« Letter from Rio | Main | Pictures Worth 1000s of Words I Can't Read, Dept. »

Thursday, 28 August 2008


An interesting review continues.

In RAW the older camera still works quite well at hi ISO; I rather guessed the would be the case given the higher pixel density.

The JPEGS were a surprise though.

I can see where a lot of R&D effort went into the jpeg engine (yes i am mixing case usage here, just to give the grammar fascisti something bite ;).

The results are impressive, esp that ISO 6400 example.
It looks quite worth the money at this point. Of course now I am waiting for the Dragon episode/part 3 with bated breath.

Interesting findings. They confirm my own experience as I upgraded from the S6000FD: the jpg-processing engine of the S100FS is clearly superior. In certain circumstances bracketing turns out as a very efficient feature. At higher iso settings I don't refrain from shooting at lower resolution (3MP).
Looking forward to part 3 of the review.

Hello Ctein,
Thank you for the most informative review, but I would like to ask why you chose to compare the S100FS with a DSLR like the Nikon D200?
To say it would cost the same as a used D200 body is just not true, as the current going rate for a used D200 from Ebay is between £450-500, which is over £100 more just for the body. The D80 is about the same. And buying second-hand is always risky...
When you add decent (not top!) quality lenses that will come somewhere close to the range of the S100FS you would have to part with probably more than three times the price of the Fuji.
I can understand why you would like to compare the S100FS with a DSLR, but surely it should be an basic entry-level model if anything. And even then, if you tried to put together a set-up with similar zoom range I don't think you could even come close to the £360 that the S100FS would cost here, unless it was (well) used. The cost would probably be at least double!
It seems that the image needs to be viewed at a size of several square feet before the differences become obvious. That it's comparable in any way at all to the D200 is in my view a triumph of design and engineering and probably the best 'bridge' camera so far. But then I haven't used one yet...
I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, it's just that a few reviews now have chosed to compare the images to DSLR's rather than the best the non-DSLR's.
I like the look of this camera, and hope to buy one before the year is out.
It seems to tick most of the boxes in my wishlist:
Excellent image quality at low light (the best for a non-DSLR?)
Image stabilisation - essential for hand-held
zoom pictures, and useful for most of the others
Decent wide-angle
Flexibility - Good macro to telephoto
Portability - no extra lenses to lug around
Nicely weighted - doesn't feel like a toy
Video capability with zoom avilable
Hi quality JPEG images - no need to process anything in RAW unless I want to
Articulating screen - almost essential once you've used one
Remote control option - very useful
Flash shoe - basic, but there if you need it

Really looking forward to your verdict,

Dear Steve,

Why did I compare it to the D200? This line from Part 1 days it all:

"Besides, my friend David Dyer-Bennett conveniently owns a D200."

IOW, it was a whim, done to indulge DD-B's and my curiosity about the image characteristics of our respective cameras. We really didn't expect the two cameras to perform remotely alike. When, to our joint surprise, it turned out to be a USEFUL comparison, I incorporated it in the review.

Don't rush out to buy one until you read Part 3. There are some serious problems.

pax / Ctein

The comments to this entry are closed.