Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 27, 2008, 10:45 AM   #1
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

See Steve's hands on review here:

Fujifilm FinePix S100FS

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 4, 2008, 2:35 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3
Default


Thank you for the review.

I recently purchased a Fujifilm S100FS and have these comments:

. heavy (but I haven't used an SLR since my Nikon 8008)

. screen not useful in sunlight - need to use viewfinder.

. manual isn't clear on what is happening in many cases. For example, not clear what increasing dynamic range actually does.

. doesn't have a "bracket JPG by selective processing of RAW image" mode, or any explanation as to if that would make sense or not. (Or if perhaps that is what the camera actually does.)

. It seems like bracketing should bepossible in RAW, but it isn't available. I'm not sure if that is because bracketing is done byreprocessing RAW - if so than it makes sense for no bracketing in RAW.

. RAW isn't defined either specifically (as in these are sensor locations and this is how they are combined) or in general (as we have a bunch of varying size sensitivity sensors that are used as input to JPG processing .) No reason as to why 2 times as many pixels in RAW as TIFF compared to JPG.

. Manual leaves out some things, such as is hotshoe or Synchronizing terminal (PC connector) operational in super macro mode. (It makes sense for the built in flash not to function, but remote flashes through PC connector or hotshoe would make sense.)

. Too many multi-function buttons. Should have separate Aperture and Speed buttons, even if only one is active.

. Too many multi-function buttons. Needs separate zoom and position buttons on playback

. Too many multi-function buttons. Should be able to set exposure compensation more easily.

. Some things not clearly documented. For example, does changing the flash output actually change the flash output or does it just use a slower F-stop.

. Strange playback limitation: cannot autorotate RAW. (This happens on a few other cameras that I have.)

. Strange playback limitation: autorotated images are narrow even when zoomed. (This also happens on a few other cameras that I have.)

. Should be able to record longer sound clips per picture.

. Stupid special battery.

. Manual says problems if sensor gets hot, but doesn't say how to recognize this. A temperature sensor would be nice.

. I think that in terms of optics, a slower (higher number) F-stop would make sense, but I could be wrong. (I used to be able to choose F/16 with 8mm cameras motion picture cameras. Perhaps this limited theimageresolution, but failing all otheroptions I'd like F/16 and maybe F/22.).

. Various notes about flash not working at high shutter speeds, but no reason given.

. Can't crop RAW. While I don't normally use after exposure editing functions in a camera, it seems to me that if you have such functions they should work with RAW.

. Not clear how lower resolution modes work. Choices are center of image, average of areas, and sample of area. This distinction should be explained and the implemented choice should be listed, especially if the actual method is different than the ones I thought of.

. White Balance Fine Tune - sounds good, but Ihaven't tried it yet.

. Documentation for "COPY [ALL FRAMES]" ("Copying all frames") should point out that it will take "a year and a day" to do this since you only have about 25MB to work with.

. AC poweradapter (AC-84V) doesn't seem to be available in the United States yet.

. Some limitations with RAW and other functions, such as Self-timer, where only one image is possible that don't seem related to the required speed or memory limitations.

. Camera should come with software for pin-cushion/barrel distortion, or at least the tables needed for commonoptional software and recommendations.

(The above are all documentation orlow cost implementation problems. Of course the camera isn't perfect, includingthings that physics makesimpossible, would costmore, or need more advanced electronics. Some ofthese are H264, internal neutral density filterand more internal memory,which I mention here onlyso no-one can say I overlooked them.)


mark2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2008, 6:16 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

mark,

Is there anything you like about the camera?

the Hun


rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2008, 7:29 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3
Default

Many others have commented on the good stuff and done a great job of testing and
comparing the quality of the images, so I couldn't add anything in those areas.

I could, however, comment on the things that seem like low cost or no cost improvements that would make the camera a great deal better and on documentation errors that can be easily fixed.

If you want some positive things:
. 14:1 zoom - great
. image quality - super compared to Sony DSC-T100, which itself is good for portraits and 8.5x11 pages.
. RAW output, so I don't have do deal with JPG. (I never can edit JPGsand save them without losing atoo much information or taking up more space than it would have taken using TIFF in the first place.)
. Viewfinder works fine in sunlight and I can use it without my eyeglasses due to the built-in diopter adjustment
. Super macro works fine.
. Image stabilization works fine.
. Seemed to handle replacing the old Fuji Film Raw File Converter and FinePix Viewerleft over from my S5100, but I didn't check that the S5100 support still works on my Windows XP Professional system.
mark2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2008, 4:39 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

I will add a couple of no's.

Stupid little proprietary battery <G> I had to say that although I know Mark said it. It's really bad.

No car charger for the stupid little battery.

Mark, The AEB actually takes 3 shots, so it's not procesing the RAW for "FakeDR". If there is a reason for not doing it iin RAW it would have to be that RAW is so much larger. And yet you can continuous top 3 or last 3 RAW (????).

I would have preferred:

Less pixels (with less CA)
Less zoom (again with less CA)
5 (or even 4) frames per second cont. shooting at 4MP rather than 7 frames at 3MP.

As you say, the lower pixel settings are not explained well at all. Would it produce less CA in one mode or the other?


Overall, though, I have chosen not to go the route of a ute full of lenses :? because I have SLR'd before, with film, and know what trap it can be. So I am pretty happy with the camera, for all its faults, because it's the next best thing. I can work around 95% of its faults on shots that are really valuable to me, in P/P. It has hauled in some pretty awesome stuff for me, while leaving me $$ to pay for petrol to get shots!

The attached is straight from the camera, except resizing.

Nick
Attached Images
 
OldNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2009, 3:29 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default

I have another two issuses that I don't manage with this camera: First is about ISO: can have another between iso, instead of 100,200,400,800 etc ??? Is there something that can decrease the 400 ISO for Auto? I don't understand why they used the minimum of 400 for Auto, even the pictures are not so clear at 400.
The second problem is about the photos... I have the impresion that almost all the phostos have 'dust' undepends of the resolution / MP. The interesting part comes when I used RAW; the output picture was without that dust. Is any mode to reduce this dust, without shooting in RAW?
Thanks
nepmis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2009, 6:44 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Can you post an example of "dust"?
OldNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2009, 2:10 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Default

Hello,
On Monday I'll post some of mine, but is the same thing even on Fuji site:
http://fuji-media.s3.amazonaws.com/s...s/dscf9390.jpg or http://fuji-media.s3.amazonaws.com/s...es/dscf087.jpg - I used irfan view and if you download the picture and saw it at 100% size you'll see the same dust like in a photo made with a mobile phone.
Another detailed dust can be seen in
http://fuji-media.s3.amazonaws.com/s...s/dscf0442.jpg - try taking a look to the middle leaf and the sky near it.... the same granulation.

I remark this because before s100fs I used a Sony DSC H1 that doesn't have this little dust in 100% detailed view.
... still don't understand why they used a minimum of 400 ISO for Auto

Thanks
nepmis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2009, 2:51 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

OK. I had a look and there is a bit of noise there, and also some jpg "blebbing". Not blindly defending the camera, but it does push itself a bit hard in just about every department, to do what it does. I would prefer larger jpgs and probably be happy with 8-10 mp sensor. But of course larger jpgs would lower the continuous speed etc :-)

I "fixed " those shots by running noise removal over them, and also did some "edge preserving smooth" de-noising as well.

EDIT: and also a mild sharpen. Overlay, Radius 2 Strength 55%

What I have posted is around a 100% crop of one of the worse areas.

However there is still the green and purple fringing down the tree trunk in that last one

I am assuming you Auto Dynamic Range. They chose 400 I would reckon because they have to have the higher ISO in order to operate the HDR (that's basically how it works) and they need to maximise the effect on Auto. If you want lower ISO use 200. I don;t like Auto anyway because it takes half the shot info off the Viewfinder.

When you do raw stuff, you are probably de-noising them yourself, maybe even by default.????
Attached Images
 
OldNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2009, 3:06 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

While I am thinking about it, what are your camera's settings for sharpness and jog quality, saturation etc. If the sharpness or saturation are set up other than standard, the camera will cause more problems. The photos make great looking out-of-the-camera snaps, for casual viewing, because they look nice and sharp and bright, but if you are happy to post process, you can probably do a better job on each shot that is worth working on.

Nick
OldNick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:42 AM.