peter
Senior Member
I had a bad sync port and it was within 30 days of purchase and sent it back to the place I bought it which was state street direct and they shipped me a new one.
Peter
Peter
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
S2 sharpness not all that...
- Thread starter David Moyses
- Start date
Jim DeLuco
Senior Member
I just loaded some comparison images..
http://www.pbase.com/deluco/s2
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
http://www.pbase.com/deluco/s2
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
David Moyses
Well-known member
Jim i just loaded a couple of shots testing focus in dim conditions from last night. All were on tripod, ISO100, 4m from subject (i know its a bin) and all focused on the Seasol container. #2 using 28-105 Nikkor @50mm #11 using a 50mm prime and #19 using an 85mm prime. All shots using f5.6. There not all that sharp I think you'd agree.
http://www.pbase.com/moyses/inbox
http://www.pbase.com/moyses/inbox
Doug Jones
Leading Member
Jim, David,
I had a look at your shots but the full size pbase ones are still quite small reduced images. Images reduced by this much will normally look quite soft without any sharpening applied. I almost never use anything less than 12Mp for taking shots and get tack sharp images from my Tamron 90 and Nikkor 50 and 35. I do try to keep the shutter speed up though when hand held and no flash. Even my Sigma 24-70 zoom gives great images from 5.6 up. Good enough to print at 20x30 inches with great clarity anyway - the problem is you can see the pores in the skin of a head shot that big
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
I had a look at your shots but the full size pbase ones are still quite small reduced images. Images reduced by this much will normally look quite soft without any sharpening applied. I almost never use anything less than 12Mp for taking shots and get tack sharp images from my Tamron 90 and Nikkor 50 and 35. I do try to keep the shutter speed up though when hand held and no flash. Even my Sigma 24-70 zoom gives great images from 5.6 up. Good enough to print at 20x30 inches with great clarity anyway - the problem is you can see the pores in the skin of a head shot that big
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
David Moyses
Well-known member
Doug I'll post 100% cropped images tomorrow, i know these have been redcuced in file size...but the 100% ones aren't much better 
I have sent my camera to NJ due to the same problem last week. Very similar symptoms, 85 % of pictures come out soft, period. I have even bought the 28-70 AFS lens (not just because of that...), so the lens quality concerns are out of the consideration...
I called Fuji before sending it in, got a quite friendly guy who initially tried to BS me with a talk of all the wonderful features I am getting with the camera, improved image processing algorithm (with less then S1 sharpening) and the need to read the manual to make sure I use all those features and don't press the AF area dial accidently to focus to the left/fight etc. After I have assured him that I am aware of all that and no, it's not me who's at fault here, he said they'll be happy to test it if I send it in. He also mentioned that they just got a special rig from Japan for testing back focus.
Needless to say, I am very interested to know how do your stories end... I'll keep you posted, too.
Thanks.
Vlad
I called Fuji before sending it in, got a quite friendly guy who initially tried to BS me with a talk of all the wonderful features I am getting with the camera, improved image processing algorithm (with less then S1 sharpening) and the need to read the manual to make sure I use all those features and don't press the AF area dial accidently to focus to the left/fight etc. After I have assured him that I am aware of all that and no, it's not me who's at fault here, he said they'll be happy to test it if I send it in. He also mentioned that they just got a special rig from Japan for testing back focus.
Needless to say, I am very interested to know how do your stories end... I'll keep you posted, too.
Thanks.
Vlad
Jim,
I just took a look at your images and I'll agree that they are all soft but I noticed that all shots were taken at 1/30th @f9.5, and the first image was at 105mm. Were these taken hand held or on a tripod? Do you have any samples taken at 125th?
Also, your shot taken with the S1 was at 1/45th of a second and if all images were taken without a tripod, the shutter speed alone could make a difference in image sharpness.
I looked at all 8 of your images and there really doesn't seem to be a sharp area in any of them that would lead me to believe that the S2 had focused somewhere other then on the subjects which really makes me wonder if the problem is due to the 1/30th of a second shutter speed.
I just looked at another gallery of yours (Schroter Portraits) and I noticed that you use 1/15th of a second quite often and more then a few of the images appear to be softer then I'd expect from the S2. It would seem to me that since you're balancing your flash with the available light that if your subjects moved at all you would end up with a soft image.
What lens or lenses are you using? have you tried using a prime lens to see if there is a difference?
Sorry for my ramblings.. just trying to help.
Tim
I just took a look at your images and I'll agree that they are all soft but I noticed that all shots were taken at 1/30th @f9.5, and the first image was at 105mm. Were these taken hand held or on a tripod? Do you have any samples taken at 125th?
Also, your shot taken with the S1 was at 1/45th of a second and if all images were taken without a tripod, the shutter speed alone could make a difference in image sharpness.
I looked at all 8 of your images and there really doesn't seem to be a sharp area in any of them that would lead me to believe that the S2 had focused somewhere other then on the subjects which really makes me wonder if the problem is due to the 1/30th of a second shutter speed.
I just looked at another gallery of yours (Schroter Portraits) and I noticed that you use 1/15th of a second quite often and more then a few of the images appear to be softer then I'd expect from the S2. It would seem to me that since you're balancing your flash with the available light that if your subjects moved at all you would end up with a soft image.
What lens or lenses are you using? have you tried using a prime lens to see if there is a difference?
Sorry for my ramblings.. just trying to help.
Tim
robinchee
Forum Enthusiast
Unless you are specifically trying to get motion blur .. maybe its better to up the ISO to 1600 from 400 and get two extra stops in speed, which will make all the world of difference in sharpness due to shake or motion blur.
ISO 1600 is really fairly clean, especially if exposed properly. Its way better than ISO 800 film .. probably comparable to ISO 400 film quality.
ISO 1600 is really fairly clean, especially if exposed properly. Its way better than ISO 800 film .. probably comparable to ISO 400 film quality.
Personally, after following numerous posts on different forums concerning this and other problems, I believe that what is happening is that the need to always be producing a cutting edge product is outstripping the industries ability to maintain any level of quality control on the new technologies. I suspect that the new cams (Canon, Kodak, Sigma ect) are going to have their own quirks, one camera doing this, another doing that. The bigger the captured filesize and the more advanced the technology is inevitably going to equate with more quirks. How else can one explain a cam that takes perfect pictures one day, screwy ones the next, and perfect ones the next while being used by experienced and intelligent people using the same settings.
IMO the problem with all of it is that the technology is too deep to quickly identify problems, and it gets deeper every day. Kind of a roll of the dice really.
Dan
IMO the problem with all of it is that the technology is too deep to quickly identify problems, and it gets deeper every day. Kind of a roll of the dice really.
Dan
I did not read all theses posts here but I have the impression
that something is very wrong but not with the S2 in general.
I had/have focus issues with a 105Micro, wide open, middle distance
(30feet or so)... I was not sure if it was me, the lens, the camera
or what ... also it is hard to get a reference when you dont really
know what the camera can do under "normal" conditions and not
when everything is tweaked to perfection ...
My local shop gave me a D100 for comparison, a 60mm Micro, which
I wanted to test anyway and a 80-400VR which I knew was sharp,
cause I used it before and wanted to buy it.. (I ended up doing so)..
I have done an extensive test between the D100 and the S2 and also
used the S2 with the VR at Rally Australia and got dome stunning pictures..
I have not yet solved my focus problem because it is identical between the S2 and the D100 .. and only occurs with the 105 .. so it might
be the lens .. I will test with another sample coming weekend...
As a side effect I ended up with a nice comparison of lenses and cameras.
I have also compared the cams in the studio and done the same shots
under identical conditions for both cameras and all the lenses ...
I have tested:
28-70 AFS
50mm 1.4
60mm Micro
105mm Micro
80-200 2.8 ED
80-400 VR
I also do a colour study at the moment for 2 new catalogues coming up
and I use a dummy to do that .. so this is my model at the moment
until we have decided on the coloir schem and get the real ones in)
here some results:
taken with 50mm 1.4 at F8 1/125 Custom WB, ORG,ORG,STD,12MP
D100 versus S2 with 80-400mm @ 400mm F16 1/125 in the studio
and the crops
from S2
and the D100
crops without any processing no USM .. nothing ..
as a quick summary:
D100 is superior in functionality, display, speed but VERY bad with AAs
S2 is superior in image quality by some margin ...
I have also done many outdoor shots where the differences are more
obvious...
The Lenses: at f8-f16 there is nothing between them ALL very sharp
I was very happy with the sample of the VR that I ended up buying it.
The D100 and the 60mm went back ...
Images I have seen in this thread earlier are just sub standard for the
S2 and something basic is wrong here ... its not the camera in
general ... it may be an issue I still have with my 105...
With this lens I focus on a spefiic point and its not sharp .. only 30-40cm
behind .. but it only occurs wide open and its identical with the D100
so it could be a N80/F80 focus issue or simply a lens problem ...
I will find this out soon ...
Hope this helps ..
gmd
that something is very wrong but not with the S2 in general.
I had/have focus issues with a 105Micro, wide open, middle distance
(30feet or so)... I was not sure if it was me, the lens, the camera
or what ... also it is hard to get a reference when you dont really
know what the camera can do under "normal" conditions and not
when everything is tweaked to perfection ...
My local shop gave me a D100 for comparison, a 60mm Micro, which
I wanted to test anyway and a 80-400VR which I knew was sharp,
cause I used it before and wanted to buy it.. (I ended up doing so)..
I have done an extensive test between the D100 and the S2 and also
used the S2 with the VR at Rally Australia and got dome stunning pictures..
I have not yet solved my focus problem because it is identical between the S2 and the D100 .. and only occurs with the 105 .. so it might
be the lens .. I will test with another sample coming weekend...
As a side effect I ended up with a nice comparison of lenses and cameras.
I have also compared the cams in the studio and done the same shots
under identical conditions for both cameras and all the lenses ...
I have tested:
28-70 AFS
50mm 1.4
60mm Micro
105mm Micro
80-200 2.8 ED
80-400 VR
I also do a colour study at the moment for 2 new catalogues coming up
and I use a dummy to do that .. so this is my model at the moment
until we have decided on the coloir schem and get the real ones in
)here some results:
taken with 50mm 1.4 at F8 1/125 Custom WB, ORG,ORG,STD,12MP
D100 versus S2 with 80-400mm @ 400mm F16 1/125 in the studio
and the crops
from S2
and the D100
crops without any processing no USM .. nothing ..
as a quick summary:
D100 is superior in functionality, display, speed but VERY bad with AAs
S2 is superior in image quality by some margin ...
I have also done many outdoor shots where the differences are more
obvious...
The Lenses: at f8-f16 there is nothing between them ALL very sharp
I was very happy with the sample of the VR that I ended up buying it.
The D100 and the 60mm went back ...
Images I have seen in this thread earlier are just sub standard for the
S2 and something basic is wrong here ... its not the camera in
general ... it may be an issue I still have with my 105...
With this lens I focus on a spefiic point and its not sharp .. only 30-40cm
behind .. but it only occurs wide open and its identical with the D100
so it could be a N80/F80 focus issue or simply a lens problem ...
I will find this out soon ...
Hope this helps ..
gmd
stuart82021
Forum Enthusiast
Paul....there can be NO comparison whatsoever between the S2 and a excellent medium format camera. I am using a Contax 645 with Zeiss Planar lenses. You also have a MUCH GREATER dynamic range with good professional film than you have with the S2. I must admit that I was severely dissapointed initially with the results of the S2, and now feel that most of the time, images are underexposed or grossly overexposed, and images tend to be a great deal softer than one would expect. The ONLY advantage to the S2 is that prints are made instantly. Stuart.
Jim DeLuco
Senior Member
Doug,Jim, David,
I had a look at your shots but the full size pbase ones are still
quite small reduced images. Images reduced by this much will
normally look quite soft without any sharpening applied. I almost
never use anything less than 12Mp for taking shots and get tack
sharp images from my Tamron 90 and Nikkor 50 and 35. I do try to
keep the shutter speed up though when hand held and no flash. Even
my Sigma 24-70 zoom gives great images from 5.6 up. Good enough to
print at 20x30 inches with great clarity anyway - the problem is
you can see the pores in the skin of a head shot that big
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
You may want to look again. David's looked reduced to me, too...but mine are full sized 1.4mb files.
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
Jim DeLuco
Senior Member
I still have more testing to do, but all the portrait images are taken with a tripod. The S1 candid was taken handheld (the last image). While the lighting on the last image is more diffused, I believe it is sharper than the others. Tell me what you think. It is true that when I shoot portraits, even outdoors I am often at 1/30th and sometimes slower, but always with a tripod. I've never had this problem with the S1, however.
I will do some additional testing, adjusting the shutter speed, however with the Bar Mitzvah portraits, the ambient light was probably at about 1/4 second at f9.5. I was shooting with flash (main and fill) at 1/30th, f9.5 with tripod and there are no sharp points on the images. Kind of scary.
I still think there's a processing problem but it could be the placement of the ccd. Take a look at the Madar portraits on my http://www.pbase.com/deluco/madar Those were also with the S2 and even though these posted images are reduced I think you can see that they are sharper than the ones taken two weeks later with the same camera. I am afraid this is intermittent and is a processing problem...I hope it is not.
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
Jim DeLuco
Senior Member
1600 for portraits does not work for me...unless you like the grain. Yes, it's cleaner than 1600 film, but it's still grainy. Also, you get a different look with flash and many times cannot get the skintones correct when mixing 1600 with flash.
400 is fine on the S1 and S2 for most applications when using flash. I will test with higher shutter speeds, however.
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
Jim DeLuco
Senior Member
My tests were done with two different lenses, but both zooms. 28-105 2.8 Tamron; 24-135 3.5-56 Tamron. I get similar results. I have to admit I have not done a controlled test and I really need to do this before I contact Fuji. I want to rule out user error.I did not read all theses posts here but I have the impression
that something is very wrong but not with the S2 in general.
I had/have focus issues with a 105Micro, wide open, middle distance
(30feet or so)... I was not sure if it was me, the lens, the camera
or what ... also it is hard to get a reference when you dont really
know what the camera can do under "normal" conditions and not
when everything is tweaked to perfection ...
My local shop gave me a D100 for comparison, a 60mm Micro, which
I wanted to test anyway and a 80-400VR which I knew was sharp,
cause I used it before and wanted to buy it.. (I ended up doing so)..
I have done an extensive test between the D100 and the S2 and also
used the S2 with the VR at Rally Australia and got dome stunning
pictures..
I have not yet solved my focus problem because it is identical
between the S2 and the D100 .. and only occurs with the 105 .. so
it might
be the lens .. I will test with another sample coming weekend...
As a side effect I ended up with a nice comparison of lenses and
cameras.
I have also compared the cams in the studio and done the same shots
under identical conditions for both cameras and all the lenses ...
I have tested:
28-70 AFS
50mm 1.4
60mm Micro
105mm Micro
80-200 2.8 ED
80-400 VR
I also do a colour study at the moment for 2 new catalogues coming up
and I use a dummy to do that .. so this is my model at the moment
until we have decided on the coloir schem and get the real ones in
here some results:
taken with 50mm 1.4 at F8 1/125 Custom WB, ORG,ORG,STD,12MP
D100 versus S2 with 80-400mm @ 400mm F16 1/125 in the studio
and the crops
from S2
and the D100
crops without any processing no USM .. nothing ..
as a quick summary:
D100 is superior in functionality, display, speed but VERY bad with
AAs
S2 is superior in image quality by some margin ...
I have also done many outdoor shots where the differences are more
obvious...
The Lenses: at f8-f16 there is nothing between them ALL very sharp
I was very happy with the sample of the VR that I ended up buying it.
The D100 and the 60mm went back ...
Images I have seen in this thread earlier are just sub standard for
the
S2 and something basic is wrong here ... its not the camera in
general ... it may be an issue I still have with my 105...
With this lens I focus on a spefiic point and its not sharp .. only
30-40cm
behind .. but it only occurs wide open and its identical with the D100
so it could be a N80/F80 focus issue or simply a lens problem ...
I will find this out soon ...
Hope this helps ..
gmd
One other factor that could be at work here is that we tended not to look so closely at our film camera sharpnes. That is, we never had the opportunity to review the image so closely cropped right in camera and on a computer screen...so our personal tolerances may be decreasing somewhat.
When shooting film, I rarely looked at a negative. I was looking at 4x5 proofs and could tell if they were critically sharp from those. As soon as the lab changed paper on me I flipped out. My photo's looked softer..but it was the new paper.
I wonder how our negatives would hold up under such close scrutiny.
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
Jim,
I do not agree completely ... yes I think we are
more critical with digital but I still expect to have
a sharp picture at 100% with STD sharpening out
of camera and with the S2 it is as good as it gets
at 12MP from a 6MP sensor ...
the crop is sharp on my monitor at 100% ...
I would not be happy with less...
This was taken at 400mm 1/500 f8
gmd
I do not agree completely ... yes I think we are
more critical with digital but I still expect to have
a sharp picture at 100% with STD sharpening out
of camera and with the S2 it is as good as it gets
at 12MP from a 6MP sensor ...
the crop is sharp on my monitor at 100% ...
I would not be happy with less...
This was taken at 400mm 1/500 f8
gmd
My tests were done with two different lenses, but both zooms.I did not read all theses posts here but I have the impression
that something is very wrong but not with the S2 in general.
I had/have focus issues with a 105Micro, wide open, middle distance
(30feet or so)... I was not sure if it was me, the lens, the camera
or what ... also it is hard to get a reference when you dont really
know what the camera can do under "normal" conditions and not
when everything is tweaked to perfection ...
My local shop gave me a D100 for comparison, a 60mm Micro, which
I wanted to test anyway and a 80-400VR which I knew was sharp,
cause I used it before and wanted to buy it.. (I ended up doing so)..
I have done an extensive test between the D100 and the S2 and also
used the S2 with the VR at Rally Australia and got dome stunning
pictures..
I have not yet solved my focus problem because it is identical
between the S2 and the D100 .. and only occurs with the 105 .. so
it might
be the lens .. I will test with another sample coming weekend...
As a side effect I ended up with a nice comparison of lenses and
cameras.
I have also compared the cams in the studio and done the same shots
under identical conditions for both cameras and all the lenses ...
I have tested:
28-70 AFS
50mm 1.4
60mm Micro
105mm Micro
80-200 2.8 ED
80-400 VR
I also do a colour study at the moment for 2 new catalogues coming up
and I use a dummy to do that .. so this is my model at the moment
until we have decided on the coloir schem and get the real ones in
here some results:
taken with 50mm 1.4 at F8 1/125 Custom WB, ORG,ORG,STD,12MP
D100 versus S2 with 80-400mm @ 400mm F16 1/125 in the studio
and the crops
from S2
and the D100
crops without any processing no USM .. nothing ..
as a quick summary:
D100 is superior in functionality, display, speed but VERY bad with
AAs
S2 is superior in image quality by some margin ...
I have also done many outdoor shots where the differences are more
obvious...
The Lenses: at f8-f16 there is nothing between them ALL very sharp
I was very happy with the sample of the VR that I ended up buying it.
The D100 and the 60mm went back ...
Images I have seen in this thread earlier are just sub standard for
the
S2 and something basic is wrong here ... its not the camera in
general ... it may be an issue I still have with my 105...
With this lens I focus on a spefiic point and its not sharp .. only
30-40cm
behind .. but it only occurs wide open and its identical with the D100
so it could be a N80/F80 focus issue or simply a lens problem ...
I will find this out soon ...
Hope this helps ..
gmd
28-105 2.8 Tamron; 24-135 3.5-56 Tamron. I get similar results. I
have to admit I have not done a controlled test and I really need
to do this before I contact Fuji. I want to rule out user error.
One other factor that could be at work here is that we tended not
to look so closely at our film camera sharpnes. That is, we never
had the opportunity to review the image so closely cropped right in
camera and on a computer screen...so our personal tolerances may be
decreasing somewhat.
When shooting film, I rarely looked at a negative. I was looking at
4x5 proofs and could tell if they were critically sharp from those.
As soon as the lab changed paper on me I flipped out. My photo's
looked softer..but it was the new paper.
I wonder how our negatives would hold up under such close scrutiny.
--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
michel verlinden
Active member
hello,
I'm but an absolute beginner at serious photography,
but so far I've learned that almost every lens is limited in what it can do,
either it becomes unsharp beyond certain distances or outside some f-stop range or has problems at certain shutter speeds
take for instance the tokina atx 242 24-200 considered a soft lens by almost anyone I talked to about it, and true enough I could not get it to take sharp pictures untill I tried it for subject distances of less than 20 feet
at f8 or f11 and at least 1/125sec shutterspeed
unless you guys disagree about this picture being sharp
http://www.pbase.com/image/6444243&exif=N
michel
I'm but an absolute beginner at serious photography,
but so far I've learned that almost every lens is limited in what it can do,
either it becomes unsharp beyond certain distances or outside some f-stop range or has problems at certain shutter speeds
take for instance the tokina atx 242 24-200 considered a soft lens by almost anyone I talked to about it, and true enough I could not get it to take sharp pictures untill I tried it for subject distances of less than 20 feet
at f8 or f11 and at least 1/125sec shutterspeed
unless you guys disagree about this picture being sharp
http://www.pbase.com/image/6444243&exif=N
michel
Teski
Forum Pro
Joe Passante
Member
Maybe its just me but I find that I like hard sharpening for my jpegs. Otherwise the image looks a little soft.
--
joe
--
joe
Jim,
I looked at all images on your pbase page(s) last night and I really think that the problem could be 2 things.
First, I would try faster shutter speeds. Instead of f9.5 at 1/30th you could try f6.7 at 1/60th or f5.6 at 1/90th.
Second, get your hands on a good prime lens and test your camera to see if its the lens or the camera.
Since we're working with digital and testing the camera doesn't cost anyone anything.... why don't you just set the camera up on a tripod and test it with both of your lenses at all fstops and at different focal lengths. You could do this indoors with flash as your primary light source but I think it would be easier to do outdoors in bright light so that you could also test both lenses at different distances to see if they perform better at certain distances or if your camera has a problem at say....20ft or beyond.
A couple of your Madar images look to me like the focus could be off. On Madar20, the left edge of the image(the couch) looks much sharper to me than the boys face does. I know this is probably a dumb suggestion, but.. have you double checked to make sure that you have closest-subject priority turned off?
Some of your sharper images are in your "Staples Halloween Party" folder when you used a shutter speed of 125th or better. hween22.jpg, hween23.jpg, hween30.jpg among others appear to me to be in focus and reasonably sharp..they are also taken at 1/125th of a second. hween61.jpg looks pretty sharp at 1/90th of a second but there were quite a few soft images due to camera shake.
Once again I'm rambling...
Hope any/some of this helps.
Tim
I looked at all images on your pbase page(s) last night and I really think that the problem could be 2 things.
First, I would try faster shutter speeds. Instead of f9.5 at 1/30th you could try f6.7 at 1/60th or f5.6 at 1/90th.
Second, get your hands on a good prime lens and test your camera to see if its the lens or the camera.
Since we're working with digital and testing the camera doesn't cost anyone anything.... why don't you just set the camera up on a tripod and test it with both of your lenses at all fstops and at different focal lengths. You could do this indoors with flash as your primary light source but I think it would be easier to do outdoors in bright light so that you could also test both lenses at different distances to see if they perform better at certain distances or if your camera has a problem at say....20ft or beyond.
A couple of your Madar images look to me like the focus could be off. On Madar20, the left edge of the image(the couch) looks much sharper to me than the boys face does. I know this is probably a dumb suggestion, but.. have you double checked to make sure that you have closest-subject priority turned off?
Some of your sharper images are in your "Staples Halloween Party" folder when you used a shutter speed of 125th or better. hween22.jpg, hween23.jpg, hween30.jpg among others appear to me to be in focus and reasonably sharp..they are also taken at 1/125th of a second. hween61.jpg looks pretty sharp at 1/90th of a second but there were quite a few soft images due to camera shake.
Once again I'm rambling...
Hope any/some of this helps.
Tim
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum