Fujifilm FinePix S100FS gets reviewed

FujiFilm has made some pretty bold claims about its FinePix S100FS "DSLR-styled" camera and, according to the folks at Photography Blog, it looks like it has mostly managed to live up to them. They seem to have been especially impressed by the camera's solid build quality, which they say leaves an "impression that stays with you" and, just as importantly, they had few complaints about the image quality, with the 14.3 x zoom delivering the goods and the resultant images boasting great colors and detail. On the downside, the camera is, as expected, more sluggish than a proper DSLR, it's battery life is only "average to poor," and it's $800 list price isn't exactly a bargain considering what you can get for just a couple of hundred bucks more. Of course, you can likely find it for cheaper than that if you do a bit of digging, which Photography Blog says makes it even easier to recommend.

[audioboxer @ Jul 15th 2008 2:17PM]

Probably better off paying less cash out and option for the Nikon D60, or the slightly older D40x and paying $600-900 to have it fully outfitted including memory card and two lenses. I just don't see the benefit of it being in between a DSLR and a normal point&shoot... movies? meh...

[Minilap @ Jul 15th 2008 2:50PM]

Yes, but for average consumer this will be an easier choice all around, but if you are serious about photography with $700 budget, you would want to get an entry DSLR.

[Razor @ Jul 15th 2008 6:25PM]

If you are serious about photography you will buy a camera that fits your individual needs. That means doing research and not simply going by the recommendations of others.

A serious photographer can shoot seriously with whatever equipment they deem fit for the job. A disposable camera, a pinhole made of a cereal box, a Nikon D3 or this Fuji.

There are way too many people that are obsessed with specs and features and simply don't get out there to shoot.

[Rockie @ Aug 19th 2008 10:06PM]

Some people don't like tote'n around so many lenses.

[Eric M. @ Jul 15th 2008 2:51PM]

Canon's Rebel XSi retails for $799. Please don't buy this. The XSi is a dSLR so faster, better images, upgradable, more advanced, and it has Live View. And comes with a IS Lens.

[G. @ Jul 15th 2008 3:02PM]

Find me a 28 - 400mm IS lens for less than the cost of this camera and you will have made a point. But, the fact of the matter is not everyone wants or needs an SLR. For the VAST majority of people (even self styled "serious photographers" who've never upgraded their kit lenses) this is more camera than they'll ever need.

[G. @ Jul 15th 2008 3:15PM]

Hmmm, my comment went into the ether, so let's try this again.

You're not going to find an f2.8 - 5.3, 28 - 400mm, image stabilized zoom lens for less than the cost of an entry level SLR, much less one bundled to a body.

Fact of the matter is, this camera is more than most people (even self-styled "serious photographers" who never upgrade their kit lenses) will ever need.

[Markarian @ Jul 15th 2008 4:05PM]

Ah, but keep in mind that the lens has that focal range because the image sensor is the size of a pinky nail. It's got a crop factor of 4, as opposed to 1.6 as on my Canon XTi. You're going to get shitty pictures when you compare it to a dSLR, especially at higher ISOs. Yes, this is plenty of camera for the average consumer, but that's also plenty of price for a serious amateur. You could get a brand new XTi kit with an IS lens for about $100 less than this.

So yeah, I'm sorry I couldn't hear your praising the camera over all the noise it was producing.

[G. @ Jul 15th 2008 5:50PM]

Well, it's got a bigger sensor than, say, the Sony P&S I keep in my pocket and the noise looks pretty well damped below ISO 800 from the demo images. Of course, that's pretty academic, since if any of these pictures get printed out they're going to be 4X6s on the family's $200 all-in-one printer. People who would buy this over an SLR probably aren't trying to make museum quality prints with archival inks. And noise that shows up in 100% crops isn't going to be that noticeable on an 8x10 print.

Also your XTi kit doesn't follow since the IS kit lens isn't equivalent focal length wise. You're not saving money on an SLR trying to reproduce this without going back to an XT, which came with a, by all accounts, optically inferior, non-IS kit lens (which was pretty good for me at the time). And by doing that you're giving up features that have become standard in the intervening time (I don't so much care about face detection, but someone does).

That all being said, even if this thing was $100 - $200 cheaper, people'd still be clamoring "you should just get an SLR."

PS
You couldn't hear my praise because I wasn't praising anything. I was simply pointing out that specs wise this is more than enough camera for most shooters and a better fit than an SLR for many as well. But don't let the facts interfere with your snark.

[Razor @ Jul 15th 2008 6:20PM]

Markarian, feel free to post body + glass recommendations that cover that Fuji's focal length range, maximum aperture, are image stabilized and still costs less then this camera.

It isn't for everybody, but it certainly is for some people. SLRs aren't always practical. All cameras are a compromise of something, even "pro-level" dSLRs (I don't like the term "pro-level", as a pro can shoot with whatever they feel appropriate to get the job done).

[Markarian @ Jul 15th 2008 9:18PM]

Actually, I'm not saying this is a bad camera at all. What I'm trying to say is:

1) It's as large as an entry-level dSLR
2) It's as expensive as an entry-level dSLR kit
3) Its image sensor is far smaller than that of an SLR, with an equal number of elements, thus rendering it (presumably) inferior.

Also, it uses a CCD instead of a CMOS and that translates into poorer battery life.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the only thing this camera has going for it a zoom lens with a very big range of focal length. It's true, to find a comparable lens on an SLR you'd have fork down some dough. But is all that zoom really worth the price? I mean, $800 is a LOT of money for a camera like this. And my impression was that bridge cameras catered to a crowd who could afford a dSLR, and wanted to be seen shooting with something comparable in looks and features, but were turned off by the fact that you couldn't liveview (increasingly becoming a moot point) or shoot video. I'm not an elitist snob, but it's fun to play that part occasionally, especially when a product comes out whose price irritates me.

[G. @ Jul 15th 2008 10:20PM]

Given that I spent $500 on a single lens that covers not quite that range (28.8 - 320mm equiv) that's not as fast (3.5 wide open wide angle) I'd think some people would be willing to trade some absolute picture quality (which, again, the picture quality from what I saw is quite good).

It's really all what you're looking for. For me the #1 thing that pushed me into a dSLR was that I shoot primarily sports (BMX freestyle to be specific) and the shutter lag from my bridge camera was *KILLING* me when trying to get shots. that being said, the first thing I ever shot with my SLR was my neice's high school graduation, which was held in the middle of a football field. This camera with it's super long, relatively fast, is lens would've worked better than what I had (an almost as long, non IS, MUCH slower lens). If I didn't shoot sports, I probably would've been happy with a bridge camera.

All the people here talking about how much cheaper a dSLR is forget that camera companies LOVE SLRs because bodies are cheap, the optics are where the real money is.

[Razor @ Jul 15th 2008 10:26PM]

The zoom is the big reason someone would go for this. While you may argue the size is about the same as an entry-level DSLR, you are again forgetting the size of a lens(es) to match. Have you played with the 18-200 Nikkor? And that is still half the focal length.

As for price, another reader already pointed out you can get this camera for under $700 already. You simply cannot put together a comparable kit at that price.

I don't think bridge cameras are necessarily for people that are concerned about Liveview, although that is a concern for some. The big bonuses of a bridge camera are relatively small size for the focal length you get, have video capability, no need to switch lenses and generally "good enough" image quality. As much as people like to pixel-peep, consider that alot of people no longer print. When they do, it's up to 8x10 at most. And for those just posting photos online, alot of sites (like Facebook) will downsample the image to less than 1MP anyway.

dSLRs have their place, as do bridge cameras. And compacts. Even cell phone cameras and disposables.

[TBFL @ Jul 16th 2008 6:39PM]

As someone that actually owns this camera...I tried, and could not price out an equivalent entry level DSLR with a stabilized lens that came close to its range and aperature for $600 (What I paid online).

Not having to change lenses when walking around and shooting is a huge advantage, and it does take very usable pictures at 1600 ISO. As a rank amateur photog I highly recommend it.

[fugu @ Jul 15th 2008 3:37PM]

You can get an XT body and add an 18-55IS and a 55-250IS and be in the same ball park price-wise

[G. @ Jul 15th 2008 5:51PM]

Sure, then you have to lug around multiple lenses. Which, I can tell you as a guy who spent most of his SLR ownership switching back and forth between an 18 - 55 and a 70 - 300 on an XT body, is a massive pain in the tookis. Especially if it's while shooting a contest in a dusty skatepark where you're trying not to get hit by BMXers while changing lenses.

I have a dSLR, I love my dSLR and I will replace my dSLR with a dSLR (and a Fuji IS-1, because I love the look of IR photos). But every time someone releases a bridge camera the blogs are alive with "this is stupid, just get an SLR!" Everyone doesn't need an SLR. Most people are never going to upgrade lenses. Most people aren't going to carry around a pack full of extra gear or edit RAW files. Most people want a camera that does everything with a minimum of fuss, which this does.

[LloydChiro @ Jul 15th 2008 3:38PM]

30f motion JPEG movie mode with VGA quality? How hard would it be to put in a high-resolution movie mode?

If we're not buying a DSLR, can't we at least get a built in camcorder? Is this a CCD vs CMOS issue, or is this a firmware/software issue?

...Still waiting for EVIL cameras to come out with Casio EX-F1 capabilities...

[Xepol @ Jul 15th 2008 4:05PM]

just a few hundred dollars more? More like a hundred dollars less.

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX20067(ME).aspx

Nikon D60 Digital SLR Kit w/ 18-55 mm f3.5-5.6 G VR Lens (670$ CANADIAN)

Uh huh, sure.... and who wants the non-slr wanna be for over a 100$ more again?

[Razor @ Jul 15th 2008 6:14PM]

Xepol, the D60 with that lens combo is not nearly the equivalent of this Fuji as far as focal length goes. This camera is for your average Joe that wants a tremendous zoom range, prolly will print 4x6 to 8x10, doesn't shoot RAW, and doesn't want to lug a bunch of lenses. You will have a very hard time covering the zoom range of this camera's lens without spending a hell of alot more, not to mention carrying alot more.

I should know. I have 5 F-Mount lenses, 4 of which are f2.8 or faster. That's seriously heavy glass. Believe me, some days a smaller camera is very ideal.

[Alex R @ Jul 15th 2008 4:28PM]

Still no where near on par with DSLR cameras.

I guess if you're needing a camera with the zoom range this camera provides, it's not all too bad.

I still don't like Fuji.

[John @ Jul 16th 2008 6:48PM]

This Fuji uses a Super CCD 2/3 sensor. While smaller than a DSLR it's bigger than every other point and shoot out there. Plus the Super CCD gives much better results for high ISO shots than conventional sensors. There a a bunch of fun settings in this camera, such as the ability to shoot in Provia, Velvia, and soft settings, mimicking the look of old film. I think this camera sounds pretty good, except that other review sites have mentioned it has a lot of Chromatic Aberration, more than normal.

On the other hand, you can get both the Olympus E-420 and E-520 for less, and they both have some fun settings as well. Yes, you can get two lenses for both plus the bodies for less than the Fuji, but if you want to even buy one more lens, then your going way over. It's a toss up I think, depending on what is more important to you, but I do think the Fuji should be about 400 to 500 dollars, not the 650 to 800 it's currently going for to be viable.

[amit @ Jul 19th 2008 1:34PM]

Apparently, this is not a bad camera. Both dpreview and imaging resource have posted detailed reviews, you may find these reviews at:
http://www.dprguru.com/?model=s100fs

The only question remains - if it the size of an DSLR, weight of a DSLR and the price of a DSLR, why not buy a DSLR and get it over with?
I think I do have partial answer - for me, DSLR in Canon or Nikon, neither make DSLRs with tilting LCDs, so, if you do really need (or want) a tilting LCD advanced digicam, this may be the sensible choice (especially after the Sony DSC-F828 has been discontinued)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/

[kei @ Jul 27th 2008 10:27PM]

This will be the perfect backup camera for dSLR owners if Fuji put less zoom (6x-8x) but use better optics and larger sensor. I just don't see how often the full 14.3x (400mm+ focal length) will be used; and when its not used the pictures are produced using optics that are compromised to fit the huge zoom. If I know focal length > 300mm will be used and quality is still a big concern, I would bring the dSLR with all proper equipment.

Entry level dSLRs are cheap these days but once you go beyond the kit lens things can get expensive; you will end up spending way more than $800 on a dSLR. The S100fs has "almost" all-in-one for $800 without the lens changing is still a good option for many people (dSLR owner or not) IMHO. Just that I do not agree with Fuji to have a huge zoom fit into the camera @ the cost of reduced image quality.

[Steven Tiegs @ Aug 4th 2008 5:30AM]

I'm currently looking for a camera for using during concerts at venues that don't allow "professional" (detachable lenses) cameras. I ALWAYS have good seats (first 15 rows) and love coming home with good pictures. I have read all of the posts here and understand the gripes about price compared to dSLR's and quality of lenses and sensor size and yaddah yaddah yaddah. Not every photographer does it for money, fame, glory (okay, maybe the glory). A lot of people want pictures they can display and say "I took that shot."

This camera is, according to the many reviews I've read, a quality machine that is more advanced than a lot of other cameras. There are cameras with smaller sensor area but higher zoom. There are cameras that are less expensive with comparable features. But I think that the key here is COMPROMISE.

If people are willing to purchase this camera for $800 then Fuji should charge that. If it's a good camera now, it still will be a good camera in a year when the price drops because they brought out a new model. I plan to continue to research non-dSLR cameras with similar specs to this, and wait until I find one that suits me for a price I'm willing to pay. I guess I have to compromise my time and money... oh, well... Can't have it all.

[hugh @ Aug 5th 2008 10:38PM]

My 2003 Fuji s5000 takes great images, but like G above, I have missed just too many shots because of the maddening shutter lag. From the samples I've seen, I think I can live with the 100fs' picture quality. The zoom capability is tremendous.

The deal breaker for me is the shutterlag. According to the numbers, not a bad as my 5000 but still there. For $750, (sd card and an extra battery) I will not continue to live with shutterlag!