Fuji's S3, a mistake?

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by RichA, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
    with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
    they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
    "prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
    and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
    costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
    a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
    consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
    a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
    and Nikon cameras?
    I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
    a smaller body and a smaller price.
     
    RichA, Jun 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
    smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
    themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
    Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.
     
    Skip M, Jun 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The key thing with the S2 and S3 (and some other Fujifilm cameras) is
    the sensor design that provides for a wider dynamic range reaching into
    the highlights for more detail. (By 1 to 2 stops if I understand
    correctly). This is where it counts: how much light can you record with
    detail. Perhaps Fujifilm could sell this sensor to ... K-M for a pro
    Maxxum 9D... that would be very nice!

    It's also aimed at pros who already have Nikon glass. So a fantastic
    combination.

    The S3 body is otherwise not very inspiring being based on the "not
    quite there" F80.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 7, 2005
    #3
  4. I love mine, but working with a D1x everyday by comparison the plastic body
    does worry me a little. And only a little though. Also I generally find that
    things that have "Pro" or "Quality" in the name tend not to be!!

    Up until now the plastic body is the only thing I can fault with my S3 - but
    then if it had been made of magnesium alloy I doubt I could have afforded
    it.

    Craig.
     
    Craig Marston, Jun 7, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
    poorest rating, "Above Average." It would be hard to find a reason to
    buy the S3 rather then the D2x or the D70. Once you're spending that
    much money, you may as well go all the way to an D2x, or settle for the
    D70.
     
    Scharf-DCA, Jun 8, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    dylan Guest

    The 1DMk2 would be nice in a 'amateur' body, giving the equivalent of the
    EOS3 which had the features, and some improvements of the EOS1/N in the
    film world.
     
    dylan, Jun 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Kinda makes one wonder just what the heck they mean by "average".
     
    Ben Rosengart, Jun 8, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
    review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
    horrible to bother reviewing."

    I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
    "Recommended."

    A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
    search to "Highly Recommended."
     
    Scharf-DCA, Jun 8, 2005
    #8
  9. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jun 8, 2005
    #9
  10. RichA

    McLeod Guest

    I guess it depends on your criteria. It produces some pretty amazing
    images.
     
    McLeod, Jun 8, 2005
    #10
  11. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    It speaks volumes about the reliability of dpreview.com's "reviews"
    that its poorest rating is ***Above*** Average.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 8, 2005
    #11
  12. RichA

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
    review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
    is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.

    One reason I created my web site is because of the reluctance of other
    sites to come right out and say, 'this camera should be avoided," or
    "camera x is a much better choice than camera Y.'

    Steve
    http://digitalslrinfo.com
     
    Scharf-DCA, Jun 8, 2005
    #12
  13. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?

    Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
    current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".

    But of course there aren't.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 9, 2005
    #13
  14. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    What is lacking in the 20D that isn't in the 1DMkII that would be useful to
    an amateur, or even an aspiring pro? Some of the ruggedness and a little
    slower frame rate is all...and a slightly smaller crop, 1.3 vs. 1.6x.
     
    Skip M, Jun 9, 2005
    #14
  15. They're all better than the average digital camera. But between
    webcams, camera phones and security cameras, that's a pretty low
    hurdle.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Jun 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
    Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
    all digital cameras.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 9, 2005
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They generally test against each other in the same "class" of camera
    I hope. If a phone (new Samsung) has a five megapixel camera, it sure
    won't perform like a DSLR or even most point and shoots.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 9, 2005
    #17
  18. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    If I read a review of a DSLR, I expect any comparative opinion (such
    as "Above Average") to be related to other DSLRs. I don't expect
    apples to be compared with oranges.

    I suspect most other people would agree. Obviously not you.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 9, 2005
    #18
  19. RichA

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Your website is an abject display of inept design and contemptible bias.
    You should be ashamed of it, rather than promote it.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Jun 9, 2005
    #19
  20. RichA

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    This is true, but when you do relative ratings, they change over time.
    What is "Highly Recommended" at the time of its release, may fall to
    "Above Average" over time. The camera didn't get any worse, but the
    competition got much better.

    I've made several changes in recommendations, over time, on my site, as
    new cameras have been introduced. I.e., the introduction of the
    EOS-350D changed relative ratings on some other cameras.
     
    Scharf-DCA, Jun 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.