Talk me out of a Fuji S5...

Baldy

My fingers are twitching on the buy button... Please save me.

I hate that it uses Nikon glass and other stuff. I have nothing but Canon.

But I don't like the dynamic range on my Canons and I'm not so fond of the skin tones either. I shoot lots of people, and also high-contrast sports like triathlon (black wetsuits, bright water). Shooting Fuji would be a big switch for me.........

Seymore

Sell all of your Canon gear, and welcome to the "bright" side. :ivar

patch29

My first DSLR was a Fuji S1. I liked the files it produced, but it felt cheap and the buffer could not keep up. If I did not have so much Canon gear and was moving to Nikon I would check it out, or if I never left Nikon, I would probably be using Fuji. I really like my Nikon film cameras. I only wish Nikon would have let them use a better body. I have not seen or used them in a long time, but a friend of mine is a very happy Fuji DSLR shooter.

Baldy

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

wxwax

I look forward to hearing how you feel about it.

wxwax

Lots of user posts at the bottom of this page.

saurora

Oh well, guess you didn't need our help after all! So.....which Canon lenses are going up in the flea market? I've always liked the skin tones from Fuji products........looking forward to seeing some results! :saurora

Andy

saurora wrote:

Oh well, guess you didn't need our help after all! So.....which Canon lenses are going up in the flea market? I've always liked the skin tones from Fuji products........looking forward to seeing some results! :saurora

I'm guessing - none - as there are a few Smuggers at HQ that shoot Canon

ziggy53

While there's not too much information available on the FujiFilm S5 yet, it's probably still similar to the S3 in many ways. In D-Range Wide, the performance is just dismal. Nothing a sports (triathlon) shooter would want. The imager is really only 6MP, with the two types of sensor sites "binned" for a little extra dynamic range. 12MP mode is a gimmick at best.

Wait for the Canon 1D MKIII. The dynamic range of the 1D series is more than the 20D that you appear to own, and probably close to the Fuji S series. The responsiveness of the 1D MKII/MKIII series is so fast for both focus and exposure, I think you'll find more keepers overall. If you can stay with ISO400 or so the d-range should be fine.

For portrait and some event shoots, where the pace is slow, the Fuji S5 might be a consideration. For almost anything else, give me a pro Canon or Nikon body and lenses.

ziggy53

Baldy wrote:

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

I was typing as fast as I could. I am likewise interested in your opinion of the Fuji S5 when you get it and get used to it.

Seymore

Baldy wrote:

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

I also look forward to hearing your opinions (review?) of this bod.

pathfinder

SO..... what EOS lenses are you putting up for sale, Baldy??:D:D

I'm with Ziggy, I will wait for a 1DMkIII instead.

claudermilk

Baldy wrote:

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

Sheesh, only give us 5 hours to see the post and talk you out of it? You know, much as it seems we do, many of don't LIVE on dgrin! :nah

It will be interesting to hear how well their goofy turn-a-12MP sensor-into-a-6MP sensor idea works.

Mitchell

I'm eagerly awaiting some test shots from you with this body. I've been contemplating the purchase myself, but I can't really justify the expense since I already own a D2X and D200.

The S5 coupled with a Nikkor 85mm, f1.4 would be a portraitist's dream. Get this combo and wow us with some great dynamic range portraits!

ivar

Baldy wrote:

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

i think you really didn't want to be talked out of buying one for some reason

Mike02

Seymore wrote:

I also look forward to hearing your opinions (review?) of this bod.

I'll third that request :P.

pathfinder

The Fuji S3 UV/IR sounds like a real interesting camera to me, even if it is a Nikon lens mount.:D

saurora

Andy wrote:

I'm guessing - none - as there are a few Smuggers at HQ that shoot Canon

Oh yes, I forgot about that! Well, I did manage to buy one of your lenses Andy, so I thought there might be a chance!

patch29

pathfinder wrote:

The Fuji S3 UV/IR sounds like a real interesting camera to me, even if it is a Nikon lens mount.:D

I am interested in the IS-1 IR/UV.

Unfortunately it is vaporware at the moment. It was supposed to be out Feb 07.

pathfinder

patch29 wrote:

I am interested in the IS-1 IR/UV.

Unfortunately it is vaporware at the moment. It was supposed to be out Feb 07.

Too bad about the vaporware. It certainly has potential interest.

I am unclear about the silicon sensor though. Is this a 2/3s sensor as in a point and shoot or is this an APS sensor as in most DSLRs? If the sensor is smaller than APS it will lose a lot of interest on my behalf.

More information here

It looks like a smaller sensor to me altho it is 9Mpxls.

patch29

pathfinder wrote:

Too bad about the vaporware. It certainly has potential interest.

I am unclear about the silicon sensor though. Is this a 2/3s sensor as in a point and shoot or is this an APS sensor as in most DSLRs? If the sensor is smaller than APS it will lose a lot of interest on my behalf.

More information here

It looks like a smaller sensor to me altho it is 9Mpxls.

If it can produce unique images, that will trump the DSLR price and need for Nikon lenses for me.

HarveyMushman

Baldy wrote:

Never mind... I clicked The Button.

Sweet. Please report back. I'm mighty tempted myself.

Which lenses will you start with?

patch29

pathfinder wrote:

Too bad about the vaporware. It certainly has potential interest.

I spoke to a Fuji rep yesterday and he said the IS-1 is out. It is a specialty camera, so not many stock or list it. Adorama had it listed for $999, but the link was no good, now they have it listed for $799 and it looks to be in stock.

Baldy

Okay, got it this afternoon in time for a few snaps. I borrowed the neighbor's daughter at 6:15 when the sun was reasonably low, let the sun fall on her hair, and put up a reflector to put some light on her face.

This is a shot I did for years with film, but alas with digital I had to find kinder, gentler light.

30D: I set the exposure on manual and opened the lens (70-200) as much as I could without blowing out her hair. Auto white balance (which I never use but wanted to compare to Fuji's).

Even with the reflector, her face was way too dark:



I could have blinded her with the reflector and tried again, but I don't like that floodlight-on-the-face look.

I passed this image through SmugMug's autocolor and got what I see thousands of every month from our Canon and Nikon-using customers:



Bringing up the shadows brings up the noise and blotches and...ugh.

So I reached for the S5 and shot it with the same f-stop, shutter speed, ISO and focal length. It's equally dark:



But passing this one through SmugMug's autocolor with the exact same settings gave a more salvageable image:



What I could do with the S5, however, that I couldn't with the Canon, is expose for the face without blowing out the hair:



My background is physics and I have believed passionately for years that we don't need more pixels, we need better ones, and one way to get them is the way Fuji did. My conscience wouldn't let me not try one after whining for so long.

The first 30 minutes with it are very encouraging.

Seymore

Baldy wrote:

The first 30 minutes with it are very encouraging.

Mike Werner

Baldy wrote:

My background is physics and I have believed passionately for years that we don't need more pixels, we need better ones, and one way to do it is the way Fuji did it. My conscience wouldn't let me not try one after whining for so long.

Too right ! It's a marketing race to more pixels which will continue to drive up prices without any real need. Only if you plan to produce massive posters and don't want to blow-up the image, would you really need that many pixels.

Am also about to buy the S5. Looks like the right all-rounder camera. Congrats Baldy on your daring switch!!

Baldy

HarveyMushman wrote:

Which lenses will you start with?

I was pretty sore about having to abandon my beloved Canon glass...

I passed over the Nikon 18-200, thinking anything with that range can't be good. But the reviews were so good I decided to try it. I had come to love my Canon 24-105 even though I was skeptical of it at first.

The Nikon 18-200 is slightly smaller than the Canon 24-105, is slightly faster (3.5 versus 4.0 wide), seems to focus fast & well, and I'm told the sharpness is surprisingly good. We'll see about that. It sure is nice to use, except the zoom ring turns the wrong way. Amazing to have one camera with that range instead of two hanging around my neck like I usually have.

Baldy

ziggy53 wrote:

Wait for the Canon 1D MKIII. The dynamic range of the 1D series is more than the 20D that you appear to own, and probably close to the Fuji S series. The responsiveness of the 1D MKII/MKIII series is so fast for both focus and exposure, I think you'll find more keepers overall.

I shot some sports, a car show and a wedding with a MKII. I loved the frames/second and fast autofocus for sports. The wedding was tough and I'm still kicking myself for not ditching it for film, at least for the outdoor shots. I wanted to smash it after the car show. :cry

The MKIII looks really amazing for sports. Maybe I'll keep my 70-200 and think of some excuse to tell my wife when I go to an Adventure Rider rally and want to shoot speeding bikes.

claudermilk

Very interesting & encouraging test. Now to play devil's advocate here.

I see two differences, one subtle, one not-so-sublte. Starting with the obvious: there is a different WB treatment with Canon having an unflattering cool tone, while the Fuji has a nice, warm tone. Great, but I can--and have-- made that adjustment many times & setting a custom WB can give the same result out of the camera. Kudos for Fuji doing it better to start with, though.

The more subtle one is the more interesting one. The hair highlights are definitely holding more detail. So it looks like Fuji's idea is working. However, I wonder if a RAW Canon file can bring that kind of detail back; either way, Fuji got it quicker & easier.

So, good on Fuji for taking steps in the right direction & here's hoping Canon will take notice & do some of the same--competition is good for all of us. In the meantime, I'm not willing to give up my Canon glass for that.

BTW, Baldy, instead of smashing that 1D, you COULD donate it to a needy household...hint, hint.

pathfinder

The cool tone in the face in the first image could be avoided by using Shade rather than AWB I suspect, as Baldy alluded to. (Nikon seems to create slightly warmer images than Canon straight out of the box. I see this in Harry's and other Nikon shooter's bird shots a lot, that they are slightly warmer than many Canon images. Better or just slightly different I leave to the reader, but definitely slightly warmer.)

I believe Fill Flash will illuminate the child's under exposed face without losing the highlights in the hair if shot in ETTL-II in Av mode with a Canon camera. Without an EOS flash this is a challenging situation.

It certainly looks like under exposed images from the Fuji tolerate automated processing better than underexposed images from Canon.

The Fuji may have better range of exposure latittude before highlights get blown. It looks like it may here.

I will eagerly await further discusion re the Fuji camera. But for now, I will keep my Canon glass.

Baldy

pathfinder wrote:

I believe Fill Flash will illuminate the child's under exposed face without losing the highlights in the hair if shot in ETTL-II in Av mode with a Canon camera. Without an EOS flash this is a challenging situation.

Whenever I'm mobile and can't set up a reflector, I usually use a fill flash on my 30D. I find that when it's a small puff of fill in gentle light, it looks good:



My problem is when you have to pump a lot of flash on their faces, you get shiny skin reflecting back, red spots get redder due to the red content of the flash, etc.

This next shot was made with film 20 years ago before we had to jump through all those hoops. It has no fill at all. That's what I'm hoping the Fuji allows, a natural look without having to pump unnatural amounts of fill light on people's faces.