Quality comparison

[Ferenc]

The 1d uprezzes way past the Fuji, but captures no more real detail
and in some images, not as much, though this is barely noticable.

1. What Sharpening setting did you use the S2?
2. What Format (JPG,RAW) and Resolution (6Mp, 12Mp) for the S2?
3. How did you Upsampled both camera's files?
4. What was your sharpening tool?

Kind regards,

Ferenc

with digital has been gained through printing images
from test samples at sites>

We just finished a weeks shoot in Paris for a cosmetic campaign
using the Canon 1d and Fuji S2.

The camreas both performed well and under the different conditions
yield different results.

We shot interior with many lights, exterior available light,
interior during RTW Fall annoucements, evening and mixed light.

The S2 is a great camera, somewhat slower than the 1d, but produces
a great, film like file that is warmer and somewhat deeper in tone
than the 1d.

The 1d is very fast and very sharp, requries little sharpening,
actually, can only take small amounts of sharpening. The 1d is very
smooth and great for faces.

The S2 require sharpening, but takes it well.

The 1d uprezzes way past the Fuji, but captures no more real detail
and in some images, not as much, though this is barely noticable.

The fuji allows you to zoom in a check focus, the 1d doesn't (BTW:
This should be a crime against humanity).

In fact the 1d is best with no sharpening at opeing through ACR and
then immediately uprezzing to 100 mb 16 bit tiff. Then add
sharpening. It suffers little CA when uprezzed, which all digital
cameras and many film scans do.

I will post more information and images when time and release dates
are set, but you need to try both cameras. You also need to learn
how to work all of these images in post and photoshop.

We sharpen the 1d by adding layers, one lighten, one darken with
sharpening. We sharpen the fuji direct, or through Quantam
Mechanics.

I will say this, in real world applications, both cameras easily
outperformed 35mm film (of any kind) and are close to 2 1/4
transparency film. They are as good as any hand held film camera
and film used for fashion/glamor, especially on location.

I really like both cameras and will use them until something better
comes along. (Something will, it always does and it may be the new
Fuji back).

Had I shot this project on film, there are about 3 sessions that we
would not have been able to shoot, due to low light and chaigng
conditions.

In final images film to digital there is little difference. In
shooting there is huge difference.

Best,

James

 

[Dirk Vermeirre]

My personal mentor shoots a D60. He does not live in the U.S. like
I do but sent me some prints from his d60. He has the best Canon
glass. I don't need to place the images side by side. I can see the
difference from memory. S2 wins.

I agree totally about the glass. If you shot the S2 through a coke
bottle and the D60 through "L" glass then D60 would be sharper. I
love my 35-70 2.8d. Get GOOD glass to get the most out of your
camera. You're only as strong as your weakest link and it isn't the
S2 sensor.

Hi Joe,

We have a fantastic camera, don't we ? I bought the 35-70 f2.8 two days ago as I readed so many good thing on that lens in this forum and I tried a 28-70 AFS and was not so pleased with it, that's why I decided to go for the 35-70 before they will be not more available. Have not found time to test it but I'm sure I'm gonna love it (bought also the 70-200 AFS VR and the 50mm f1.4).

Haha and I must laugh with that coke bottle. I also bought a more heavy tripod as the one I had was becoming my weakest link. All the very best.

With very kind regards,

Dirk
2 Fuji S2 Pro, Nikkor lenses: 14mm f2.8, 24-50mm, Micro
60mm, 35-70 f2.8, 70-200 AFS VR, 300mm f4
http://www.pbase.com/dievee
http://www.2point8.be

 

[Tariq]

James is talking about the Canon 1d, NOT the 1ds.

Tariq
Tariq.com

Has anyone else out there had direct experience with both the S2
and Canon 1ds? Are you seeing the same results as both Mahesh and
I have seen?

Thanks

Howdy... Have a look at this ...it's right in this thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4619909

buck

 

[Dioni]

On the substance of my post, what do you think of the comparison of
the D1 vs S2 pics that weree posted in this thread? As I say, I
find it difficult to evaluate and would appreciate others opinions.

The only thing I can say is that both D1 and S2 images look good, as mostly everything we see from James Russell, but I would not be able to say which ones are better. I just could say which ones I like more, and that's a pretty much subjective thing.

Best,
Dioni
You don't take a photograph, you make it (Ansel Adams)

 

[ashley karyl]

It looks like somebody else is asking the same question

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4615135
--
http://www.ashleykaryl.com

 

[Freeze]

Yes I did note that he is comparing to the 1D. I presume he didnt have the 1Ds available for comparison. His point is valid either way.

What really worries me is this: Is the only real qualitative difference between the 1D and the 1Ds only the larger sensor size? Yes I know there are better specs on paper and all, but I mean quality in final product.

If so then its an incredible premium being charged for the 1Ds.

Still happy with my S2 however! In fact its pretty hard to screw up with it!

http://www3.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=55821

Frank Segler

Tariq
Tariq.com

Has anyone else out there had direct experience with both the S2
and Canon 1ds? Are you seeing the same results as both Mahesh and
I have seen?

Thanks

Howdy... Have a look at this ...it's right in this thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4619909

buck

 

[Tariq]

And also note that his point and all comparisons I have seen by James(who is an amazing Photographer and whom I highly respect) are Jpegs out of the camera. I believe-and I have seen it with my S2-that in order to get maximum Resolution with the least amount of artifacts(and this also will allow you to up-size much higher), one really must shoot in RAW mode(and with very good lenses). Jpegs are great if you don't need the ultimate in size and are doing fast paced shooting, but I often notice more detail, dynamic range and less artifacts when shooting the S2 in RAW. Thats just me though and I know there are a lot of people here(including James I believe) who sware by the S2 Jpegs. And this also depends on the kind of image as well(Landscapes and Archet. hate Jpegs, perhaps not as big an issue when shooting People) Just something to keep in mind though. Ultimately, The 1ds is going to give you much more detail and allow for higher up-sizing than a 1D when both cameras are used to their maximum capabilities. I doubt you would see much difference though between the image detail and up-sizing capability of the 1ds and the S2 when both are shot in their highest quality RAW modes. Just my few cents worth.

Tariq
Tariq.com

What really worries me is this: Is the only real qualitative
difference between the 1D and the 1Ds only the larger sensor size?
Yes I know there are better specs on paper and all, but I mean
quality in final product.

If so then its an incredible premium being charged for the 1Ds.

Still happy with my S2 however! In fact its pretty hard to screw
up with it!

http://www3.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=55821

Frank Segler

Tariq
Tariq.com

Has anyone else out there had direct experience with both the S2
and Canon 1ds? Are you seeing the same results as both Mahesh and
I have seen?

Thanks

Howdy... Have a look at this ...it's right in this thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4619909

buck

 

[Zephalephelah]

I dunno, Mahesh is one of the landscape people & his signature statement says it all...

Tariq
Tariq.com

What really worries me is this: Is the only real qualitative
difference between the 1D and the 1Ds only the larger sensor size?
Yes I know there are better specs on paper and all, but I mean
quality in final product.

If so then its an incredible premium being charged for the 1Ds.

Still happy with my S2 however! In fact its pretty hard to screw
up with it!

http://www3.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=55821

Frank Segler

Tariq
Tariq.com

Has anyone else out there had direct experience with both the S2
and Canon 1ds? Are you seeing the same results as both Mahesh and
I have seen?

Thanks

Howdy... Have a look at this ...it's right in this thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4619909

buck

--
--

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary & those that don't.

 

[james russell]

Working with both the 1d and s2 under very high pressure situations gives a unique perspective.

On one hand the 1d is very fast, has a large buffer, syncs higher and produces an excellent file. It also works in 1/3 stop increments and shoots both raw and jpeg.

On the other, the S2 has a great lcd even in bright light, you can zoom check focus, the file seems to have more richness, or depth and works very well in a professional situation.
Also higher iso affects it less than the 1d, though both work well in 400 iso.

When I got into a confusing lighting situation I went with the S2, probably because I am more zoned and familiar with the file and look.

Though not on topic, you must look at these cameras compared to the standard of the industry, which is film. In real world, (not test chart) situations, they both outperform film.

Period. You have more options,k can see what you are getting and work in higher iso with less grain.

I have said this before and I will continue saying it. If I viewed film under the same scruitny that I view the digital capture file, I would be appalled.

Look at very high end film scans and printed materials. There is really no difference when you get on paper and overall the digital file offers more.

Both cameras also offer a different look. One is crisper and cooler, the other warmer and more saturated. (regardless of settings).

As far as jpegs, vs. raw on the S2, I did shoot some raw. I rarely do this, but had some situations where I really needed more post production options. I opened them in ACR and they do correct exposure well, though for some reason the embedded profile was not in place.

I will process both later and give a review of what I find.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford

 

[David Martin]

Working with both the 1d and s2 under very high pressure situations
gives a unique perspective.

On one hand the 1d is very fast, has a large buffer, syncs higher
and produces an excellent file. It also works in 1/3 stop
increments and shoots both raw and jpeg.

On the other, the S2 has a great lcd even in bright light, you can
zoom check focus, the file seems to have more richness, or depth
and works very well in a professional situation.
Also higher iso affects it less than the 1d, though both work well
in 400 iso.

When I got into a confusing lighting situation I went with the S2,
probably because I am more zoned and familiar with the file and
look.

Though not on topic, you must look at these cameras compared to the
standard of the industry, which is film. In real world, (not test
chart) situations, they both outperform film.
Period. You have more options,k can see what you are getting and
work in higher iso with less grain.

I have said this before and I will continue saying it. If I viewed
film under the same scruitny that I view the digital capture file,
I would be appalled.

Look at very high end film scans and printed materials. There is
really no difference when you get on paper and overall the digital
file offers more.

Both cameras also offer a different look. One is crisper and
cooler, the other warmer and more saturated. (regardless of
settings).

As far as jpegs, vs. raw on the S2, I did shoot some raw. I rarely
do this, but had some situations where I really needed more post
production options. I opened them in ACR and they do correct
exposure well, though for some reason the embedded profile was not
in place.

I will process both later and give a review of what I find.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford

Thanks for that very informative post. I wonder if you could also comment on whether it is possible at all, very difficult or easy to adjust the output of a 1D to give an effect more like the S2?

The reason for my interest is that I far prefer the build etc of the 1D, and am fairly unhappy with the Fuji using the F-mount and the old Nifon body.

Having said that, it sure do take some lovely shots! And that, after all, is the main point of a camera.
Any insight would be valued.
--
DaveMart

 

[ashley karyl]

I've been looking at the test charts and other sample images comparing the 10D and S2 directly in Photoshop, however, the one glaring factor to come out, is that these tests are not precise enough for the sort of critical comparisons that users will need to draw an informed conclusion.

First of all, I looked at the images of the Tower of London, however, the weather conditions were so hazy on the day that the Canon was used, that any camera would produce flat images. Taking the 12MP output from the Fuji (I wanted to see its best) I then uprezzed the Canon file to produce the same file size as the Fuji at 12MP using image size and applied an equal amount of sharpener to each.

On first sight the Fuji was a little sharper, however, it was a far better day for shooting and lets face it, we don't know which camera may have had the better lens so in practice this test is all but null and void from my point of view. A quick look at the EXIF files showed that the Canon was also shot at a slower shutter speed and different aperture so again its not a truly equal test. Out of Curiosity, I took the same image shot on the 6MP setting with the Fuji and interpolated it in the same manner as the Canon and it was nowhere near the same level of quality as the Canon or Fuji 12MP image.

Moving onto the black & white test charts, I opened the 12MP Fuji file in Photoshop alongside the uprezzed file of the 10D and again the Fuji looked fractionally better (no sharpener applied in either case), however, I have to ask why some sort of consistency can't be obtained in these tests? Would it really break the bank to use a copy light flash set up instead with proven correct exposure rather than working in automatic with daylight? A while back, it was mentioned on the Canon forum that the D60 images appeared sharper than the D10, however, somebody discovered that the D60 images were done with a very good prime lens whereas the 10D used an average zoom if I recall properly.

On the face of it, it looks like the cameras peform very closely indeed, which is pretty much what I would expect from two 6MP cameras, however, with all these variables, who knows?
--
http://www.ashleykaryl.com

 

[Tariq]

Ok guys, I did a few quick and dirty tests for your amusement with my S2. What I found was that, number 1 and no surprise to any of us, is that the S2 is really an Amazing Tool!

There are Subtle differences in Contrast, Color rendition, Dynamic Range, Artifacts, etc in out of camera jpegs VS Raw. The image in this test was shot on a tripod, exact same expsure, Exact same settings with the only difference being a 12MP Fine jpeg VS a HI RAW which was later converted into an SRGB 8 bit Tiff using the Default as shot camera setting option(this keeps things on a level ground - one could also convert using Adobe RGB and Higher bit output which might even favor the Raw image more.) NO additional messing with the image in Photoshop. My in camera settings on this overcast morning were Hi Color, Std Tone, NO Sharpening Custom WB using a Nikkor 50 1.8D AF lens.

Jpegs, as others have noted I belive, tends to Give a slightly brighter image with a blurring or smoothing of Tone. That is probably why some people actually prefer it for shooting people. There is a subtle loss of detail and slight jpeg artifacts. This is important as if you where really going to push the image up in size through interpolation, these subtle artifacts would become more pronounced and noticeable. For images which are not going to be pushed, the artifacts are so slight that they would not be seen in final prints in most cases. If I get a chance, I will post a few other tests I have done with a studio shot and a House shot. Also, I wanted to mention to James if he happens to read this that the ACR(Adobe Camera Raw) has been shown to be somewhat inferior in converting Fuji images vs. the Fuji Converter(with ACR basically treating the Fuji Raw file as a 6MP final image and not taking full advantage of the benifits of the Super CCD layout, at least according to many posts here). In fact, Thomas Knoll(First name listed as one of the authors of PS!) even said on this forum that Fuji did not provide Adobe with all the info they needed to optimize ACR for Fuji images.

http://www.tariq.com/s2jpegVStiff.html

Tariq
Tariq.com

I am about to buy my first digital camera and I'll be using it to
make a living having previously relied almost entirely on
Hasselblads and I'd appreciate some advice.

For many years, I have had Canon equipment and have some good prime
lenses, so purchasing the 10D would seem like a logical move (1Ds
too expensive), however, I would like to ask those that really know
whether I am likely to get better quality from the Fuji S2 or Canon
10D, particularly at larger sizes? Quality is perhaps an abstract
term, however, I mean sharp, noise free images with good colour
rendition.

The maths doesn't interest me regarding file sizes as these are
fundamentally both 6MP cameras and I'd just like to know which is
the better camera in a straight shoot out. As I said, I am
currently a Canon user (albeit once a year) but I could afford to
keep the Canon lenses and buy 2 or 3 second hand Nikon prime lenses
if need be to get the Fuji.

No flame wars please or mad brand loyalty, which is why I didn't
ask this question at the Canon forum.

Thanks
Ashley
--
http://www.ashleykaryl.com

 

[Tariq]

Here is one more page of a controlled studio shot using one DynaLit Head in a Soft Box. Same exact Exposure and Settings for Both which was Color: HIGH, Tone: ORG, Sharpness:OFF, WB Custom. The Raw was converted into an 8 bit SRGB Tiff using the Fuji LE Converter using as shot settings. No post processing in Photoshop, No addtional sharpening, etc.

http://tariq.com/S2ColorComapre.html

(I was surpised by two things:
1: hardley any to no Jpeg Artifacts
2ramatically different Color Rendition

Again, you can notice a slight loss of detail in the Jpeg. Though the Jpeg is more appealing to the eye perhaps due to its brighter, more exaggerated colors and higher constrast, the RAW Tiff image could be worked much more in PS to give a similar look with more detail if desired. If one was Photographing Fabrics, Clothing or anything else which demanded an exact color reproduction, I don't think you could come as close with the jpeg vs the RAW Tiff.

Tariq
Tariq.com

http://www.tariq.com/s2jpegVStiff.html

Tariq
Tariq.com

I am about to buy my first digital camera and I'll be using it to
make a living having previously relied almost entirely on
Hasselblads and I'd appreciate some advice.

For many years, I have had Canon equipment and have some good prime
lenses, so purchasing the 10D would seem like a logical move (1Ds
too expensive), however, I would like to ask those that really know
whether I am likely to get better quality from the Fuji S2 or Canon
10D, particularly at larger sizes? Quality is perhaps an abstract
term, however, I mean sharp, noise free images with good colour
rendition.

The maths doesn't interest me regarding file sizes as these are
fundamentally both 6MP cameras and I'd just like to know which is
the better camera in a straight shoot out. As I said, I am
currently a Canon user (albeit once a year) but I could afford to
keep the Canon lenses and buy 2 or 3 second hand Nikon prime lenses
if need be to get the Fuji.

No flame wars please or mad brand loyalty, which is why I didn't
ask this question at the Canon forum.

Thanks
Ashley
--
http://www.ashleykaryl.com

 

[james russell]

I've been looking at the test charts and other sample images
comparing the 10D and S2 >

Test charts don't really mean much. I have seen charts on cameras and film that read superior and produce very uninspiring imagery.

Also you are asking for a comparision of camerras that really can't be answered.

As far as image quality, every digital camera has it's own properties. The 1d files are different that the S2. I can make an S2 file look like the Canon, but not the other way around. They both shoot a different look.

As far as body construction and features every camera is different, d60, 10d, s2, etc.

The 1d we use is a great, really great camera that shoot fast, is rugged, focues well, etc. etc. The S2 is a much more basic camera, though works almost as well as the 1d in almost every situation I face.

The only way to really decide between these cameras is find the look of the file you want to achieve and be sure the camera features allow you to achieve it.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford