S3 soft? I don't think so!

[Lee Jay]

How can that be when Simon says there is barely even a difference?

I just don't agree. In addition to more noise, the S2 has harder to get rid of noise, and a very wierd high blackpoint that drives me nuts (like flare or something). I tried three copies out each time rejecting them. I've tried three of the Canons with the new sensor and found all of them to be acceptable under the same conditions in which I rejected the S2. In fact, I did a side-by-side with one of the (A540) versus the S2 and there was no contest to me - A540 by a mile.

Maybe I'm just sensitive to the S2's weaknesses.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Fredrick28933]

.....You have to be careful comparing "sharpness" of cameras and lenses
because you can be so easily fooled by the above effects. Also, I
think as a whole, people in this forum put too much emphasis on
image sharpness...... > --
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Yes. To quote Henri Cartier-Bresson: "Sharpness is an artifact of concern to the bourgeoise." Although I must admit that I do not know precisely what he meant by that, it somehow seems to ring true here.

 

[Montana500]

It also looks sharp because you post processed the image with a
sharpening tool.

Let's see the image with no post processing and not resized.

The 100% crop IS shown with no post processing and not resized.
That's what "100% crop, untouched straight from the camera" means!!!

No, you used Bicubic Sharper to downsize the image. That is a very cpu intensive post processing tool that allows a full image to retain sharpness when downsizing. Post the original file, and then the crop without Bicubic sharper.

Anything else is bordering on dishonest....

and I mean no offense by that because it's a very nice image.

--
2005 Canon S2 photo gallery:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/hits/hits.html

 

[Lee Jay]

No, you used Bicubic Sharper to downsize the image.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The 100% crop is not sharpened, downsized or processed in any way except that it has been cropped from the original file.

Anything else is bordering on dishonest....

It's not dishonest at all. You just didn't understand what I said. I posted the unprocessed image reduced with bicubic sharper (IOW, the only processing was reduction with bicubic sharper) and I posted a 100% untouched crop (no reduction, no sharpening, no nothing except the crop). What I said was exactly what I did.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Montana500]

No, you used Bicubic Sharper to downsize the image.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The 100% crop is not sharpened, downsized or processed in any way
except that it has been cropped from the original file.

Anything else is bordering on dishonest....

It's not dishonest at all. You just didn't understand what I said.
I posted the unprocessed image reduced with bicubic sharper (IOW,
the only processing was reduction with bicubic sharper) and I
posted a 100% untouched crop (no reduction, no sharpening, no
nothing except the crop). What I said was exactly what I did.

Where is the crop without bicubic sharper? Thx.

--
2005 Canon S2 photo gallery:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/hits/hits.html

 

[Lee Jay]

Where is the crop without bicubic sharper? Thx.

The second one in the original post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=18658063

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Montana500]

That's not it. I was talking about the same sized crop that you used the sharpner plugin with.

--
2005 Canon S2 photo gallery:
http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/hits/hits.html

 

[Lee Jay]

That's not it. I was talking about the same sized crop that you
used the sharpner plugin with.

I don't know what you are talking about. That is the 100% untouched crop just like I said it was.

Here's the whole untouched image.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/S3__0665.JPG

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)