S3 Pro - Is it any good?

[neil l]

Hello

 

I have read mixed review on the S3 pro, some saying it offer excellent

resolution and D/R vs say a 6 or 8mp camera and others that it does

not <p>

 

I have 2 D70's that I shoot weddings with, I also have a SQA that I

shoot stock with (mainly landscapes) I scan on an Epson 4990. It has

become apparent recenly (see another of my recent threads) that the

Epson 4990 just does not cut it and as a result scans from my 6x6 are

at times showing less resolution than an interpolated (only with PS)

D70 file, and that the 4990 is throwing away all the advantage MF

gives.<p>

 

To be competitive stock wise I am reluctant to ditch the MF gear but I

cannot afford a dedicated MF scanner and cannot justify the cost of

having all my slides sent away for scanning. <p>

 

Anyway I digress....My question is to anybody who has an S3 pro and

even better anybody who has an S3 pro and D70.......<p>

 

<b> Does the S3 offer a significant step forward in image quality over

a 6MP DSLR such as a D70? </b> <p>

 

Considering if you use the 12MP mode that the files are interpolated

does this mean that they won't stand up to any further enlarging as

well?? e.g. <b> Are Fuji fooling us by taking a 6MP DSLR and doing in

camera what you can do on a P.C with Genuine Fractals for any other

camera?? </b> <p>

 

The D2x is too much to justify considering the depreciation on DSLR's

and I'm guessing it won't be too long before that sensor is put in a

lower speck body possible a D200 maybe?? <p>

[gary_woodard]

get a medium format scanner and do it right. Landscape and 6 mgs dont cut it.

[sl attanapola]

The S3pro is supposed to have slightly better highlight rendition than normal cameras.

 

Check this link out:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page25.asp

 

Supposedly the resolution of the S3pro is around that of an 8MP dSLR.

[k_michael]

Their is an issue as to whether or not it's a true 12mp camera as Fuji claims. Only things I like about the S3 is that it's covered in rubber. Plus, the software looks easier to use. I'm an S2 owner.

[jimstrutz]

Here's a test & review of the S3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/

 

And here's a similar one of the D70: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/

 

You should look at the "Photographic Tests" and the "Compared to..." pages of each to see if there is enough improvement with the S3 to justify buying one.

[eosrules]

Just to clarify the S3 Pro's sensor.... It is a 12mp senser by Japans standards.

The quality of the sensor equals that in tests of a 7-8 mp camera because the

S3 mixes the large and small pixels (similar to that of film granuals). Fuji is

attempting to produce a greater dynamic range and film like image quality

rather than just leap ahead with more megapixels. It is what you do with the

MP sometimes rather than how many you have!!! The camera actually does a

great job. I am pretty impressed! Color is excellent, and image quality in

general is improved over the S2, which I loved!

[peter_phan]

<i>Does the S3 offer a significant step forward in image quality over a 6MP DSLR such as a D70?</i>

<p>

No. I attended a Will Crockett/Shoot Smarter seminar sponsored by Fuji where an S3 was demo'd. They had Fuji reps and technicians on hand. Studio shots where taken, processed, then printed on a $4000 Fuji Pictography printer. Prints were pretty disappointing. A bit soft and not any better than what you can get from any 6mp DSLR. I get much sharper prints from my 20D. So don't buy the S3 for the claimed "12 megapixels" and the hopes of getting medium format quality. You'll be disappointed.

<p>

You'll also want to try the Fuji S3 first-hand to see if the S3 can keep up with your shooting speed. The S3 is a pretty slow camera when it comes to writing to the card. For higher-paced shooting, I think it would be unusable.

[greg s]

"Does the S3 offer a significant step forward in image quality over a 6MP DSLR such as a D70?"

 

Yes.

[lex_jenkins]

I disagree with Peter. I've seen prints from an S3 - virtually unprocessed - made on a local camera shop's Pictrography machine. The results were very impressive - sharp, with beautiful, natural colors. Very suitable for people photography.

 

Too many of the opinions I've read of the S3 are biased because it's not a fast camera (especially when shooting RAW) and because Fuji has exaggerated a bit about the true megapixels. Therefore some folks have dismissed the camera as totally unworthy of consideration by anyone for any purpose.

 

B.S. It's a very good camera that's well suited for certain uses. I didn't buy one because the Nikon D2H was better suited to my needs. But I still think the S3 is a very good camera for a niche market.

 

However, I rather doubt you'll find it significantly better than your D70's for weddings. I'm a strong believer in redundancy for paying assignments so I'd rather have a pair of D70's than a single anything-else.

 

I think your most affordable solution in the short run may be to upgrade your MF scanner. However scanning is time consuming so if time is money to you, it might make sense to try to justify the cost of the D2X.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for Nikon to issue a model that would effectively kill the D2X by putting the same sensor in a cheaper body. It won't happen. What they *might* do is drop the price of the D2X a bit in two or three years when they decide they can cost effectively issue a significantly upgraded version of that model. But I doubt they'll make the same mistake with the D2X that they did with the D2H and D2Hs, which confused a lot of folks (not me - I happily bought a discounted D2H).

 

In my opinion there will be no direct replacement for the D100. Nikon's flagship camera will be the D2X for at least two years, probably longer. They've realized their smartest business move was to slightly upgrade the D70 with the D70s and, more importantly, to offer the upcoming D50, which will lure newbies away from compact P&S digicams and into the Nikon system.

[raym]

Interesting thoughts Lex.

 

With the release of Canons 8mp sensor DSLRs, You would think Nikon would release a DSLR with the same or better specs. The D70 is very good camera, but it still comes up a little short.

 

The minor upgrades in the D70s and the entry level D50 doesn't amount to much IMO. At least they (Nikon) have not forgot about us D70 users and included us with the new firmware. Was this just a pacifier?

 

I hope Nikon will release a DSLR in the 8-10 MP range with a different AF module then the cam-900 within 6-9 months. If they don't there will be a large influx of new Canon DLSR users. Also, by the time Nikon produces this affordable dreamed up DLSR, Canon would have created yet another DSLR in the same range. Nikon needs to pick up the pace.

[neil l]

Thanks for all the responses. <p>

 

If I got an S3 it would not be at the expense of one of my D70's. The D70 is an almost perfect wedding camera in my opinion, light, fast and with enough resolution for 99.99% of prints a couple will want, Oh and it's flash performance is excellent. <p>

 

If I got an S3 it would be at the expense of my MF gear. So I suppose that I should worded my question <b> Does the S3 offer anything for landscape and stock photographs that my D70 does not? </b> <p>

 

I know that a high end MF scanner would give the best results and would probably out-do even the D2x but I would be reluctant buy 2nd hand at that price point and I don't think spending a fortune on a scanner is a wise investment considering how digital is now biting at the heels of MF!!<p>

 

BTW I do suspect that there will be a replacement for the D100 if not Nikon are basically handing over that middle ground market to Canon, for me it is just a question of when not if and what the sensor size will be, you are right it probably will not be the 12.4 mp that's in the D2x. <p>

[peter_foiles2]

Short answer to your modified question is NO.

 

I have the S3, had the D70 and have Canon dSLRs as well. For landscape you need lots of pixels to get all of the detail. Yes, the S3 is a 12 mpixel camera but 6 of those are for extra DR not resolution.

[kenneth_beatty]

Okay, Frustration is setting in here. Where is every one getting that 8mp is a vast inprovement over 6mp? It isn't. To see significant improvement over 6mp you need to get into 11-14mp. And this you can't shoot landscapes with a 6mp. Where are you getting your facts from. There have been many landscape shots taken with a D1 2mp and enlarged some to billboard size. When are "we" going to stop thinking that the equipment will make better photographers. It is the shooter that makes the picture not the piece of rubber and metal in your hand.

 

Okay, Rant over. The S3 is a solid camera well suited for travel photogs and perhaps studio shooters but not much else after that. The S3 is not fast enough for sports/wildlife, not velvia like enough for landscape work (lets face it that's what editors want and what editors want is what editors get.)

My suggestion keep shooting the D70's and the mf even if you do get the S3 because digital is just another tool at our finger tips for creating art.

[lex_jenkins]

Ray, I don't know what Nikon would gain by trying to compete with Canon or any other camera maker on a megapixel basis.

 

Look at the compact digicam market, in which megapixels practically override every other consideration - until the owner has used the camera for a while and realized there's more involved. It's a losing game trying to differentiate your product from the competition a fraction of a megapixel at a time simply makes no sense.

 

Fact is, it remains to be seen what Olympus accomplished, if anything, by introducing the Evolt, at a nominal 8 mp, while tring to establish its more expensive 5 mp E-1. At least one magazine review I've read claimed the Evolt produced "better" photos, but the examples they published showed otherwise.

 

Again, I still believe Nikon has taken the logical route by introducing a top flight pro quality dSLR - the D2X - that is substantially more affordable than the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. Buying the D2X leaves enough money in the budget for one of the better Nikkor zooms and an SB-800 flash and accessories for the price of the Canon body alone. For most practical purposes - anything short of very large prints or enlargements of tiny crops - the D2X would seem to win when the argument is rigged this way (obviously I have rigged this argument).

 

Why so few people argue that Canon has made a mistake by pricing its top shelf model out of the budgets of most serious amateurs is puzzling to me. Why should serious amateurs, great photographers whose daily living doesn't depend on photography, be stuck with the 20D that is so much slower and less capable? It seems logical that photographers who demand high image quality but want a pro quality body with pro quality viewfinder would flock to the D2X and complain that Canon has nothing to offer them.

 

Obviously, you can see the fallacy of trying to compete on a megapixel or price basis. And I haven't even bothered to introduce the complications of the Pentax and Konica-Minolta offerings, which are very attractive in their own rights.

 

NL, a more direct answer since my earlier reply dragged on a bit: No, I don't think you'll gain anything with the S3. If you were buying from scratch, not already owning the D70, sure, I think the S3 would be a great choice.

 

To compete with your medium format camera in large prints I really think you won't be satisfied with anything less than the D2X or EOS 1Ds Mark II.

[sjmurray]

I was in a similar crossroads a year ago. I had medium format gear but realized that I really needed a medium format film scanner to get the quality from the negs. I ended up selling the medium format stuff and getting a D-70. I use it for portraits, and landscapes when riding my bike. For important landscape I use a 4x5. I've had mine for years anyway. But, you can get a used 4x5 and a couple of lenses for less than a new medium format scanner. Then get a reasonably priced flatbed Epson scanner and you will be able to make 16x20s that are sharp and beautiful. There's nothing like a 4x5 Velvia or Ektachrome. It depends on your shooting style of course. But if you are really into high quality landscape work and you want to make large prints, its the only way to go unless you want to buy that expensive scanner for MF. The prints from 4x5 will still look better IMO.

[kc4fox]

You asked of an owner's opinion.

 

I bought one and have been using it for a week. I'm also a Medium Format (and Leica) photographer, and I've a couple weddings to shoot in the next couple months.

 

The pictures it takes look nice. I struggled with a 10D and 20D for a while (the 10D was mine, the 20D a loaner) and just didn't like the pictures from them. THis was using Canon primes, like the 28mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 (and 1.4). The Canons were both softer than I'd have liked, so I no longer own 'em.

 

The Fuji seems to make much better use of the pixels in the camera. It still doesn't well compete with negatives on 6x7 or 6x9 from the Mamiya Universal and 100mm lens (Standard Wedding Rig) But it DOES stack up usably against my 35mm photography. Very well, in fact. I've no primes yet for it (I'm looking for a "throw-away cheap user" Nikkor f/1.4 50mm) but the Nikkor 28mm-70mm f/2.8 is a good lens, and bright enough not to blind brides/grooms when I hit 'em with some flash. The 1600 noise looks much more like grain than the noise from the 10D, and the in-camera black and white does work well.

 

Expanded dynamic range? What I notice is that the shadow detail holds up better in pictures between the 10/20D and the S3. Yes, I still blow highlights, but then again, when shooting reversal film, some highlights went impossibly thin. The dynamic range is better. Colors are bright, and contrast is lower, a good thing.

 

Is it worth more than the 10D/20D? Yes. Is it worth $1,000 more? For me, yes.

 

Go borrow one and use it. I liked it. I'm fairly fast working with it. The camera is "fast enough" for this photographer that's used to having to cock a lens, wind a back, then focus and shoot.

 

JD

[non1]

would advice you as long as you have the D70S from Nikon never go to the Fuji S3 as the S3 is the slowest camera ever been made i can issue you the even the small complact digital cameras with less than a 100 dollars prised is faster than the S3 .think of having your camera and you need to capture people doing their natural work and in simple tearms ,you need to record their movement in more than 3 or 4 frames,the s3 will fail to do so and by then youe subject already paid attention to you or gone and your been spoiled

i have the S3 wished never bought it,also i have the D70 and just last 2 days i bought the D2X i had wonder of photographs with the D70 ,it is fast,reliable,and also 6migpixil.

the S3 is not a 12migapixil at all ,this is what fuji must be asked why they concedered itthat way while it is only 6migapixil

thanks alot and very best regards.