«

Trying to make the decision between S2 and D100, if I could only
combine features for the perfect camera.

Andy

(Andy) writes:

> Trying to make the decision between S2 and D100, if I could only
> combine features for the perfect camera.

Well, you know, I don't have a D100, so I don't really know what the
tradeoffs are. When I made the decision, the noise level differences
in high-ISO / low-light situations were the dominant factor, and I've
used the S2 a lot in that kind of situations, so I think I probably
made the right decision for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd->, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

Being new to the S2 Pro if I may piggyback on this discussion...

What format/size/quality are people using in this camera? I've been shooting
RAW at the highest settings, which creates about a 12.9 MB file for each image.
BUT, when I run them through the converter, the TIFF files are around 70MB each.
Photoshop doesn't have any problem handling them on my main machine, but what
are other folks doing as far as image size and conversion?

BTW: One of the deciding factors for me was the quality of the images captured
by the S2. Having done a bit of shooting and some editing I'm really pleased
even though the converted files are so large...

On 21 Aug 2003 12:55:30 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:

> (Andy) writes:
>
>> Trying to make the decision between S2 and D100, if I could only
>> combine features for the perfect camera.
>
>Well, you know, I don't have a D100, so I don't really know what the
>tradeoffs are. When I made the decision, the noise level differences
>in high-ISO / low-light situations were the dominant factor, and I've
>used the S2 a lot in that kind of situations, so I think I probably
>made the right decision for me.

Tom Nelson <> writes:

> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd-> wrote:
>
> > I've been unable to use raw mode, because the software for that isn't
> > compatible with Windows 98; it requires Windows 2000 or later. Color
> > me *extremely* ****ed.
>
> I forget where, but on some newsgroup I read that you can bypass the
> install wizard and put Raw File Converter EX on a Win98 machine. I
> tried it and it worked. You quit the installer when it says you can't
> install, open the CD and click one of the .exe files. I'll see if I can
> find my notes.

I was suspicious that it was an artificial requirement in some way
like that, which made me even more annoyed. If you do find your notes
*please* pass them on! (Unfortunately the obvious google groups
search turns up zero hits).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd->, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:
>
> Being new to the S2 Pro if I may piggyback on this discussion...
>
> What format/size/quality are people using in this camera? I've been shooting
> RAW at the highest settings, which creates about a 12.9 MB file for each image.
> BUT, when I run them through the converter, the TIFF files are around 70MB each.
> Photoshop doesn't have any problem handling them on my main machine, but what
> are other folks doing as far as image size and conversion?
>
> BTW: One of the deciding factors for me was the quality of the images captured
> by the S2. Having done a bit of shooting and some editing I'm really pleased
> even though the converted files are so large...

try printing a fine jpg at 6 mp. file will be about 2.5 mb.

12x18 prints are spectacular.



>
> On 21 Aug 2003 12:55:30 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
> > (Andy) writes:
> >
> >> Trying to make the decision between S2 and D100, if I could only
> >> combine features for the perfect camera.
> >
> >Well, you know, I don't have a D100, so I don't really know what the
> >tradeoffs are. When I made the decision, the noise level differences
> >in high-ISO / low-light situations were the dominant factor, and I've
> >used the S2 a lot in that kind of situations, so I think I probably
> >made the right decision for me.

In article <270820031205183616%> , Tom
Nelson <> wrote:

> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd-> wrote:
>
> > I've been unable to use raw mode, because the software for that isn't
> > compatible with Windows 98; it requires Windows 2000 or later. Color
> > me *extremely* ****ed.
>
> I forget where, but on some newsgroup I read that you can bypass the
> install wizard and put Raw File Converter EX on a Win98 machine. I
> tried it and it worked. You quit the installer when it says you can't
> install, open the CD and click one of the .exe files. I'll see if I can
> find my notes.
> Tom Nelson
> Tom Nelson Photography

Here it is:
After installing FinePix Viewer you insert the Hyper-Utilities CD,
cancel the auto installation wizard (which won't work anyway in Win9
then go to the RAFCNV directory. Just click on the setup.exe and Raw
File Converter EX loads.
originally posted by: Michael OHara/Wet Planet/Maui

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

Tom Nelson <> writes:

> In article <270820031205183616%> , Tom
> Nelson <> wrote:
>
> > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
> > <dd-> wrote:
> >
> > > I've been unable to use raw mode, because the software for that isn't
> > > compatible with Windows 98; it requires Windows 2000 or later. Color
> > > me *extremely* ****ed.
> >
> > I forget where, but on some newsgroup I read that you can bypass the
> > install wizard and put Raw File Converter EX on a Win98 machine. I
> > tried it and it worked. You quit the installer when it says you can't
> > install, open the CD and click one of the .exe files. I'll see if I can
> > find my notes.
>
> Here it is:
> After installing FinePix Viewer you insert the Hyper-Utilities CD,
> cancel the auto installation wizard (which won't work anyway in Win9
> then go to the RAFCNV directory. Just click on the setup.exe and Raw
> File Converter EX loads.
> originally posted by: Michael OHara/Wet Planet/Maui

Thank you *very* much!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd->, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

Well, I've once again PROVEN I'm the king of stupid human tricks! Over in the
RV newsgroup I'm one of the people that's periodically doing incredibly dumb
things with our trailer... In here, I've managed to continue the string:

The new S2 is now about 12 days old. AND I've had a couple weekends of
wandering around the woods and meadows of Minnesota, shooting SEVERAL hundred
images. Of course, this time of year those woods and meadows are chock FULL of
pollen, dust, those little flying white fluffy things, and every other sort of
clogging crap... Yup, you guessed it... I THINK I've managed to get some kind
of smutch on the CCD........

At high resolution like RAW or high res JPEG there are several spots on the
image that are most visible in sky, or in slightly underexposed white or gray
surfaces (I tested by shooting the overcast today). They appear to be round and
look darker than the surrounding surface. Tried a couple different lenses just
to be sure. The spots aren't as visible on low res like 1440X960 but they are
still there...

I VERY gingerly took a blower and attempted to get the invisible stuff off, but
no go. So, I checked out the recommended cleaner, and was prepared to order the
$50 swabs and $8 Eclipse liquid...

Called Fuji and they recommended returning the camera to them for them to check.
They THINK its probably cleanable, but it COULD possibly be a bad CCD. The
repair folks I talked to assured me that they'll get it back to me in a maximum
of 10 days so I'll shoot it off to them on Tuesday and we'll see what happens...

This is what I get for crawling around and changing lenses in the dirt! Good
grief!