in the digital darkroom, but the image quality problem in both the 4700 and the S1 are much more difficult, if not impossible to correct.
Lin

 

[Philip Gaudet]

This brings me to another point, I have the colour balance on my monitor
set to 9300K.. alot prefer 6500K.. others have no idea and may have never
calibrated their monitor. If I thought there were a REAL problem I would
have commented on it.

I think you might be on to something. I also run my monitor(Sony 400PS) at 9300K, and I don't see a blue cast from the sample S20 pictures posted. I'd be curious to find out what color temperature the people who see the blue cast are running their monitors at.

Philip