It depends a WHOLE LOT on what you shoot. No complaints about image quality with either, but the FPS, dowload rate and buffer size are dramatically different. The S3 is the darling of some studio photographers, but the minute they need quick shots and lots of them, they get frustrated in a big hurry. Lots slower shooting and interminable waits for downloads from the small buffer. It doesn't "multitask" like the Nikon, rather you have to wait for the buffer to download completely before resuming shooting. The Nikon lets you shoot again as soon as there is enoough buffer space available for even one shot, though the buffer is still downloading previous shots.
We are loyal Fuji S2 shooters, and own 4 of them. Fuji improved image quality a bit in bringing out the S3, while slowing the buffer downloads enormously to achieve the extra quality. As much as we would like to be loyal to Fuji in the name of competition for Nikon, we took a pass on the S3. I spent more than twice as much for the D2X rather than buy the S3 (the D200 wasn't available at the time), while wife chose to wait. She's opting for the D200 now because it's lighter than the D2X, plus it's about 1/3 the cost while deliving about 95% of the features.
Obviously the S3 was a big disappointment and frustration to us. Not to say we won't go back to Fuji when and if an S4 comes out and resolves our issues. The S3 will be a solid performer if it meets your needs, but examine those needs carefully before you slap cash.
Hanks remarks are 100%. No sense repeating some of his remarks. After shooting with S2's & S3's for the last couple years and recently buying a D200 here are a couple additional comparisons.
Skin tones are much better with fuji- very creamy.
Shooting high jpg with no post processing fuji is near perfect 90% of the time.
Top sync speed is only 1/180 on the S3, very problematic if you want to use fill flash and have the sky too.
The D200 is awesome in all regards but there will ALWAYS be post processing time involved. How much time do you want to sit at the computer?
So, I use the the S3 for studio and shady outdoor areas and the D200 for landscape, brightly lit areas, and action/sports.
Posted by Jim Brandano on June 4, 2006 at 12:52 PM
I have been shooting film for quite a few years ( Nikon F5 ) I have been thinking about buying the D200 as my first digital. I was interested in your remarks about always having post processing time. Does this mean that to get the quality I get with the F5 that I will need to use the computer and photoshop? Thank you for any information you can give me
JimB
Hey Darren, sorry I can't give you any info on the 200 but the Fuji S3 has been a excellent choice for me. As Hank points out the speed of shooting is slower on the S3, but if your not shooting rapid shots this isn't a problem. Bob makes a great point that shooting high jpegs requires very little photoshop work. The S3 produces excellent color, and sharp image right out of the box. I've had great result and no mecanical problems with the S2 or S3.
I guess its alot like the difference between dropping off the film roll to the one hour photo vs the custom lab. Sometimes the one hour does ok, often times not. Custom prints will always look their best, but at a high price. Regardless, with film, the lab is doing the post processing.
With digital YOU do the post processing, how much you put into it is up to you.
As mentioned, with the D200 tweaks are necessary. Saturation, cropping, contrast just to name a few. Also the D200 even set to the higest sharpness setting ( +2 ) isn't enough for most.
As for image editing programs, PS is the best, but the camera comes with software to make these adjustments, to some degree.
I am a nature/landscape photographer and always will be!. I dont do enough work with people for skin tones to make a difference...I have been a loyal Nikon users from way back....and even today I just cant seem to part with My F4...that camera is the best....but I have since gone digital for the obvious reasons...
anyone else got a take on the differences between the 2 cameras?
I've been looking closely at the S3 and the D200 myself. I came to the conclusion that the D200 had a better viewfinder, better sealing, and was a bit more rugged. This is important for me. You would know why if you ever saw where I take them. For the past several years I've been putting in all my "infrastructure" first before buying a DSLR. I put the priority on things like an excellent tripod and lenses and feel this was a wise choice. In the meantime, the camera bodies greatly improved and I didn't lose money on a rapidly depreciating camera. I just purchased a Shen Hao field camera, something I wanted more than a D200. Now that I have that out of the way, I will likely buy a D200 by the end of the year.
Kent, that was the one thing I really like about the d200 its sealed all the way around.....and for me living here in the pacific northwest....(i was out shooting in the rain today) a weather resistant camera is a wise choice......
Discussion
8 repliesI am looking for comments good and bad about each camera....if you have some please email me at drwhite75@comcast.net
thanks in advance....
Darren
We are loyal Fuji S2 shooters, and own 4 of them. Fuji improved image quality a bit in bringing out the S3, while slowing the buffer downloads enormously to achieve the extra quality. As much as we would like to be loyal to Fuji in the name of competition for Nikon, we took a pass on the S3. I spent more than twice as much for the D2X rather than buy the S3 (the D200 wasn't available at the time), while wife chose to wait. She's opting for the D200 now because it's lighter than the D2X, plus it's about 1/3 the cost while deliving about 95% of the features.
Obviously the S3 was a big disappointment and frustration to us. Not to say we won't go back to Fuji when and if an S4 comes out and resolves our issues. The S3 will be a solid performer if it meets your needs, but examine those needs carefully before you slap cash.
Skin tones are much better with fuji- very creamy.
Shooting high jpg with no post processing fuji is near perfect 90% of the time.
Top sync speed is only 1/180 on the S3, very problematic if you want to use fill flash and have the sky too.
The D200 is awesome in all regards but there will ALWAYS be post processing time involved. How much time do you want to sit at the computer?
So, I use the the S3 for studio and shady outdoor areas and the D200 for landscape, brightly lit areas, and action/sports.
JimB
I guess its alot like the difference between dropping off the film roll to the one hour photo vs the custom lab. Sometimes the one hour does ok, often times not. Custom prints will always look their best, but at a high price. Regardless, with film, the lab is doing the post processing.
With digital YOU do the post processing, how much you put into it is up to you.
As mentioned, with the D200 tweaks are necessary. Saturation, cropping, contrast just to name a few. Also the D200 even set to the higest sharpness setting ( +2 ) isn't enough for most.
As for image editing programs, PS is the best, but the camera comes with software to make these adjustments, to some degree.
I am a nature/landscape photographer and always will be!. I dont do enough work with people for skin tones to make a difference...I have been a loyal Nikon users from way back....and even today I just cant seem to part with My F4...that camera is the best....but I have since gone digital for the obvious reasons...
anyone else got a take on the differences between the 2 cameras?
Kent in SD