Thoughts on The Fuji S3 Pro

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bugstopped_-AB5D6B.12022421032005@news.verizon.net>,
bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
> Anybody like what they see? Why or why not?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/ [...] review.asp

Control wise it looks to be a clunker, and the build quality versus the
cost has always left something to be desired. Shot-to-shot performance
isn't very good.

Recovering highlights is nice, but it barely outperforms the 20D in
terms of dynamic range. It loses pretty quickly in the resolution and
noise department. Heavy, detail-smothering noise reduction at higher
ISOs is also not great.

I'd like to see Nikon come out with an 8 megapixel D100 replacement and
force Fuji to get a little more serious about their dSLR line.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:56:01 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

>Anybody like what they see? Why or why not?
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05031602fujis3proreview.asp

I bought one about a month ago. I had been using the D1x before that.

Pros: despite what some reviewers have said I found the colours
excellent. The raw files are excellent also, but huge. At the
highest setting, I get 19 shots on a 512 card. I had to buy a Burn
Away CF to CD burner for long jobs and trips. I shot an image from a
tripod with the same ISO, same lens, shutter speed and aperture and
the file from the Fuji was mcuh sharper and with better detail and
colour than the D1x. (The D2x is a very different story, I'm sure)
Does the dynamic range make it worth it? It does for me, since most
of my stuff is in studio with contrasty lighting. It looks very much
like good negative film when processed. Very accurate auto white
balance and matrix metering. From what I have seen it has the best
high ISO image quality as well. Nimh AA batteries are powerful and
easy to buy at any Walmart.

Cons: very slow write times, especially for the 25.5 Meg raw files.
Not a camera I would choose for sports shooting. Very small
viewfinder-looks like the regular F80 viewfinder was just blacked out
to get the viewfinder of the S3.

I don't know what the price of the D2x is compared to the S3, I was
pretty much maxed out on the S3. My lens system was what made me
decide to stick with the Nikon mount. I know Canon has the top camera
right now, but would like to see a good comparison between it and the
D2x for image quality. The S3 smokes the D1x, at half the price, but
like I said I haven't seen the D2x files yet.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 8:56:01 -0800, Gregory Blank wrote
(in message <bugstopped_-AB5D6B.12022421032005@news.verizon.net> ):

> Anybody like what they see? Why or why not?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/ [...] review.asp

While I love my S2, I can't see that the S3 is really an improvement. Had
the aggressive noise reduction been a selectable option, the camera would
find a wider audience. I'm just not willing to sacrifice detail for the
sake of a little less noise. Putting the noise-reduction in their
post-processing software would have made more sense.

The enhanced dynamic range is interesting, but it's not a replacement for
proper exposure, though that's really what it seems to be targeted at.
I'd prefer a system that compressed the entire dynamic range to something
that simply prevents overexposed highlights from being blown out. But,
that's just me. Give me a curve that more closely resembles film, rather
than just a soft shoulder.

I think Nikon and Canon give better performance for less money; Fuji
missed the mark on this one. Despite my investment in Nikkor glass,
unless they do something really stellar in the next couple years, my next
DSLR will probably be Canon. If I were buying a system today, I'd
probably go with the 20D. The extra $1k would be better spent on glass
than a few more interpolated Mpx.