Posted by Mike Sellers on August 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I am looking to buy my first digital camera and was thinking about this camera. It has almost 13mp file size and other interesting features. Any thoughts pro or con? Any alternatives worth considering in the under $2,000 range?
Posted by Basil Greber on August 31, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I see that you shot medium format previously. So I guess the main selling point for you is the expanded dynamic range the S5 Pro offers, right?
You simply have to be aware of the fact that the S5 Pro is in reality a 6 MP camera that has a second batch of (less sensitive) photodiodes to collect the data for the expanded dynamic range. It's not a 13 MP camera. The data it produces may be very, very high quality 6 MP, but the 13 MP files are interpolated and don't offer 13 MP worth of detail as far as I know. I suggest you have a look at the review at www.dpreview.com, they say pretty clearly what the camera does well - and what not.
In any case, since you consider the S5 Pro, why not the Nikon D200, or if you can wait, the soon to be available Nikon D300 (12 MP CMOS sensor and a huge amount of features)?
I'm assuming that you already have a stable of Nikon lenses, and therefore are only thinking about Nikon as an alternative.
We have spent a lot of years with the Fuji S2, wearing out three while one still survives as a backup in our studio. The "wearing out" part is not an indictment by any means, rather it is an indicator of how much we used them and how highly we still regard them. We have been impressed with its durability rather than critical.
It's S3 successor disappointed us badly because in spite of improvements to the sensor it failed to address the serious problems of buffer size, shooting rate, battery life and buffer download times that we had with the S2. We used the S2 in spite of those problems, but were not willing to ignore them in order to move up to the new sensor. We are more porne to wearing out equipment than unloading it sooner to keep up with the Jones's, and neither of us could endure another 4-6 years of the shortcomings.
The S5 added small improvements to the sensor and made improvements to our other issues, but still doesn't address them as well as Nikon's bodies. Even so, if your shooting rate is slower and you can afford the time to wait for the camera to completely download the buffer before resuming shooting, then by all means it is a very good camera. It's very popular in studios and for general portraiture for it's unbelievable smooth treatment of the human skin, as well as its rendering of subtle skin tones. Hard to beat its highlight/shadow rendering capabilities for shooting formal wedding shots with all the white dresses and black tuxes, but watch out if you are shooting fast action at a reception. Back to buffer and shoot rate issues. Same would apply I think if you were shooting wildlife, action, sports or events.
My wife spent a year reading about and testing all the possibilities for the next generation of cameras for her studio/wedding shooting. She studied, shot and worked with images from the D80, D200, S5, and D2X. For her needs of skin tones, file formats, color rendition, fill flash cabilities, shooting speed and durability, she finally settled on the D2X, but the D200 was a very close second. Choice between those two delayed her final decision a good six months. The D80 would have compeated well too, if file formats had suited her needs better. (As I recall it doesn't produce her beloved tiffs, instead offering only jpeg and raw, but you should double check that point). She didn't opt for the D2X till she borrowed (confiscated!) mine for a couple of weeks of extended shooting and grew to appreciate its fill flash capabilities, fast shooting rate, battery life and image quality- all in spite of its weight, which she HATES. The D200 lost out only because it wasn't quite as fast and capable as the D2X.
In your shoes I'd boil it down to a choice between the current D80, D200 and S5 or waiting around for a closer look at Nikon's just-announced D300. I'd make my final choice based on features that best suit your shooting style, subjects and output needs. With the S5 I think there's still a tradeoff between spectacular image quality and functionality, but that won't be an issue if you shoot landscapes rather than wildlife, for example. The D200 is more robust than the D80, though image quality is very similar even if the D80 doesn't offer tiffs.
Have I circled your question long enough? I'd analize your needs carefully, read lots, handle any that you can, then choose carefully. Kind of like evaluating your software needs before choosing your computer hardware.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Thanks for the info. Now, does anyone know the price of the new Nikon D-300? When will it be introduced? The fall color season is fast approaching! What about the Sigms SD-14??
I think I recall reading somewhere that D300 release is scheduled for November, but according to Rob Galbraith the factory has already started producing them. His posting of features is here. I haven't seen anything but idle speculation about price.
I have no experience with the Sigma, but if I recall correctly, Toni Lancard here at NPN is a user and fan.
Are you on board, Toni?
Posted by Basil Greber on August 31, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Regarding the D300 price - internet shops here in SUI are taking pre-orders, and it looks like the price is about as much as you paid for the D200 when it was new. Which IMO is a great price for the amount of features you get... provided the camera is as good in use as it is on paper. Scheduled release is Novemeber, as far as I know.
Discussion
5 repliesYou simply have to be aware of the fact that the S5 Pro is in reality a 6 MP camera that has a second batch of (less sensitive) photodiodes to collect the data for the expanded dynamic range. It's not a 13 MP camera. The data it produces may be very, very high quality 6 MP, but the 13 MP files are interpolated and don't offer 13 MP worth of detail as far as I know. I suggest you have a look at the review at www.dpreview.com, they say pretty clearly what the camera does well - and what not.
In any case, since you consider the S5 Pro, why not the Nikon D200, or if you can wait, the soon to be available Nikon D300 (12 MP CMOS sensor and a huge amount of features)?
Basil
We have spent a lot of years with the Fuji S2, wearing out three while one still survives as a backup in our studio. The "wearing out" part is not an indictment by any means, rather it is an indicator of how much we used them and how highly we still regard them. We have been impressed with its durability rather than critical.
It's S3 successor disappointed us badly because in spite of improvements to the sensor it failed to address the serious problems of buffer size, shooting rate, battery life and buffer download times that we had with the S2. We used the S2 in spite of those problems, but were not willing to ignore them in order to move up to the new sensor. We are more porne to wearing out equipment than unloading it sooner to keep up with the Jones's, and neither of us could endure another 4-6 years of the shortcomings.
The S5 added small improvements to the sensor and made improvements to our other issues, but still doesn't address them as well as Nikon's bodies. Even so, if your shooting rate is slower and you can afford the time to wait for the camera to completely download the buffer before resuming shooting, then by all means it is a very good camera. It's very popular in studios and for general portraiture for it's unbelievable smooth treatment of the human skin, as well as its rendering of subtle skin tones. Hard to beat its highlight/shadow rendering capabilities for shooting formal wedding shots with all the white dresses and black tuxes, but watch out if you are shooting fast action at a reception. Back to buffer and shoot rate issues. Same would apply I think if you were shooting wildlife, action, sports or events.
My wife spent a year reading about and testing all the possibilities for the next generation of cameras for her studio/wedding shooting. She studied, shot and worked with images from the D80, D200, S5, and D2X. For her needs of skin tones, file formats, color rendition, fill flash cabilities, shooting speed and durability, she finally settled on the D2X, but the D200 was a very close second. Choice between those two delayed her final decision a good six months. The D80 would have compeated well too, if file formats had suited her needs better. (As I recall it doesn't produce her beloved tiffs, instead offering only jpeg and raw, but you should double check that point). She didn't opt for the D2X till she borrowed (confiscated!) mine for a couple of weeks of extended shooting and grew to appreciate its fill flash capabilities, fast shooting rate, battery life and image quality- all in spite of its weight, which she HATES. The D200 lost out only because it wasn't quite as fast and capable as the D2X.
In your shoes I'd boil it down to a choice between the current D80, D200 and S5 or waiting around for a closer look at Nikon's just-announced D300. I'd make my final choice based on features that best suit your shooting style, subjects and output needs. With the S5 I think there's still a tradeoff between spectacular image quality and functionality, but that won't be an issue if you shoot landscapes rather than wildlife, for example. The D200 is more robust than the D80, though image quality is very similar even if the D80 doesn't offer tiffs.
Have I circled your question long enough? I'd analize your needs carefully, read lots, handle any that you can, then choose carefully. Kind of like evaluating your software needs before choosing your computer hardware.
I have no experience with the Sigma, but if I recall correctly, Toni Lancard here at NPN is a user and fan.
Are you on board, Toni?
Basil