Fuji S3 Review

[husawis]

i wanted to make a few points of support for the s-3 review - michael hits it right on the money - he like many of us use cameras as tools where the end product is what is judged - if you grew up as i did with the darkroom then photo processing and what we now call in the digital ages post processing was part of the skill we brought to the art - it meant dodging, burning and such other things as paper choice and even the developers we used for the film - simply put using the camera as i use it the s3 is not an improvement worth the dollars it sells for - others may have other goals and the s3 may fit their needs - but it simply does not fit mine - oh there will be those great charts that show it better or worse than some other camera but in the end it is how that camera provides me a better tool for the photography i do - and yes i use raw almost exclusively - some say that we expected too much - no - we expected the camera to deliver on the hype fuji put out - it simply does not measure up - for now i am comfortable using the s2 and the d2h for what i need to do - that will change in the future i am sure - but for now michael has said it fairly - and for that he deserves our thanks - wanashee - husawis

[phule]

For what it's worth, the S3 is not the only camera that does multiple exposures.  Both the D2X and the *istD allow this functionality.

[Hank]

Thanks for this, Michael.  Perhaps it's a case of judging by how much I agree, but your efforts confirm the impressions (or apprehensions) I had formed while following the limited testing and PR available to date.  

We have used S2's since its release and can't regard a switch to the S3 as an "upgrade."  It appears we will be better served to buy two more S2's for the price of the S3, or to await the release of the Nikon D2x.  Fuji and their products have been worthy until now, but I'm afraid the S3 will set them back for years to come.  It was awfully nice to have an alternative to Nikon simply in order to exersize consumer pressure (as it would be for Canon users as well), but I'm afraid the S3 misfire has robbed Nikon users of the option.

[Mike Spinak]

Michael,

There is a part of this review that I am not sure I am understanding correctly, and I would be grateful for some clarification.

In your snow post comparison of the Fuji S3's dynamic range against the Canon 20D's, you say "the green channel reading is 45 on the Fuji file and 35 on the Canon file. This is a real, and visible DR improvement...." Looking at the histograms, it appears that the Fuji S3 shot's exposure is closer to the right end than the 20D shot--more than 10 tonal levels closer to the extreme right of the histogram. In other words, it looks to me like the S3 shot is a hair more brightly exposed overall, perhaps a 5th of a stop.

Understandibly, there are substantial difficulties exposing to the exact same maximum level with two different cameras (even more so in field conditions), and I'm not castigating your efforts. I'm just wondering if the examples shown are actually demonstrating a (slight) DR advantage in the Fuji's favor, or merely demonstrating a slightly brighter exposure.

Would it not be the case that, if the exposures from both cameras had the exact same maximum tonal level, then the diagonal fence board's 10 level difference (Fuji S3's 45 vs. 20D's 35) would be nullified? If this is so, are we really seeing any DR improvement in the S3 in this comparison?

Or is the difference of the two histogram's distances from the right edge simply the result of normalizing the snow on top of the fence post to a reading of 235? (thereby making the histograms we see non-representative of the in-camera exposures)

Thanks for any clarification.

Cheers,

--Mike