Fuji S2 vs Nikon D100

[Hank]

Curt,

I can't compare the S2 to the D100, but I will give you some "straight stuff" on the the S2.

1.  The tiff files on the S2 are large enough (approx 35 mb) one step down from RAW that you can print an uninterpollated 8x12 @360 dpi.  Very, very nice.  With the controls set for a light sharpening, the results are so good that we don't have to do any sharpening in Photoshop for 8x10 portraits we produce in our studio.  With the sharpening turned off, we can produce really nice uninterpollated 11x14 landscapes.  (This large file size most certainly isn't a shortcoming, rather for us it is the most important feature of the S2.)

2.  The 35mb tiff and RAW files are slooooooooow to display on the viewer after the shot, as it displays the whole file rather than generating a thumbnail.  Tradeoff-  You can enlarge them enough on the viewer to do a serious check for sharpness.  The slowness is such an issue that we use RAW files only for landscapes, rather than for wildlife or portrait sessions.  The slowness of even the 35mb tiff files is a problem when we have clients wanting to review images during a session.  You will have to make your own decisions about the affects on your own shooting routine.  

3.  There is also no "slide show" feature in the camera, as there is in the D30 we use with our Canon system.  This is a major frustration for my wife, because it means she has to download lots of large files to the computer, then use the Fuji software to run a slide show for clients (time is money), while she can easily and quickly run a slide show on a monitor directly from the D30.

4.  The "sub-control" dial is very poorly situated, right under the finger of your right hand when you are holding the camera.  It is very easy to bump it accidently and change some of your camera settings to the detriment of your images.  The standard prescription among S2 users is to put a piece of tape over this dial.  We do the same thing, and thankfully we seldom need to use that particular dial so the tape more or less lives there.  Were I a Fuji engineer I would move it on the S3.  Barring that I would incorporate an on/off switch for that dial, such as on the Canon D30.

5.  The S2 requires two sets of batteries- 4 AA NiMH and 2 Lithiums.  The AA's aren't a problem for us since we keep lots of them on hand for other devices, but we have been caught once without a spare set of the Lithiums.  Never again!  Yet another detail that should be changed for the S3.

Lest those sound like big problems, we are absolutely thrilled with the results with the S2.  Users of D100's can probably assemble a similar list of pet gripes.  Assuming the final results are similar with the two cameras, I would compare my list with a list of D100 user's gripes and make your choices based upon which will be the least bothersome to your shooting.

Hank

[Hank]

I'll leave your question to the sideline techno-debaters.  

Speaking as a person who uses the S2, and one whom people actually pay for that service, I am referring to not interpollating the image file within Photoshop.  Specifically, go to Image -> Image Size, then "deselect" or un-check Resample Image.  In the Resolution box, type in 360 pixels/inch.  Violla!  An 8x12 image at 360 dpi without "upsizing" from a smaller file.

Now, what do you have to contribute to a discussion comparing the S2 and D100?

Hank

[Cliff LeSergent]

I'm not debating that the Fuji S2 is a great camera.  It's just that I hate to see consumers mislead by false advertising.  As soon as Canon and Kodak announced 11MP and 13MP cameras, Fuji "magically" transformed the S2 from a 6MP camera to a 12MP camera.  The truth is, it is a 6MP camera, the same as a Nikon D100, and the extra megapixels come from interpolation.  

What I'm hoping to "contribute" to this discussion is to try to separate fact from fiction. Why would you discriminate against interpolating the image in Photoshop (where you have control over the process), and interpolating in-camera?

[Quentin]

I'm sorry, Cliff, but it is simply not fair to talk in terms of "false advertising", at least based on any advertising for the S2 I have seen in the UK.

The S2 is arguably a 12 mp camera, in the sense that to extract useable data from the super CCD octagonal design, the data has to be interpolated in-camera.  If you chose the 6mp option, the image is downsized from the 12mp original.  And that has been the position right from the beginning.

In other words, the truth is that it is more complex than simply the number of pixels, and the S2's interpolation is hard wired in to the CCD design, not some afterthought.  This gives a real resolution boost (unlike, say, Photoshop bicubic)  Ask a Foveon enthusiast when a pixel is or is not a pixel  

[jdemott]

I’ve been a satisfied owner of a D100 for about six months and have had Nikon film cameras for a number of years.  I can’t offer anything on the S2 but here are a few thoughts on the D100, concentrating on things that aren’t necessarily obvious from the specs.

In the hand, the D100 feels most like an N80.  Lightweight, not fragile, but not industrial strength either.  I tend to be easy on my equipment and I haven’t had any worries or problems with durability.  The controls will feel familiar if you are familiar with Nikon film cameras.  The ability to customize control functions is great.  The camera feels very responsive.

One consequence of a less than full frame sensor is that the viewfinder has to match it, resulting in a viewfinder that feels a little dark and cramped relative to Nikon pro film cameras.  AF performance is good—not blazingly fast but okay.  I have turned off the annoying white AF assist light and rely on IR AF assist from a speedlight in dark situations.

Image quality is terrific.  I’m thrilled with how good the images are.  No noise.  Good color, contrast and detail.  The fast ISO speeds are very helpful to me.  I have decided to keep a ND filter in the bag in case I have any situation that needs wide aperture and slow shutter speed (e.g., a need to use fill flash in brightly lit conditions with maximum flash sync of 1/180).

I shoot RAW mode exclusively.   Without post processing, images will often appear a little flat and underexposed.  I think the slight “underexposure” is actually keeping the highlights from blowing out.  Post processing makes all the difference.  Nikon Capture software seems to work well and integrates well with Photoshop.  There is a huge amount of detail in the shadows of D100 files and it is very easy to bring it out with the Capture software.

If you have older (non-AF) lenses, make sure you check compatibility.  Not all lenses will meter with the D100.

You probably know that Nikon digital cameras require the DX speedlights for TTL flash; manual and auto flash (non-TTL) work okay with SB-26. SB-28, etc.  I have the SB-80DX and it works great.  Be aware that digital TTL requires a pre-flash to measure exposure.  This essentially negates TTL mode with optically slaved use or multi flash setups.  Manual and auto mode are available however for these purposes.

Battery life is great. I have the battery pack/grip, but even a single battery lasts a long time.

You’ve probably heard about the need to clean the sensor occasionally.  It’s true, but not a big deal.  Once you have the supplies and have done it once, there’s no problem.  I am careful about trying to minimize dust getting in when I change lenses.  I think I have cleaned the sensor three or four times since I got the camera.  Some people may have to clean more frequently, particularly with heavy use.

The rear LCD viewscreen is great; I use the histogram all the time to check exposures.  Glare can be a problem using the LCD screen however.

For your type of shooting (wildlife and wedding receptions anyway) you ought to be aware of buffer size.  The number of frames you can shoot in burst mode depends on the image format you choose and whether you have noise reduction turned on.  I don’t know how it compares with the S2, but it is definitely something you have to be aware of.  You can’t just fire off 8 shots on motor drive while the bride is throwing her bouquet, for example.  For landscapes, which are mainly what I do, this isn’t an issue.  For landscape shots, two things I have found that work very well are the noise reduction and the mirror pre-fire, which is the functional equivalent of mirror lockup.

Hope this helps.

[Curt]

I'm about to buy a digital SLR w/Nikon mount, because Nikkor lenses are what I own. In the price range I can afford the choices as I see it are only Fuji S2 & Nikon D100. Primary use of the camera will be landscape, wildlife.  I photograph weddings with medium format cameras, & it is likely that eventually a digital camera will be used for some of the receptions. With this in mind I'm searching for input from users of these two cameras. Specs seldom tell the whle story IMHO.

[Cliff LeSergent]

Hank, how do you get a 35MB "uninterpolated" file from a 6 MP camera?

[Quentin]

Da***d Ikonboard software ::   Keeps bumping me off as a member.

The S2.  Great camera.  Pro Photographer in the UK found it outresolved the D100 by about 30%.  Seems that the Super CCD design and complex in-camera interpolation required by virtue of the design really does deliver extra resolution (read the Fuji site for a technical explanation).  I also like the dual display design on the camera back that Fuji use carried over from the S1.

The S2 is a highly capable tool with resolution that fits somewhere between the D100 and Canon 1Ds.  If you run Nikon lenses, the S2 would be my choice in its price range (pending anything Nikon come up with, or the release of the Kodak 14n at considerably more money).

Quentin

[Dale_Cotton]

In case you haven't seen this comparison by Thom Hogan...

[Cliff LeSergent]

Well, I think you've just rebutted your own argument.  To get 12 megapixels, you have to interpolate.  Interpolate means to create imaginary new pixels.  There's no getting around the fact that the camera's image sensor only has ~6 million pixels to record data.  Granted, it may do a nice job creating those imaginary new pixels, but who's to say the camera does a better job than Photoshop, where you can exercise some control over the interpolation process?  

After reading Thom Hogan's review, it seems that the Fuji is best for those who shoot JPEG files and leave all the interpolating, sharpening, and colour balance issues to the camera to decide.  Those who have Photoshop and the requisite skills (speaking as someone whom people pay for this service) can extract more or less the same degree of quality from any other 6 megapixel camera (okay, maybe not the Contax N Digital...)

In the mean time, I guess I'll stick with my 16 megapixel EOS 1D until I can afford that new 44 megapixel 1Ds...  :p

[Hank]

Reading from the top, Curt's point for starting this discussion was:  

"With this in mind I'm searching for input from users of these two cameras. Specs seldom tell the whle story IMHO."  I think the sideline techno-debaters and their spec flagellation were voted out from the start.  He asked to hear from experienced users, not get deflected into the same old arguments and distractions from the back bench.

Returning to experience and field use:

We have long used MF film for formal shots in weddings, 35mm for "walk around" shots at the reception and such.  In our experience you have to watch out for shots of large groups which may be enlarged to anything over 11x14, especially where the faces are small and extend to the edges of the frame.  Your clients will be happiest with the results for this specific shot when you use medium format to the exclusion of 35mm film and especially digital.  Simply a case of too few film grains or pixels to show fine details in the (small) faces of loved ones and friends.

Having said that, digital has been a real boon to photographing all the action away from the formal shots, especially as the reception deteriorates into wild party.  You can shoot lots without running up huge film costs, experimenting with shooting styles to your heart's content.  Though this is the highest volume shooting in a wedding and the clients expect to see it, the images almost never sell beyond the few that are included in the album (We shoot for an hourly fee with print and album sales on an ala carte basis).  We have more fun as photographers when shooting the reception digitally, and our clients certainly enjoy the "slide show" after the event.  It's not a big addition to the overall income from a wedding, but we are starting to sell a few digital "slide shows" of weddings on CD.

As for wildlife and landscape work, you will absolutely love using digital.  The ability to preview (or postview, as Fuji calls it) images in the field to confirm exposures and more is simply too valuable.  While stock agencies and many magazines are still resistant to digital files, whether from scanned film or even the most advanced digital body, there are lots of other markets which have come to prefer digital to film.  I am currently working on a couple of assignments having distant editors and art directors, but short timelines.  The ability to pass thumbnails back and forth via email has saved them lots of travel money while making me more money.  I've also learned to include a few carefully selected wildlife and scenic shots with such thumbnail digital submissions, whether the clients ask for them or not.  You will be amazed how often an art director decides annual reports (and several times even the walls of a corporate headquarters) need to be "dressed up" with my outdoor images.  I have the inside track and have made the sale without another photographer even hearing about the opportunity!  Yet another unanticipated bonus to digital shooting.

I've shot with the Canon D30 for going on 3 years now, and digital P&S before that.  Using the S2 since its release has convinced me of it's advantages and utility over those.  The S2 has made us lots of extra money while vastly simplifying our lives and remote business relations.  If the D100 has similar capabilities and performance, you will be very happy whther you select it or the S2.

Hank