Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fuji's S3, a mistake?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:27:37 AM

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

They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
"prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
and Nikon cameras?
I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
a smaller body and a smaller price.

More about : fuji mistake

Anonymous
June 7, 2005 9:01:40 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:jpbaa19o4a4rrffhu1dom86ihpfet76t6p@4ax.com...
> They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
> with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
> they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
> "prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
> and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
> costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
> a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
> consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
> a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
> and Nikon cameras?
> I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
> a smaller body and a smaller price.

A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:28:56 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
> costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
> a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
> consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
> a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
> and Nikon cameras?
> I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
> a smaller body and a smaller price.

The key thing with the S2 and S3 (and some other Fujifilm cameras) is
the sensor design that provides for a wider dynamic range reaching into
the highlights for more detail. (By 1 to 2 stops if I understand
correctly). This is where it counts: how much light can you record with
detail. Perhaps Fujifilm could sell this sensor to ... K-M for a pro
Maxxum 9D... that would be very nice!

It's also aimed at pros who already have Nikon glass. So a fantastic
combination.

The S3 body is otherwise not very inspiring being based on the "not
quite there" F80.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:16:06 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:jpbaa19o4a4rrffhu1dom86ihpfet76t6p@4ax.com...
> They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
> with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
> they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
> "prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
> and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
> costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
> a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
> consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
> a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
> and Nikon cameras?
> I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
> a smaller body and a smaller price.

I love mine, but working with a D1x everyday by comparison the plastic body
does worry me a little. And only a little though. Also I generally find that
things that have "Pro" or "Quality" in the name tend not to be!!

Up until now the plastic body is the only thing I can fault with my S3 - but
then if it had been made of magnesium alloy I doubt I could have afforded
it.

Craig.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 1:32:57 PM

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

It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
poorest rating, "Above Average." It would be hard to find a reason to
buy the S3 rather then the D2x or the D70. Once you're spending that
much money, you may as well go all the way to an D2x, or settle for the
D70.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:33:45 PM

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

Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
horrible to bother reviewing."

I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
"Recommended."

A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
search to "Highly Recommended."
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 7:32:16 PM

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

I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.

One reason I created my web site is because of the reluctance of other
sites to come right out and say, 'this camera should be avoided," or
"camera x is a much better choice than camera Y.'

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:46:10 PM

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

Scharf-DCA wrote:

> A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
> search to "Highly Recommended."

For once we agree.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/page26....



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:00:26 PM

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

On 8 Jun 2005 13:33:45 -0700, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
>review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
>horrible to bother reviewing."
>
>I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
>"Recommended."
>
>A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
>search to "Highly Recommended."

I guess it depends on your criteria. It produces some pretty amazing
images.
June 8, 2005 10:05:42 PM

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

>
> A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
> smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
> themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
> Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.
>

The 1DMk2 would be nice in a 'amateur' body, giving the equivalent of the
EOS3 which had the features, and some improvements of the EOS1/N in the
film world.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:06:47 PM

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

On 8 Jun 2005 09:32:57 -0700, Scharf-DCA <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
> poorest rating, "Above Average."

Kinda makes one wonder just what the heck they mean by "average".

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:11:43 PM

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

"dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D 878ha$5jj$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>> A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
>> smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed
>> positioning themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a
>> lower price. Especially to photographers who have some investment in a
>> Nikon system.
>>
>
> The 1DMk2 would be nice in a 'amateur' body, giving the equivalent of the
> EOS3 which had the features, and some improvements of the EOS1/N in the
> film world.
>
What is lacking in the 20D that isn't in the 1DMkII that would be useful to
an amateur, or even an aspiring pro? Some of the ruggedness and a little
slower frame rate is all...and a slightly smaller crop, 1.3 vs. 1.6x.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:43:34 AM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> writes:

> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
>>review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
>>is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.
>
>
> So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?
>
> Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
> current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".
>
> But of course there aren't.

Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
all digital cameras.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:18:33 AM

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

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
>poorest rating, "Above Average."


It speaks volumes about the reliability of dpreview.com's "reviews"
that its poorest rating is ***Above*** Average.

;-)
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:43:05 AM

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

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
>review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
>is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.


So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?

Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".

But of course there aren't.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:28:24 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:43:05 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?
>
> Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
> current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".

They're all better than the average digital camera. But between
webcams, camera phones and security cameras, that's a pretty low
hurdle.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:28:25 AM

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

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 02:28:24 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:43:05 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?
>>
>> Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
>> current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".
>
>They're all better than the average digital camera. But between
>webcams, camera phones and security cameras, that's a pretty low
>hurdle.

They generally test against each other in the same "class" of camera
I hope. If a phone (new Samsung) has a five megapixel camera, it sure
won't perform like a DSLR or even most point and shoots.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:46:51 AM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

>If I read a review of a DSLR, I expect any comparative opinion (such
>as "Above Average") to be related to other DSLRs. I don't expect
>apples to be compared with oranges.

This is true, but when you do relative ratings, they change over time.
What is "Highly Recommended" at the time of its release, may fall to
"Above Average" over time. The camera didn't get any worse, but the
competition got much better.

I've made several changes in recommendations, over time, on my site, as
new cameras have been introduced. I.e., the introduction of the
EOS-350D changed relative ratings on some other cameras.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:53:53 AM

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

Roxy d'Urban wrote:

>Your website is an abject display of inept design and contemptible bias.
>You should be ashamed of it, rather than promote it.

I also wanted there to be one site, that was not intentionallly
wishy-washy, in order to avoid offending people that were extremely
sensitive about anything negative being published about something they
have purchased.

Mr. d'Urban proves that I have at least achieved this goal.

As to the design, you're correct, it could be better. But it's the
content that's important, and while you are upset about the facts, you
know that everything written is true. Apparently others do too, as the
hits have increased every month. The referral fees have also gone up,
and people don't click through on sites that they are angry with.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:44:22 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
>Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
>all digital cameras.


If I read a review of a DSLR, I expect any comparative opinion (such
as "Above Average") to be related to other DSLRs. I don't expect
apples to be compared with oranges.

I suspect most other people would agree. Obviously not you.

;-)
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 2:32:37 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> writes:
>
>
>>"Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
>>>review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
>>>is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.
>>
>>
>>So which DSLRs fall into the "Below Average" category?
>>
>>Given that dpreview have published "reviews" of virtually every
>>current DSLR, there simply *must* be some that fall "Below Average".
>>
>>But of course there aren't.
>
>
> Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
> Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
> all digital cameras.


You're wasting your time. Tony Polson is upset with dpreview becasue
those darned dpreview people point out the various shortcomings of
Olympus products. (As they point out the shortcomings of all products,
even those that are "Highly Recomended" (a category that does not
include Olympus)).

Then Tony Polson says, "This is dpreview retaliation because Olympus
don't advertise there." I don't know either way, but it is most
likely Olympus retaliation for dpreviews honesty. Or a dwindling
advertsing budget as they have so few sales.

Cheers,
Alan






--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:22:23 PM

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

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:32:16 -0700, Scharf-DCA wrote:

> I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
> review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera is,
> they may just not bother completing the review at all.
>
> One reason I created my web site is because of the reluctance of other
> sites to come right out and say, 'this camera should be avoided," or
> "camera x is a much better choice than camera Y.'
>
> Steve
> http://digitalslrinfo.com

Your website is an abject display of inept design and contemptible bias.
You should be ashamed of it, rather than promote it.

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:32:27 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
> Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
> all digital cameras.

The ratings are pretty loosely defined, but yes, they do compare cameras
that are in similar categories.

What dpreview should do, especially on D-SLRs, is to include both the
orignal rating, and comparative ratings over time. For example, there is
no way that the S3 Pro could be considered worse than the Sigma SD10,
but the SD10 review is older; if both were reviewed at the same time,
the ratings would be reversed (at a minimum). Well I hope they don't do
this, since it would hurt traffic and my site!

They could also be less wishy-washy in making recommendations of one
camera over another, but they don't want to offend their advertisers.
Still, by comparing the pros and cons of their highly recommended
models, you can get a pretty good idea of what's best for you.

The California ballot measure method of evaluating products, which is to
look at who is saying what about each product, is another effective way
of knowing what to buy and what to avoid. Those that post obvious
mis-statements about products that they own (i.e. Preddy, Scales,
d'Urban, etc.) should be very careful about their actions, since they
end up hurting the very products that they are promoting.

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 12:33:49 PM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:32:27 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Well, is the average *of DSLRs*, or is it of *all digital cameras*?
>> Quite possibly all the DSLRs actually are above average in the set of
>> all digital cameras.
>
> The ratings are pretty loosely defined, but yes, they do compare cameras
> that are in similar categories.
>
> What dpreview should do, especially on D-SLRs, is to include both the
> orignal rating, and comparative ratings over time. For example, there is
> no way that the S3 Pro could be considered worse than the Sigma SD10, but
> the SD10 review is older; if both were reviewed at the same time, the
> ratings would be reversed (at a minimum). Well I hope they don't do this,
> since it would hurt traffic and my site!
>
> They could also be less wishy-washy in making recommendations of one
> camera over another, but they don't want to offend their advertisers.
> Still, by comparing the pros and cons of their highly recommended models,
> you can get a pretty good idea of what's best for you.
>
> The California ballot measure method of evaluating products, which is to
> look at who is saying what about each product, is another effective way of
> knowing what to buy and what to avoid. Those that post obvious
> mis-statements about products that they own (i.e. Preddy, Scales, d'Urban,
> etc.) should be very careful about their actions, since they end up
> hurting the very products that they are promoting.
>
> Steve
> http://digitalslrinfo.com

I wonder why it is that people looking for information on digital cameras
choose DPreview over most other sites out there? Could it be that they
actually do thorough testing of the cameras, unlike you?

You and your site are a complete joke - sadly you just don't get the
punchline. I would take anything Ken Rockwell says a lot more seriously
than anything you say.

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 4:59:02 PM

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

Skip M wrote:

> A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
> smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
> themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
> Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.


You've obviously never shot with the S3. The thing is locked up more
than not. I can't imagine who's really used one actually buying
one--unbelievably slow body.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:00:27 PM

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

Scharf-DCA wrote:
> I think that if a camera cannot even achieve "Above Average" then the
> review is not published. Or once it becomes clear how bad the camera
> is, they may just not bother completing the review at all.
>
> One reason I created my web site is because of the reluctance of other
> sites to come right out and say, 'this camera should be avoided," or
> "camera x is a much better choice than camera Y.'
>
> Steve
> http://digitalslrinfo.com

Sites don't get much uglier than that.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:11:29 PM

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

Scharf-DCA wrote:
> Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
> review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
> horrible to bother reviewing."
>
> I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
> "Recommended."
>
> A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
> search to "Highly Recommended."

Fuji has faded in importance in the DSLR market, so dpreview isn't
about to give them a good review--those are strictly for sale.
!