Fuji FinePix S3

Chasseur D'Images (March 03, No. 271) has an in depth article on the
Fujifilm FinePix S3. The tests they do are far beyond what I can report
here. 12 pages of images, tests, descriptions, graphs, etc.

Summary:
Positives.

-image quality: great. (really Great!).
-dynamic range is an E-6 killer
-better even than Superia 800 (range)
-very low noise at ISO 800

Among the photos shown are a model lit by a few candles, nothing else.
The soft lit model looks great in this light. The candle flames
themselves are just over the edge of blown out (the blue flame base is
visible but the top of the flame comes out white, no detail). Per C d'I
at 40x60cm (about 16x24") @ ISO 800 there is no grain. (To me the
sample crop in the mag at that blowup looks quite soft).
Their test photog claims it is easy to capture 10 EV scenes with detail.
(V about 7 EV for other DSLR's). Further, even the camera gen'd JPG's
(from the high dynamic mode) are usable directly for very good results.


Negatives

-body sucks
-slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
dead slow)
-0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
-batteries: don't last long (AA).

One statement: "The recording time for RAW is so slow that it is cruelly
embarrassing with a model in front of the camera." (translated as best
I can).

Another: "The very best sensor imprisoned in a body form yesteryear."

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:05 -0500, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>Negatives
>
> -body sucks
> -slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
> dead slow)
> -0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
> -batteries: don't last long (AA).


Having owned one for a couple of months now the only thing I disagree
with them about is the NiMh AA batteries. I can shoot an all day
wedding without having to change them (as long as I remembered to
charge them the day before) and pick up another set at any large store
for $19.95. In fact, since buying the camera, NiMh battery storage
has increased to 2500 mah. Since I also used these in my flash and my
CF to CD portable burner this is a really big plus in my book.

 

McLeod wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:05 -0500, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Negatives
>>
>> -body sucks
>> -slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
>> dead slow)
>> -0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
>> -batteries: don't last long (AA).
>
>
>
> Having owned one for a couple of months now the only thing I disagree
> with them about is the NiMh AA batteries. I can shoot an all day
> wedding without having to change them (as long as I remembered to
> charge them the day before) and pick up another set at any large store
> for $19.95. In fact, since buying the camera, NiMh battery storage
> has increased to 2500 mah. Since I also used these in my flash and my
> CF to CD portable burner this is a really big plus in my book.

Just reporting what they said. I guess they were pining for Li-ion.

I do reccomend you get the magazine, it is replete with information
about the camera. You might disagree with some of it, but in general is
well presented. Your high school French will help carry you through...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

McLeod <> writes:

> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:05 -0500, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
>>Negatives
>>
>> -body sucks
>> -slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
>> dead slow)
>> -0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
>> -batteries: don't last long (AA).
>
> Having owned one for a couple of months now the only thing I disagree
> with them about is the NiMh AA batteries. I can shoot an all day
> wedding without having to change them (as long as I remembered to
> charge them the day before) and pick up another set at any large store
> for $19.95. In fact, since buying the camera, NiMh battery storage
> has increased to 2500 mah. Since I also used these in my flash and my
> CF to CD portable burner this is a really big plus in my book.

I'm a big fan of cameras using generic batteries; it was a factor in
my choosing the S2 over the Nikon D100 a few years back. I'm glad to
see the S3 still works on AAs; even if I'm not able to consider
upgrading.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> McLeod <> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:05 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Negatives
>>>
>>> -body sucks
>>> -slow recording (once 2 or 3 images are in the buffer, it goes
>>> dead slow)
>>> -0.5 stop EV exposure steps.
>>> -batteries: don't last long (AA).
>>
>> Having owned one for a couple of months now the only thing I disagree
>> with them about is the NiMh AA batteries. I can shoot an all day
>> wedding without having to change them (as long as I remembered to
>> charge them the day before) and pick up another set at any large
>> store for $19.95. In fact, since buying the camera, NiMh battery
>> storage has increased to 2500 mah. Since I also used these in my
>> flash and my CF to CD portable burner this is a really big plus in
>> my book.
>
> I'm a big fan of cameras using generic batteries; it was a factor in
> my choosing the S2 over the Nikon D100 a few years back. I'm glad to
> see the S3 still works on AAs; even if I'm not able to consider
> upgrading.

But, what about dpreview.com's assertion that this camera is about $1000 too
much, compared with modern 6mp rivals?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page26.asp

As some of you may know, I am looking for a suitable studio camera to do art
photography. This camera seems to fit the bill with respect to the colour
reproduction attributes, but it seems much better suited to wedding and
modelling for it's softer images. I need as much detail as possible. Am I
right in thinking this?
Nor am I sure whether or not it's Super CCD pixel-doubling capabilities are
merely another incarnation of the foveon sensor X3-type sleight of hand, in
terms of useful image resolution?

 

"> But, what about dpreview.com's assertion that this camera is about $1000
too
> much, compared with modern 6mp rivals?

I have taken files from the S2 and compared them to files from other
cameras. I found that the tilted array did work...sort of. The S2 was what?
6 megs and put out a 12 meg file. If you compared it to a 6 meg camera it
was the best ever. If you compared it to a 12 meg camera it was the worst
ever. It compared well with cameras half again larger....8 megs. If the S3
follows that pattern (can one be a pattern) then how does the camera
compare?


>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page26.asp
>
> As some of you may know, I am looking for a suitable studio camera to do
art
> photography. This camera seems to fit the bill with respect to the colour
> reproduction attributes, but it seems much better suited to wedding and
> modelling for it's softer images. I need as much detail as possible. Am I
> right in thinking this?
> Nor am I sure whether or not it's Super CCD pixel-doubling capabilities
are
> merely another incarnation of the foveon sensor X3-type sleight of hand,
in
> terms of useful image resolution?
>
>

Not slight of hand....download some files and see for yourself. For as much
detail as possible I would suggest a sheet film camera. For as much as is
practical...

I suspect that this camera will be a favorite of art shooters only. The wide
dynamic range is not missed for most other uses...though they would like to
have it. Only you can know what is important to you...rent a camera and try
it out.

 

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> I have taken files from the S2 and compared them to files from other
> cameras. I found that the tilted array did work...sort of. The S2 was
> what? 6 megs and put out a 12 meg file.

So is the S3.

> If you compared it to a 6 meg
> camera it was the best ever. If you compared it to a 12 meg camera it
> was the worst ever. It compared well with cameras half again
> larger....8 megs. If the S3 follows that pattern (can one be a
> pattern) then how does the camera compare?
>

But they wouldn't go to the expense of introducing a 'new' model which
performed either identically or similarly to the outgoing one, shirley?

> Not slight of hand....

<pedant>
'Sleight', as in dexterity; adroitness in using the hands.
</...>

> download some files and see for yourself.

Yes, I shall do that, but like an electric current, I am inclined to seeking
the shortest path to my intended destination. So, I live in hope of making
the acquaintance here of an existing and knowledgeable convert in digital
archival of artworks photography. ;-)

> For as much detail as possible I would suggest a sheet film camera. For
> as much as is practical...

That is what I am seeking to abandon now, in terms of achieving improved
workflow times and reduced production costs.

> I suspect that this camera will be a favorite of art shooters only.

Was there implied emphasis on the 'only' there? In which case, as I am an
'art shooter', I assume you mean me. ;-)

> The wide dynamic range is not missed for most other uses...though
> they would like to have it. Only you can know what is important to
> you...rent a camera and try it out.

Yes, the wide dynamic range, particularly in the highlights which the
reviewer at dpreview.com so bemoaned, was what actually attracted me greatly
to this camera. Most of the art I photograph comprises delicate shades of
pastel colour as contained in watercolour images.

Unfortunately, the concept of renting out cameras seems not to have reached
our shores in the UK, AFAICT. :-(

 

Ok...yes, both have the same 6 mp...as good as an 8 mp...maybe. So, since
some people say that the pixel race is pointless after a point then maybe 8
mp quality is enough...or maybe enough for now and for the money we want to
spend and something we have to accept if we the expanded D.

You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you? Performance is more than
MP. It does have twice the MP but half of them are working for something
other than resolution. It's hard to compare.

I shoot art for a regional arts magazine...and I do quite well thanks with a
4 mp. That is plenty for most types and sizes of printing. I have made
slides with my files and printed posters. It serves well....but of course I
want more. I want more for my art shooting...not for my shooting of art. A
watercolor is not going to have the dynamic range to take advantage of the
S3. Most art is not hung in bad light. But, to make art you might strive for
the dynamic...and the S3 might be the only camera for some of these
situations. Think of a person next to a window in a BW print. Digital
doesn't do that well yet. Maybe the S3 will do it.

The shooting rate doesn't seem to the high enough for how current
photojournalists shoot. But an artist might take more time and fewer shots.
It would not be my pick for sports. Might be good for weddings and such. As
far as price....not that high. Lowest price for a full feature Nikon mount
camera that I can find.

All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next camera) I
don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose. It's selling point
is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated purpose). You are
shooting art for the purpose of someday printing out copies of that art. You
won't know how good the printers might be when that day comes so you want
the best file possible to begin with. You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks
might be better.


"Siggy" <> wrote in message
news:Iu_0e.5420$...
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
> >
> > I have taken files from the S2 and compared them to files from other
> > cameras. I found that the tilted array did work...sort of. The S2 was
> > what? 6 megs and put out a 12 meg file.
>
> So is the S3.
>
> > If you compared it to a 6 meg
> > camera it was the best ever. If you compared it to a 12 meg camera it
> > was the worst ever. It compared well with cameras half again
> > larger....8 megs. If the S3 follows that pattern (can one be a
> > pattern) then how does the camera compare?
> >
>
> But they wouldn't go to the expense of introducing a 'new' model which
> performed either identically or similarly to the outgoing one, shirley?
>
> > Not slight of hand....
>
> <pedant>
> 'Sleight', as in dexterity; adroitness in using the hands.
> </...>
>
> > download some files and see for yourself.
>
> Yes, I shall do that, but like an electric current, I am inclined to
seeking
> the shortest path to my intended destination. So, I live in hope of
making
> the acquaintance here of an existing and knowledgeable convert in digital
> archival of artworks photography. ;-)
>
> > For as much detail as possible I would suggest a sheet film camera. For
> > as much as is practical...
>
> That is what I am seeking to abandon now, in terms of achieving improved
> workflow times and reduced production costs.
>
> > I suspect that this camera will be a favorite of art shooters only.
>
> Was there implied emphasis on the 'only' there? In which case, as I am an
> 'art shooter', I assume you mean me. ;-)
>
> > The wide dynamic range is not missed for most other uses...though
> > they would like to have it. Only you can know what is important to
> > you...rent a camera and try it out.
>
> Yes, the wide dynamic range, particularly in the highlights which the
> reviewer at dpreview.com so bemoaned, was what actually attracted me
greatly
> to this camera. Most of the art I photograph comprises delicate shades of
> pastel colour as contained in watercolour images.
>
> Unfortunately, the concept of renting out cameras seems not to have
reached
> our shores in the UK, AFAICT. :-(
>
>

 

Siggy wrote:

> As some of you may know, I am looking for a suitable studio camera to
> do art photography. This camera seems to fit the bill with respect to
> the colour reproduction attributes, but it seems much better suited
> to wedding and modelling for it's softer images. I need as much
> detail as possible. Am I right in thinking this?

> Nor am I sure whether or not it's Super CCD pixel-doubling
> capabilities are merely another incarnation of the foveon sensor
> X3-type sleight of hand, in terms of useful image resolution?

The extra pixels go to the highlights, not resolution. It remains a 6
MP camera (3024 x 2016). The "4256 x 2848" is interpolated.

I found the cropped image in the review a bit soft. The review gives it
a 5/5 for studio work and an overall 4/5.

Nowhere in the article did the reviewers note that images were soft
looking. In one area they state that the native genrated JPGs are
"ready to print" in most cases, particularly wedding shots. They state
that when matched with pro glass, and with the interpolated output size
the results are very sharp. (They don't offer anything for comparison
along this line). For printing 30x45 cm (~11 x 16") they give it a 9/10
score.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> The extra pixels go to the highlights, not resolution. It remains a 6
> MP camera (3024 x 2016). The "4256 x 2848" is interpolated.

Right! That was the flippant reference I made to 'sleight of hand' earlier
on. ;-)

> I found the cropped image in the review a bit soft. The review gives
> it a 5/5 for studio work and an overall 4/5.

Well it's odd that dpreview.com did, is it not? Albeit mainly at ISO800 and
greater in order to suppress noise, as although their grayscale patch was
clean, the detail of the postage stamp crop was soft and blurry.
What I can't work out though is whether or not some judicious use of USM,
either in camera or post-processing, will remedy this.

> Nowhere in the article did the reviewers note that images were soft
> looking. <snipped>

I am unfamiliar with this magazine, but do you know of any 'loyalties'
required of it? Are you sure it wasn't just a 12 page ad?

 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:19:12 -0500, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>I do reccomend you get the magazine, it is replete with information
>about the camera. You might disagree with some of it, but in general is
>well presented. Your high school French will help carry you through...

They don't carry it in this part of Ontario. Is it an expensive
subscription?

 

Gene Palmiter wrote:

>
> You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
movie. ;-)

>
> All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
> camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
> It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
> purpose).

I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the sake
of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable
by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This to
ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
behind framed glass).

> You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
> out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
> when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
> You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.

Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame DSLR's
to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep the
film-camera handy for the remainder.

 

Siggy wrote:
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
>>
>> You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?
>
> he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
> 'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane',
> the movie. ;-)
>

Steve Martin, Leslie Nielsen. Same-o, same-o.


--
Frank ess

 

Dynamic range...how many stops it can record. I don't recall the exact
numbers but the world has a far greater range of "brightness" than cameras
can capture. We can see into shadows and adjust to all but specular
highlights. Cameras cannot. Great pains were taken with BW films to compress
all the values in the real world into the range that the film could
capture...the Zone System. And...the full range of the film could not be
printed.

The modern equivalent with digital cameras is where our shadows are all
blocked up and our highlights are burned out. I think I have read where a
sensor might have 6 stops difference between the two extremes between dark
detail and bright detail. Shooting raw will give a bit more. The S3 was
designed so that the smaller sensors preserve data when the highlights blow
out the large sensors.

All this is nice to know...but what is important to you for your purpose is
that art work cannot display even as much as any digital camera can capture.
(Unless its shiny and unevenly lit or ....well...the exceptions are all
unlikely) Suffice it to say that for the stated purpose the best features of
the S3 are useless.


"Siggy" <> wrote in message
news:HD31e.5580$...
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> >
> > You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?
>
> he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
> 'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
> movie. ;-)
>
> >
> > All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
> > camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
> > It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
> > purpose).
>
> I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
> referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
> same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
> different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the
sake
> of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
> correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours
identifiable
> by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
> through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This
to
> ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
> behind framed glass).
>
> > You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
> > out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
> > when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
> > You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.
>
> Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
> semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame
DSLR's
> to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
> way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
> have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep
the
> film-camera handy for the remainder.
>
>

 

Frank ess wrote:
>
> Steve Martin, Leslie Nielsen. Same-o, same-o.

Ah yes. Thanks for the heads-up. ;-)

 

Thanks Gene, you have taken much trouble to try and educate an ignorant soul
here, and it is much appreciated. I can't say I have understood too much of
the technical ins & outs, except that I am clearly being advised not to
consider this camera as an especially appropriate one for my needs. For
that, I am most grateful.



Gene Palmiter wrote:
<snipped>
>
> All this is nice to know...but what is important to you for your
> purpose is that art work cannot display even as much as any digital
> camera can capture. (Unless its shiny and unevenly lit or
> ....well...the exceptions are all unlikely) Suffice it to say that
> for the stated purpose the best features of the S3 are useless.
>

 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Siggy <> wrote:
> What I want, even at the sake of overkill in terms of camera's
> ability, is the ability to locate and correctly register as many
> (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable by the human
> eye.

You can't get this with any conventional digital camera, because
digital cameras are not colorimetrically accurate (and aren't intended
to be). There's an article at
http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/PDFs/Berns_van_Gogh_tech_lowres.pdf
which explains why this is, and gives some suggestions about how to
overcome te problems.

[There's also
http://www.rmimaging.com/information/color_accurate_photography.pdf.]

Andrew.

 

"Siggy" <> wrote in message
news7b1e.5662$...
> Thanks Gene, you have taken much trouble to try and educate an ignorant
soul
> here, and it is much appreciated. I can't say I have understood too much
of
> the technical ins & outs, except that I am clearly being advised not to
> consider this camera as an especially appropriate one for my needs. For
> that, I am most grateful.

Right...this camera is not especially appropriate for your "stated" needs.
But, who knows what else a camera might be asked to do? More importantly,
any digital camera can do what you are needing. None will have perfect
color. These are not the deciding factors.

These are...

Lens....framed art has square corners. Cameras have a hard time with these.

Pixels...If saved for the future you might want as many as you can afford.

Cost...how much can you spend?

Upgrades...if you have lenses...will it fit on your new camera. Will the
lenses you buy from now on fit other cameras that you might buy in the
future.

Should I win the lottery I would buy the Mamiya ZD. 22MP would allow me to
make prints that will capture anything the artist put on the paper.

 

Siggy wrote:

> I am unfamiliar with this magazine, but do you know of any
> 'loyalties' required of it? Are you sure it wasn't just a 12 page ad?
>

C d'I are like their english counterparts. They take in a lot of
advertising. OTOH they have made signficant captital investments in
test equipment, technique and reporting format. It is not a 12 page ad.
While quick to sing the laurels of a camera or lens, they are also quick
to enumerate warts.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

McLeod wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:19:12 -0500, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>I do reccomend you get the magazine, it is replete with information
>>about the camera. You might disagree with some of it, but in general is
>>well presented. Your high school French will help carry you through...
>
>
> They don't carry it in this part of Ontario. Is it an expensive
> subscription?

Probably. Newsstand price is $8.25 pretax. It's big, thick heavy, high
quality paper. It does carry a lot of equipment reports and lens tests
in a consistent, month to month format. (You can order lens tests going
back for about 20 years).

It also has a lot of photography and technique for the mundane to the
exotic. A lot of 'mail in your photos' photography as well (some dozen
to 2 dozen a month).

It carries advertising too. ;-|

You can certainly find it in Ottawa and prob'y downtown Tarana.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.