Why did you decide the way you did
I already posted a similar question on the "D100" forum. I assume that many of you who opted for the S2 at one time thought about the D100. If so, why did you go for the S2, and is there anything about the camera that makes you wish you'd gone with the D100?
A BAD DAY BEHIND A NIKON BEATS A GOOD DAY BEHIND A DESK - Bob Tomerlin
A BAD DAY BEHIND A NIKON BEATS A GOOD DAY BEHIND A DESK - Bob Tomerlin
My Nikonians Gallery
#1. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0RBGREEN2 Registered since 05th Feb 2003Mon 10-Mar-03 12:15 PM
My criteria for choosing the S2 was a camera that could produce 16 x 20 prints that were as good as a Cibachrome from 64 Kodachrome. This camera fills the bill. And, it will do it at ISO 400 instead of 64. All of my older lenses (15-800mm) work, although some had to be "chipped" to meter on the N80 based body. With over 5,000 exposures made, the savings in E6 film and processing alone have paid for the body. I'm a happy camper.
For more info from other S2 users visit: http://www.s2pro.com
"Ron Green shoots birds just for the fun of it." See some more at www.AvianPix.com
#2. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0Bernie Neuwirth Registered since 09th Feb 2003Mon 10-Mar-03 08:43 PM
It sounds as though you are agonizing over this decision. I've been there. Check out the comparison by Thom Hogan at www.bythom.com/s2d100.htm This is a pretty good article.
The only thing I look back on after purchasing the S2 is the two battery system. On the surface, it appears to be a pain in the neck. But as you peel back the onion skin you have to think:
1) A D100 + an external flash equals one propritary battery and a handful (4) of AA batteries
2) An S2 + an external flash equals 2 CR123a batteries and a handful (8) of AA batteries
To me this seems to be a wash.
Additionally, I like the images right out of the S2. When we lay $2000+ down we should be able to take an image and print it without worrying about downloading curves or anything else.
Also, the S2 seems to be more user friendly. For example it gives you custom settings in English rather than numeric values that need to be cross-referenced.
Actually, it's kind of nice to have decisions where there isn't really a wrong answer!
This is just one person's humble opinion.
#3. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0BJNicholls Charter MemberTue 11-Mar-03 12:28 AM
Already answered at the other forum...
Weighing the pros and cons isn't easy, but it's not a decision you have to live with forever. Do the best you can at deciding and once you've made your purchase, don't let ego get in the way of honestly seeing the merits and demerits that matter to you.
Did you get that new monitor yet?
#4. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 3justinb Basic MemberTue 11-Mar-03 01:06 AM
I started with the S1, so the upgrade to the S2 seemed a logical move. The battery "problem" for me, isn't a problem. I guess it helps if you just don't know any different. The lithiums seem to last quite awhile and I keep backups with me...The AA's fade quickly, but keeping a set fresh from the charger doesn't seem to be a major hassle either.
Probably the biggest selling point to me was the complaints on this board and others about the "straight out of the camera" picture qualityof the D100. I take almost as many pictures of my little boy and other family as I do of nature and landscape. If I had to do a lot of post processing/adjustments on every JPEG that I take of family, I would end up going back to film.
Just another opinion,
#5. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 3
#7. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 6
#8. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
I considered both bodies as well as the Canon D60. (I love my Nikon equip. but will go for the best quality/price ratio over brand name loyalty anyday).
The S2 is a fantastic camera and I was fortunate enough to shoot both before I made the decision. I've done a 20x30 from a RAW converted tiff (I only shoot RAW so out of the box quality means little to me) and it looks better than a similar 20x30 scanned with an LS-4000 scanner of Velvia.
As with any camera, there are features that one would like that they don't have. I'd like to have a vertical release button, exposure compensation in 1/3 stops instead of 1/2 stops, and a 1 battery system vs. 2 sets.
While the exposure compensation is nice, it's can be corrected for in the RAW conversion software or post conversion PS work.
When I first tested the camera one of my friends owns a photo lab with a Fuji Frontier. I made a test shot with a model, car, and trees in the background on each body using my 17-35 ED AFS Nikkor both at ISO 100 and the D100 set for 6mp TIFF and the S2 at 12mp(interpolated) TIFF. Both were mounted on the same tripod head and taken within seconds of each other The results at 8x12 were noticeably different between the two. (I use a loupe for judging prints as well).
The S2 had more detail all around and definately more shadow detail. The skin tones seemed to myself and others who saw them to be more pleasing from the S2 (I'll also note that the machine was set to not make any auto adjustments for color or density).
From what I saw with this and subsequent shots, I think there is validity in the Super CCD that the Fuji uses to get to 12mp over the other brands.
Either way you will have a great camera, it's more of a matter of how it feels to you, if you like the layout on the back, how big do you really want to be able to go with the image, etc..
Best of Luck.
Chris, formerly an "I detest digital shooter now in love with my Fuji S2," Myers
View the rest of the Nikonians Team Here
#9. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 8pretzelboy Basic MemberSat 22-Mar-03 09:24 PM
Just a note here...
Has anyone looked at the Quantum Battery 1 compact? I use it for my S1. It screws into the bottom and eliminates the two battery problem, and I never have to worry about buying new batteries. Sure, it adds a bit of heft to the camera, but no more than using a D1 or F5...
Just a thought,
"When in doubt, duct tape it"
#10. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 9vitez Registered since 31st Aug 2002Sun 23-Mar-03 02:02 AM
Never used it.. but I keep wondering -- maybe I am the weird one here -- but the dual battery setup didn't bother me a bit. Especially considering that the camera works without the CR123's... and as for AA's.. well.. you couldn't ask for more widespread type. They last OK too..
#11. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
One of the main reasons for choosing the S2 over the D100 was Nikon's decision not to allow the use of previous (non-dx) speedlights. I use the S2 primarily with flash attachments and the idea of having to replace my SB-28 and SB-29 was a major factor in my decision.
Dana in Massachusetts
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#12. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
Well I purchased my S1pro s/h in 2002 and was so impressed with it.
I had used a 990 coolpix prior to this but with a comprehensive Nikon system it was only a matter of time before I went for a digi slr.
I remember at the time of purchasing my 990 coolpix the S1pro was around about £3000.
It was only about 15months later I picked up the S1pro s/h for £900 a 1/3rd of what it would of cost me when I purchased the 990.
Its still in use today but having a 80-400 VR and a couple of AFS lenses I wanted to exploit the full potential of them.
It was'nt untill June 2003 I did this.
The choice was between the D100 or S2pro.
After reading up as much information I could get my hands on, and talking to other users I finally decided to go for the S2pro and I have had no regrets whats so ever.
#13. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
My main deciding point on S2 over the D100 is my sb-26 which works with the S2 (with a small issue of underexposure under certain conditions). And the feedback from a few professional photographers, the frontier pro lab I use, and also reviews from forums also help with that decision.
At the end of the day, I pretty much know that for my standard, both the D100 and the S2 will produce decent photos, just a matter of which one suits my needs more.
#14. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
I got a d100 march this year, and after it broke down a week ago, i decided i had to have a second body as back up. because the customer service sucked in my country, i considered the s2 and got one this morning. the positive feedback of their after-sales service (they lend you a service unit while your cam is in for repair), and the durability of the cam (a friend of mine has shot 8,000 pics already without hitch, while my d100 conked out before 4,000 shots) + outstanding pic quality made me decide on the s2 and not a 2nd d100. (plus the price dropped by around USD$500 )
can't wait to shoot and print pix from it. i used to have a s1, and was sorry to let it go. now maybe, the s2 will take over as my main cam for events and weddings, and if i can afford a second s2, the d100 will be out the door
a very happy nikonian in the Philippines
#15. "Hello Bob..." | In response to Reply # 0
The Nikon D100 was my very first digital camera and it was an awesome unit. Of course - at least for me - I was concerned with the underexposure scenario in most of the photos that I had taken with that unit. Granted, post processing saves us all in most scenarios.
But then one day I entered a professional photo lab and saw a huge (what appeared to be a 30 x 40...or larger) framed print. I assumed it was a medium format image, so I asked the manager "which medium format" camera took that image? He replied, "the S-2 Pro...," at which time I was taken aback. He then went on to say that quite a few local pros used that camera. Well, that got me thinking. I had heard about the wonderful Fuji color saturation (which I personally prefer - albeit others may not find it accurate), so I took the plunge and picked one up.
Now in settings and featuresets, the Nikon wins hands down. But the S2 Pro has given me far greater quality images than I ever attained from my D100. I subsequently sold the D100 and have not looked back since.
Does that mean I now dislike Nikon products? By all means...Nooooo!
In fact, I am putting money aside - and selling stuff - in order to make a Nikon D2H purchase, or I may just hold off until the D2X is released. Once you've become accustomed to Nikon quality, you don't look back.
Gosh, it's been awhile since I've been on this forum - good to drop back in.
FYI - as an aside - if anyone elects to find a 2nd smaller all-in-one camera, do NOT purchase the Minolta A-1. I had purchased that unit a few weeks ago to use as another "back up" unit for my work environment. The design, featureset, focusing options, and ergonomics are second to none - better than many DSLR's out there. But it is in the image quality where it fails the most. Beset by ongoing low-level noise problem that permeates all images - in particular in the shadows (not noticeable at first, but you will notice with comparisons that a thin veil covers all images), images just do not come alive. They lack an immediacy that other cameras seems to capture. Luckly, I bought it for the lake where I work so it didn't come out of my own pocket. But I cannot tell you how much I love the camera for physical options mentioned above, but loathe the image quality. Just a word of fair warning here. Of course, it could be that the S2 just set a standard that is hard to measure up to.
To all a great day...
#16. "RE: Why did you decide the way you did" | In response to Reply # 0
I am on exposure 2000 and have never looked back. I agonized over the two camera bodies for months. Not having seen or used a D100 I cannot honestly say much about it operational wise, but I can tell you that my time with the S2 has been great. I take lots of portraits. I plug my sync cord into the body of the S2 and take my Gossen flash meter reading and shoot away. I used JPEG Fine and get marvelous prints up to 11x14 and could go larger if I needed to. The S2 operated that way right out of the box. I shoot sports action as well and it operates at 1600 ISO as well as it does at 100 ISO. Yes, there is grain at 1600, but very minimal post editing work. My work in PS has been reduced to cropping, resizing, and some masking. I do use the brightness/contrast some, but have never had to adjust the color levels.
Here is a sample of a portrait with the S2. No color adjustments, only cropping, resizing, and very little unsharp masking.
S2,28-70mm handheld, ISO 100, WB Auto, Tiffen FX3 filter, Alien Bee Strobes, Photoflex gold reflector, 1/125 @f11.
The Arkansas Nikonian
Attachment#1 (jpg file)