Fuji S3 review

<a href = "http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/ " target =

"_blank">Dpreview.com</a><br>

 

Conclusion: Above average.<br>

 

That's two step down from "Highly recommended".

If I wanted a 1fps, expensive (compared to 20d), handicapped (semi-functional portrait grip) and featureless dslr (you still get most range from RAW, just like all the other cameras) then the Fuji S3 would be on top of my list.

 

As it is, the 20D or even the 350D gives you the absolute best bang for the buck.

Being someone who cares about dynamic range, I was hoping the

SuperCCD SR would pan out. Do you think Phil Askey would have

been more positive about the S3 if MSRP was $1000 less? He really

downgraded the Kodak 14N due to slow interframe speed (what do you

frikkin' expect for 14 Mp!?) and similarly complains about the S3's

slowness. In real life most non-sports photographers can live with it.

The only other non-fixable-in-software problems are 1/180 flash sync,

lack of MLU, viewfinder, ISO dial, and weight. "Good autofocus" is

an improvement over the S2, isn't it?

I will read Phil's review later, but have been reading the Fuji DSLR forum over there on a regular basis. In general the S3 owners seem to be a reasonably satisfied bunch, knowing the camera's advantages and limitations. When the price lowers and I can justify buying another DSLR, the S3 will be a strong contender... for my purposes. -Greg-

> He really downgraded the Kodak 14N due to slow interframe speed (what do you frikkin' expect for 14 Mp!?) and similarly complains about the S3's slowness.

 

If the 16mp 1ds2 can do 4fps (raw or jpeg or both) then there's no reason a 14mp slrx or 6mp S3 shouldn't be able to do the same.

If you want more frames per second, you need more fast electronics to process ithose frames. That is partly why the 16MP, 4fps Canon 1Ds Mark II and the 12MP, 5fps Nikon D2X cost more (or way more in the case of the Canon).

What's kinda humorous about the 'Above average' rating is that so much is rated as 'Highly Recommended' or 'Recommended' (whatever the 2 above are termed) that very little receives 'Above average' or (heaven forbid) 'Average'. 'Below Average' would require someone to put a lens on a brick. :)

 

"in wide dynamic range mode you get the gain only in the highlights, it would have made sense to instead have the option of a completely different tone curve and expose for shadows to spread the additional dynamic range across the tonal scale rather than just in highlights"

 

I don't own the camera, but I have seen lots of shots and read bunches of hands on owner opinions/experiences and they seem to benefit from extra shadow detail. Not sure why the discrepancy. -Greg-

I think the problem is price. a sub $1500 DSLR can do at least 3fps and have better buffer and flash-sync speed than s3, while s3 is $2500 and can't do 3fps and a slow write to disk. That $1000 different should spend on electronic upgrade and more RAM for buffer. I would buy a S3 if it can do 3fps and can shoot at least 20 fine/large jpg in burst most and fast write to disk. Wedding photographer need more than 1-2 fps.

 

I think the write/read speed is slow is do to the interpolation algorithm. Oh well, I guess some folks are still living in the 18th century and still driving a bike instead of a car.

The reason for biasing dynamic range toward highlights is because of the linear response of sensors to light.

 

Unlike film, there's no toe so it's relatively easy to capture shadow detail with even a humble P&S digicam. The trick is wringing out that shadow detail in post processing without raising noise objectionably. But it can be done.

 

The downside is that unlike film, there's no shoulder. Above a certain threshhold there's no compression of highlight detail to keep as much as possible within the range of typical printing papers (with burning and selective yellow/magenta filtration) or within the capabilities of a good scanner. Above a certain point, digital sensor simply cannot capture highlights. There's nothing to rescue in post processing - it simply ain't there.

 

So it makes perfect sense for Fuji to bias the dynamic range of its new sensor toward the highlights. The approaching to recovering shadow detail remains the same. If the Fuji S3 sensor works as well as is claimed, there's an extra EV or so at the top end to facilitate capturing highlights that are beyond the reach of most other digital sensors and even some color slide films.

 

Some photographers who aren't addicted to speed (as I am) may find it a perfectly reasonable compromise to sacrifice some speed of operation in favor of greater dynamic range. For the photographer who's looking to make the transition from medium format to digital as affordably as possible, the S3 may be a good choice. Many medium format shooters are accustomed to working deliberately and slowly. Even tho' I shoot quickly and use lots of film with 35mm, my entire approach with medium format is completely different.

 

Also, the S3 is a good looking, nicely made camera that feels solid and has fairly logically placed controls.

 

It won't be everyone's cuppa java but for studio photographers who don't have to rush and even for some event photographers who have excellent timing, the S3 will find a niche. I bang out lots of shots in 35mm at events because my timing isn't that great. Unlike Jim Marshall, I can't take just one photo and absolutely know I've gotten the best possible shot. A wedding photographer with the timing of a Jim Marshall may be perfectly satisfied with an S3.

"Not sure why the discrepancy."

 

Phil Askey is the second reviewer, after Micheal Reichmann of LL, to rate the Fuji S3 like he did.

I was refering specifically to shadow detail, which seems to be rendered nicely by the S3... from what I've seen anyway.

I recently saw an S3 demo'd. Pictures were shot and then printed on a Fuji Pictography printer. I was unimpressed. Anyone who thinks they are going to get "12mp" image quality is going to be let down. It does not appear to be much better than a three-year old 6mp DSLR. The S3 seems a bit overpriced for what you get, and there are better options on the market today, either in price or performance or both. Maybe if the S3 had come out a year or two ago, and was now priced at $1500, it would be more competitive. But at $2300, it doesn't quite live up.

Peter, operator competence plays as much a part in getting good prints from the Fuji dSLRs and printers as it does with color negative film and minilabs.

 

One of my local camera shops has strongly pushed Fuji products - film, dSLRs, printers - since they opened a few years ago. They have a vested interest in showing off the best this equipment is capable of.

 

When I first saw their 11x14 and larger prints from the then-current S2 generated by two or three different Fuji Pictrography printers I was, reluctantly and grudgingly, impressed.

 

There's no reason to believe the S3 will be any less good. It may not be the fastest dSLR around but it will probably do the job for photographers who can make use of its capabilities and don't need the speed.

<i>Peter, operator competence plays as much a part in getting good prints from the Fuji dSLRs and printers as it does with color negative film and minilabs. </i>

<p>

I don't think operator competence was an issue. The event was sponsored by Fuji, with Fuji representatives and a Fuji technician on hand to oversee. The demonstration was narrated by photographer Will Crocket, with his very able assistant photographer Diane (I think that was her name) doing the shooting. The images were brought up on an Eizo LCD monitor, demonstrated through Fuji's software and/or CS, then outputed to the Fuji Pictography printer. Everything had been calibrated and profiled with Monaco, which also had reps on hand. I don't think any of use could have done any better.

<p>

I'm not saying that the results were bad. They just weren't any better than the output of other (lower priced) DSLR cameras on the market. And not quite as good as I was expecting.

What is fuji doing? That camera should be priced around $1200.00 I have seen 16x20 prints fuji vs. 16x20 20d prints both iso 200, and the fuji isn't even close. It's ridiculous they would price the camera as such. When is everyone going to get on the ball and do something to bump past canon? The fuji skin tones are great, but is it worth that much more when you can buy a $40.00 warming filter on the 20d and get the same thing? lol

The S2 is a Top Camera, the S3 is better........BUT fuji have named it wrong, it should

have been called the Fuji S2.5.

Can't fault the dynamic range, less noise in the shadows more detail held in the

highlights. Fuji have missed an opportunity of producting the best camera around

instead of just one of the best.

It should have been a full 12meg chip, flash sync at least 500th, ability to save jpeg

and RAW at the same time, a quicker review when checking through jpegs(as the S2

does) and the list goes on.

Fuji have a lot of catching up to do now, I wouldn't be suprised if we never see a S4.

Having said all that, I love the camera.

I am retracting my previous statement. I have now done tests at 20x30 and the fuji clearly beats the canon. I have gone with a fuji s2, and when the price drops will get the s3, use the s2 as a backdrop. I think I fell prey that canon always wins theory. If you trully test fuji/nikon/canon/etc. then make a decision. They are all diff. machines, but the fuji is best for me right now. chris