S2 softness

[justinb]

Hello all,

Well, I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I've been in denial about this problem long enough. I find that I get too many photos (about 2 out of 3) that are unacceptably soft. As a matter of fact, the first thing I do when I download files to the computer is to sort them for sharpness, where I used to weed them out for composition and exposure errors.

At first, I thought my problems were only when trying to chase our 21 month old, which is a task for any AF system, but after having to redo a couple of landscape shoots, I realized something else might be amiss. I have spent the last couple evenings searching this and other forums for similar problems, and trying some of the test shoots that others have used to narrow down their problems.

What I have found is that I notice more problems at longer distances and with longer focal length lenses. I do not seem to have a back focus problem, in the test shots that I did, the area focused on is the sharpest portion of the photo, and I do not have a consistent focus problem. What finally narrowed the problem down was mounting my S2 on a sturdy tripod with a prime lens and taking repeated shots of objects at graduated distances within the frame. What I did was to focus on a particular object, take a picture, change focus sensors and focus on something at a different distance, then change back to the original sensor and take another picture. After following this process multiple times, and then reviewing the results on the computer, it confirmed what I was experiencing - about 1/3 -1/2 of the pictures I took were acceptably sharp.

The photos that have been soft have not been grossly out of focus, and appear to be reasonably sharp in the viewfinder when I take the picture, but are too soft to be corrected with USM.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I was hoping that someone else might have had this problem, and might be able to give me some more things to try before I send this back to Fuji for repair. I have not had good luck so far talking to a real person at Fuji Canada - any responses relating to experiences with Fuji Canada and turnaround times would be welcome as well.

Thanks in advance,

Justin

[justinb]

Thought I would try to beat the first couple of responses and post an example. This shot is typical, but not as bad as I have seen. My son was standing still for this shot which was taken with --

28-105mm Nikkor @ roughly 90mm
1/350 sec.
f 6.7
400 ISO

It has been downsized, with a levels adjustment, but no USM...what do you think?

Thanks again,

Justin

[LinhLe]

Dear Justin,

It's really fun whenever I try to imagine how the "test" was conducted with so litle information people put in their sharing about their "test".

As your info from the sharing, I could reproduct so many tests with diferent type of lens, diferent of mettering mode, ... and it should give me a lot of different answers.

The most common answer as I could guess is: You could not get the same focusing as the first shot for the second shot. Did you use the auto focus mode? If you did, your camera is normal.

Lính Lệ

[ballroom_boy]

I am about to take the plunge and upgrade my S1 to an S2... but all of this talk about softness scares me (the S1 produces nice, sharp photos). Maybe we should take a poll and see how widespread this is?

[justinb]

Hi Linh,

Thanks for your response, although I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. Different lenses may produce some differences in sharpness, but I am reasonably certain that different metering techniques will not.

As far as the tests that I did, with the camera firmly mounted on a tripod (and shooting a stationary object), what I did is take a picture with the focus on a designated object, then focus on something else, and finally return focus to the original subject and take another picture. If you do this three times in a row, you should end up with three identical pictures. In my case, time after time, I came up with one picture sharply in focus and two that were not.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that you should expect reproduceable results from an AF system. I certainly did on my S1 and my N80. Surely I had photos that were out of focus from time to time, particularly on moving objects, but I certainly did not have to throw away 60% of my photos for unacceptable sharpness.

If you have some advice for me, I would be happy to listen to it.

Justin

[justinb]

Hello Theo,

Thanks for your response. The picture that I attached was simply one of the easiest to access when I wrote the message to illustrate the problem, and while the toy slide looks sharp at the size in which it is attached, looking at the original it is not. The problem also exists when the camera is mounted on a solid tripod and the subject is stationary, and in the photos that I get that are soft, not only is the point of focus not sharp, neither is anything else in the photo.

Unfortunately, the problem that I am having is intermittent, kind of an unreliable AF. I also do get photos that are so sharp that it makes my eyes hurt - they just seem to get further and further apart in their occurence.

Even though photography has been a hobby off and on for 20 years, I would be more than willing to write this off as operator error, except for the fact that I did not have these problems with either my S1 or my N80.

Again, any advice is welcome.

Justin

[LinhLe]

Thank for yor response.

heheheh, I was right.
And I am also right about mettering modes too.

Lính Lệ

[sandman]

Theo's said just about everytning i was going to. the grass underneath the slide and the slide itself look sharp to me, but the boys head looks slightly out.. did you focus on the eyes?, first thing i learned about portraits .

There's a good piece by lightwrangler in ''lenses'' out sharpness, i'm going to put the sharpness on hard for a day ,and see if i can see any difference to my shots, not that i'm complaining about them , just an experiment.

Happy shooting
Sandman

[sandman]

Just had another thought, you said you have'nt used any USM . Unless you want the whole picture sharper, and i guess you don't, you would have to select or mask the head , and then apply the usm., that would make the whole pic look false.

A trick i learned when i had a picture i could not go back and take again, was to select the important bit of the picture , the bit you want to stand out, then inverse the selection, slightly blur the rest. then make another selection of the background and blur that a liitle more. it's an optical trick, you have'nt used any USM so theres no fringeing. but you've drawn the viewers eyes to the bit you want them to see.

Saying all this, i should have used the right Fstop and focal lengh to start with .

It's not the solution to your original sharpness problem i know , just a way to cheat if you have to.

Sorry about the spelling in my last post , didn't hit the keys hard enough, and it's early in the morning.

Happy shooting
Sandman

[Swampy]

Are you using Single or Dynamic focus mode? See page 37 of your S2 manual.

I know when I use Dynamic, I will have "soft" shots sometimes and I will also have different results from multiple shots of the same subject.

I normally use Single mode and choose from one of the 5 available points to focus on and I also usually have it set to the center point. Occasionally, I'll find the need to set it to one of the other points, particularly for action shots as well.

Before I got my Metz flash with auto focus assist, I would mostly use Dynamic mode for low light indoor shots with my Sigma 24-70mm because it would have a hard time focusing with the low light in single mode, but no problems with Dynamic.

Again, check page 37 and play around with those settings.

Looking at your sample pic, if that is the full frame, then the camera would most likely be looking at the top of the slide as the focus point which would leave you with your kid's face being slightly soft. Less aperture could fix this, or forcing an auto focus (using single mode) on your kids face, then moving the camera back to it's original place while having the focus locked would also work- and would be my choice of doing this shot.

[justinb]

Thanks all for the replies,

I am going to try to respond to the last three responses all at once so forgive me if I forget something. I posted the photo with out USM thinking that what I was trying to explain would show up a little easier. Generally, the photos that I get that are soft, are too soft to save with USM.

I, too, always aim for the eyes on a portrait, and in this case the right side sensor was selected. With the camera flipped for a vertical shot, this usually ends up being the closest sensor to the head. I focus on the eyes or the top of the cheek if there is not enough contrast from the eyes for the sensor...recompose slightly for composition, then take the shot.

I never have my camera set for dynamic focus, the things that I generally shoot would not require it, and I prefer to control which sensor to use myself. I also usually have the focus mode set to single, although I may try the continuous setting and see if I have better luck with this type of shot.

I don't worry so much about getting a lot of soft shots of my son, he moves pretty fast these days, so I expect to send a lot of them to the recycle bin. What bothers me is when I cannot get reproduceable focus on a stationary object with the camera mounted on a tripod.

Maybe I should not have attached the shot that I did, it seems to have taken this question off on a different tangent. My question is this, if you take 10 pictures of a stationary object (a large flat object with plenty of high contrast lettering on it), with the camera mounted on a tripod and refocusing for each shot - should you have to throw away 6-7 out of the ten shots because they are so soft that they are unsaveable with USM?

Also, if anyone here in the US has any experience - good or bad - dealing with the Fuji Canada repair department, I would be interested in hearing about it. When I purchased my camera, I did not worry about where the warranty service was. This was probably a mistake, but I have never had to send in a piece of Nikon equipment for any kind of service...warranty of otherwise.

Thanks again,

Justin

[ballroom_boy]

Hi Justin,

I live in Toronto, Canada and have the S1. I have visited the Fuji Canada service dept. once, and have obtained excellent service from them. I accidently "blew" a bunch of crap on my CCD when I was trying to clean it (a day before my vacation). I called Fuji service, they told me to bring it in right away, cleaned it on the spot, and didn't charge me (normally, CCD cleaning is $CA 60.00). With that kind of service, I will buy another camera from them.

I'm curious... I've heard about people buying their S2 from Canada and getting it serviced/replaced in the USA... are you not able to do that? Sounds (to me) like Fuji worldwide is a reasonable company. I wish Nikon up here in Canada was the same way... they have a reputation for being really arrogant (I have experienced it firsthand).

Best wishes to you, my friend!:)

[deluco]

Justin,
I've had S1's and and S2. The S2 is soft. Nothing can be done to correct it with the settings. Mine has been in the shop and they "adjusted focus", whatever that means. I think it's a problem with the image processing, not the focus...although the image does appear to be out of focus. It's just soft all over. Never tack sharp like the S1 images. I'm giving up on it.

[justinb]

Hi Roel,

I talked with Fuji USA and they told me that since I had a Canadian warranty card, I had to deal with Fuji Canada. The Canada tech support line number that came with the literature I received with my camera never rings. I've tried calling it about 15 times and all I get is a busy signal. Fuji USA gave me numbers for the repair centers in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. After holding 25 minutes with the center in Toronto, I was told that the person responsible for support and scheduling for the S2 had no direct dial number and that he would have to call me back. He never did.

I have not tried again, but probably will this week. Boy do I wish it was a toll free call.

Thanks,

Justin

[justinb]

Hi Jim,

I hope that you are wrong about the S2 in general ;), but I do know that, like yours, my S1 was sharp. It had some other deficiencies that made me upgrade to the S2, but it was sharp. Unfortunately, I really like the S2, and want it to work - hopefully I can get some helpful info from Fuji Canada.

Thanks,

Justin

[ballroom_boy]

Hi Justin,

Here is the toll free number I use to call Fujifilm in Toronto:

1-800-263-5018

Hopefully it works from the USA! Take care...

[Ron Green]

“What I have found is that I notice more problems at longer distances and with longer focal length lenses. I do not seem to have a back focus problem, in the test shots that I did, the area focused on is the sharpest portion of the photo, and I do not have a consistent focus problem.”

I think the only test of the sensor position is to shoot manual focus on a tripod with a known sharp lens at the prime aperture. Below is a photo taken this morning: f2.8 - 300mm Nikkor, S2, 800ISO, fine Jpeg, f8 @ 1/180. It is probably sharper than the same image on film, with much less grain. Film often is not perfectly flat.

Auto-focus (in particular with long lenses, and their shallow depth of field) can be problematic with all but the very latest lenses on the very best bodies (not the N80 based S2). And, good glass really does make a difference.

Not to say that there isn’t anything wrong with your camera. But, when in good working order, the Fuji S2 is capable of producing extraordinarily sharp images. I regularly make 16” x 20” photographic prints from Jpeg images that are sharper than similar film-based images created in the past with a Nikon F5.

[justinb]

Hi Ron,

I agree, I know that the camera is capable of sharp pictures. Attached is an example of what I consider to be an appropriately sharp photo. The problem is that I can't get consistent results - whether from a tripod or handheld.

As I stated earlier, I would be happy to write this problem off as operator error or technique...but I don't remember having these problems with my S1 or N80.

Justin

...Actually, looking at this picture after I posted it, it looks to be a little oversharpened - I guess I've gotten used to being a little heavyhanded with the USM:D

[justinb]

"Here is the toll free number I use to call Fujifilm in Toronto:

1-800-263-5018"

Thanks Roel,

I will try this number tomorrow when I have some time.

Justin

[sandman]

Sharpness looks O.K. to me , might be because the background is so blurred it makes the picture look like it,s in 3D. Great family snap.. one for the album.

[justinb]

By the way, for what it's worth to all of those who posted ideas on getting sharper pics...

I went out yesterday evening with my son and took a few dozen shots with the following changes.

-Removed the UV filter from my lenses
-Set the incamera sharpening to high
-set the focus mode to continuous rather than single, and
-bumped my usual f-stop in aperature priority from 5.6-6.7 to f8

End result is that this increased the quality of the keepers, but not the quantity. I guess what bugs me most at this point is the inconsistencies. If I was getting consistently soft shots, I would find a way to deal with it or, send the camera in for repair. I am just afraid that if I send the camera in for intermittant problems, they won't get found or addressed - and I will simply be out of a camera for awhile, not to mention the expense of shipping it to Canada.

Oh well, I guess I will just keep playing with it until I come up with a better explanation...or the problem gets worse.

Justin

[pauly99]

Justin, I've been discussing your/um er my quandry on a different forum. Here is the link for my question and answers that were posted within the past week.

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID75/162.html

I was also told to check out the following site for some very
sharp pics taken with the S2.

http://nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID40/3719.html

Well, I've been trying to do the same tests that you have. After having come from the N80, the S2 makes it so easy to pick up the camera and take pictures while fully knowing that if the images do not come out right that you can quickly delete them off the card or software. Sometimes I notice that I rather quickly pick up the camera and snap a few pics of a flower (closeups) at say f6.7 and end up wondering at first glance of the image why it seems a little soft and out of focus. I realize that I would have been better off to put the camera on the tripod and shoot at f16.

I own the 28-105 Nikkor and it takes some wonderful pics. Although lately I have been noticing that my friends 35-70 2.8 Nikkor is a tad sharper. My 80-200 2.8 Tokina takes some fine pictures but his 80-200 2.8 Nikkor is again sharper. When I start to throw the Kenko 2X on the 80-200 Tokina (for some baseball pics), you really start to see the degradation in the end result.

In the end, I think that it would serve both of us better to steady the camera (use the tripod more), possibly use the in-camera hard sharpening setting, and take on a 2nd and 3rd job so that we can afford the 300 2.8's and fantastic macro/micro's that Nikkor offers.

One last thing. The reason why I speak about buying better glass (for both of us) is that at one time my hobby was in the hi-fidelity arena. I learned that if you spent $1500 on an amplifier, $1000 on a pre-amp and $500 on a tuner, you damn well better not buy $200 speakers. I learned that lesson the hard way and then turned around and spent a ton on speakers.

Doh, we just bought a $2000+ camera. Maybe we now have to buy the glass.

[Swampy]

I can sympathize with you Pauly... I have 4 (used to be 5) major hobbies and it pays to do your research on all of them fully before jumping into each one or you'll dissapoint yourself with your end results. I'm in a car club for my car, home theater, Camera and computers. Each one I have jumped into, except computers, and each one I did my research and watched my friends not do the research. I learned a long time ago from my dad to do research first, as painful as the wait may be, you'll thank yourself.

Recent research finds this year- Almost spend $15k on a projector, found a $13k projector that is much better, and I found a deal on it for $8k. Looking back at the $15k one, I would have been really pissed if I got that one.

There are a lot of great people here, and they're (we're) all more than happy to share most of our secrets and finds. That's how I ended up with the S2, the Metz 54, Nikkor 60mm and 70-200VR, extremely happy, and my buddy is "stuck" with a D100, Nikkor 28-200mm, Sb-80 and really mad at himself when we compare pictures. (I let him shoot mine at the same time as his one day, so he got to see direct results from himself, for himself).

Anyway, enough of life lessons learned... I gotta get back to my car club's chat site. heheheh.

[Tom Nolle]

When I first got my S2 in August of last year, I had some major sharpness problems. Looking into the sources, what I found was that they didn't really relate to the camera at all.

Problem number one was that I had crummy lenses, or at least some of them were crummy. I ended up tossing everything except my Sigma 500mm (which was, and is, very sharp). I got three new Sigmas, a 24-70, a 70-200, and a 180 macro, all EX lenses.

Problem number two was that I was forgetting the focal multiplier. I'd been used to hand-holding 200mm lenses on film cameras, but that lens on the S2 is a 300mm lens. I've either got to get the shutter speed higher (reducing depth of field and exacerbating sharpness problems of a different sort) or use a support. That drove me to get rid of my old Slik tripod in favor of a Gitzo 1227, and recently to get the Bogen monopod with the little stabilizing legs.

All of this worked with everything but the 24-70mm Sigma, which still showed annoying "sharpness" problems. I've finally decided that it's not so much that the lens isn't sharp as it is that the lens is very difficult to focus correctly. If I simply figure the hyperfocal distance and manually focus, I'm a lot happier with the shots with this lens. I guess the focus sensor is just too big relative to wide-angle image size and I'm not really always getting the target on what I intend to focus on.

Tom

[pauly99]

Tom, I take it you enjoy your Sigma's? I shoot quite a bit baseball and hockey pictures and need a crisp(er) lens than what I currently own. My Tokina 80-200 2.8 does the job but I know it is lacking in sharpness when compared to the Nikkor version of the 80-200 2.8. What do you think of your 70-200?

[Tom Nolle]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 EX, and it's absolutely my favorite lens. It's very sharp alone, darn good with a 1.4x Sigma TC, and even with a 2x teleconverter it's better than *any* of my old lenses. I did have an "infant mortality" problem with it in Yellowstone in Jan. It started having a metering problem that impacted my ability to use it there, but I sent it back and they fixed it, and I used in British Columbia in May. A number of other members of this forum have also remarked on how sharp it was. If you had to get one lens for outdoor shots with the S2, that would be my choice.

Tom

[Andre]

Originally posted by Tom Nolle
I have the 70-200 f2.8 EX, and it's absolutely my favorite lens. It's very sharp alone, darn good with a 1.4x Sigma TC, and even with a 2x teleconverter it's better than *any* of my old lenses. I did have an "infant mortality" problem with it in Yellowstone in Jan. It started having a metering problem that impacted my ability to use it there, but I sent it back and they fixed it, and I used in British Columbia in May. A number of other members of this forum have also remarked on how sharp it was. If you had to get one lens for outdoor shots with the S2, that would be my choice.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I have soft images, and am thinking it's my (semi-cheap) lenses. Do you have any sample images you could post using this lens? I would for once like to get myself a really sharp lens.
Thanks
Andre

[Tom Nolle]

I have some shots on my website:

http://www.cimicorp.com/DI/DINavDI.html

follow the "British Columbia" links. The only problem is that the shots are mixed among my lenses, so you'd have to look at the EXIF data to see what's what.

If you go to my Yellowstone shots in the same link, there are some dogsledding pictures at the front; those are all taken with the lens.

Tom

[Andre]

Looks like the EXIF data has been lost in PS.

Spectacular shots though.

I think it is time to spend some real money on lenses.

Thanks

[justinb]

Hi Pauly,

Actually, I had already been following your thread on Nikonians. Just lurking in the background. The shot that you posted and the shot that was reposted with USM added were similar to what I experienced. The shots that I get that are soft are too soft to be fully corrected with USM.

Unfortunately, I get these just as often when the camera is on a tripod as I do when they are handheld. The problem seems to be intermittant and related to the AF not locking on.

I use all of the same lenses that I owned when I was shooting with my S1 and N80, and never had any of these problems. I have handheld the S2 with my AF 180 2.8, and gotten spectacular results down to 1/90 of a second, so I know what the camera (and at least, on some days, the operator) is capable of.

I have been playing around with a variety of things, trying to figure out a solution before sending this camera off for service.

Thanks,

Justin

[justinb]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I keep hoping that this is a learning curve of some sort... I just wonder why it wasn't evident with my S1. My hope is that I can find a way to chalk this up to user error of some sort, because I really like this camera overall.

I can tell you, the keepers that I do get are incredible. The picture that I posted about halfway thru this thread is the first one that I printed on our new HP1220, and it made for an absolutely tack sharp 11X15 print. Taking into account the lack of grain, it is far sharper than anything I have printed from 35mm stock.

Justin

[Wichita Wayne]

You might try to shoot with a couple of prime lenses to see if you still have trouble. I have noticed that my zom lenses do not perform as well as my prime lenses. I use the 60mm Macro f-2.8 or the 50mm f-1.8 when I need really sharp pictures. I usually set the camera to Org, Org, Hard and set the focus point by holding down the release half way just prior to framing. This works for me and usually makes a sharp picture. I shoot weddings on the weekend and use the 28-200 a lot. It has not received the most glowing of reviews but wedding photographers with film or digital seem to love it. I know I do. It provides good quality for the photo journalism style that is currently popular. And a monopod helps hold it all steady. We could also get together and do a side by side comparison with my S2 and yours to help determine whether or not it is technique or equipment. We could mount both cameras on a single trypod with the same settings and see if there is any difference in the shots.

[pauly99]

Wayne, I am going to try to work with the settings.. using hard sharp and see if that
makes a difference. Other than that, I believe
that I will be upgrading my Tokina 80-200 2.8 (old Tokina lens) to a Nikon 80-200 2.8 or the new Sigma 70-200. It's amazing. I was congratulated on taking some pics (baseball) recently for a high school scrapbook where the parents that took pics of the same games remarked how much better (crisper and closer) my pics turned out.
I know different by some of the pics that I have worked with in Photoshop and can see the lack of crispness. Maybe I'll also take your idea and
go to the local camera shop with my camera in hand and snap a couple of pics with one or two prime lenses and see how they turn out.

[justinb]

Thanks Wayne,

I have done shots with my AF180, which is the sharpest lens I own, and have the same hit and miss results. I have been leaving the in camera sharpening on hard - same as you, and have been experimenting with some other options as well.

If I run out of ideas, I may just take you up on your offer of a comparison before sending the camera back to Fuji.

Thanks,

Justin

[HairyHaggis]

I have been following this post with interest in the background but have also been having the same problems, and am following the same path as upgrading my lenses etc ... but here is a copy of the mails that I received from Fuji UK, that I think might interest you. They are numbered as they arrived at me :-

1)The issue of 'sharpness' on the S2 discussed by many photographers is unfortunately a misunderstanding on their part. The S2 has been designed, on the advice of professional photographers, to produce an unsharp image which when corrected via post production gives a very sharp image. With regards to the recall of S2 due to battery problems, the numbers involved are very small. More information on the battery issue can be found on our website. From Mark Prentice, Fuji UK

2)I had attached an article regarding S2 and sharpening of images in Photoshop, You are making reference to EX HS-Software, you do not need this software to sharpen images. You don't need anything else except any version of Photoshop / Elements to get razor-sharp images from the S2

If you have spoken with professional photographers who are using digital cameras , they will explain that to have the ability to sharpen images to various degrees depending on the output size and output device (printer) is essential to getting the best from a digital file.

Fuji Tokyo had globally surveyed S1 users and the general opinion was that S1 images were fantastic straight from the camera for example weddings, portraits etc. but were on the contrasty side for other types of work commercial, product shots, etc. As all digital photography is a compromise, an image that can be enhanced to the requirements of the individual user was set as the standard (sharpening off) on the S2. You must understand that sharpening is resolution dependent. so what may be sharp for one size file is less or more sharp for another file size. All digital cameras produce a soft images how they are sharpened is up to the user and his preferences. Example Charles Green who uses S2 at the investitures at Buckingham Palace sets his cameras on hard sharpening, Chris Preasall who shoots for Marks and Spencers set his on off and uses photoshop.


All CCD's are made individually so they will have different characteristics no CCD is perfect, you must understand the product to get the best from it.
- Colin Ricardo Fuji UK

Hope this helps to give you some insight to the problems you are experiencing.

:(

[KeithM]

One other thing which may or may not be relevent... the S2 user manual mentions that when focusing manually using the 'dot' indicator in the viewfinder, the dot will remain lit over a small range of focus movement ( to avoid flickering ! ) - to get an accurate focus, you need to rock focus until you think you've focussed into the middle of the 'dot on' range. If you only move focus towards the correct focus point until the dot is lit, you will end up focussed slightly behind or in front.

Would this error be enough to show up as softness at the desired point of focus and would the autofocus make a 'similar' error ??

K.

[izzy]

I have read all the postings in this thread and if I wasn't convinced before, I am now.
The S2 (at least mine) has focusing problems.
I have tested it with 4 different lenses and I get this motion-blurr-like thing happening in about 75% of my shots.
I normally shoot with a F100 and F90 and the soft focus ratio when shooting with those is 2% to 3%.
I use a Nikor AF-S 28-70 1:2.8 D, a Nikkor 20 1:2.8 D and a Nikkor 35-70 1:2.8 D.
I have tested the camera mounted on a tripod, with all the settings on manual (Including focus), using studio lights against a white background and almost all of my photos have a soft focus problem.

I think that I will have the camera looked at by a Fuji technician, but if the problem persists, I am more than ready to spend the extra $2000 CND and get me the D1X (which I have used and has never given me focusing problems)

I have attached part of a photo I just took of my son using my 28-70 and you will see aht I mean.

[Andre]

Izzy,

Get them to fix that dead pixel while they're at it (near Spiderman's chin).

[Rockett8]

Justinb
Have you tried the Function-Hard, mode? I noticed similar photos with my S2. I thought it was my focusing. I hear the S2 does this a bit (softened images, as the S1 was quite sharp and this was a happy medium) Personally, I don't mind the soft look, but it doesn't help the guy wanting clean high res. images to start with. Just switch into the "Hard" mode and see what you think.
Rockett8

[Wichita Wayne]

I am an old Hasselblad user so sharpness with digital was a big issue with me. But somebody convinced me to stick with it and shoot a lot of pictures. Finally at some point I just seemed to get it and everything fell into place with me. Now I may convert completely to digital. It still won't match my Hasselblads but it is more than adequate to meet my needs. And if I really want that old Hasselblad sharpness then I just use one of my old Hasselblads. Stick with the S2 and take a lot of practice pictures and you will be surprised at how quick you reach proficiency.

[Swampy]

yeah, it only took me about 1100 frames with my FIRST S2 before I got it. The second S2 that is. And now I'm obviously shooting sharp pictures (USM'ed in Photoshop, but sharp none the less). Don't get me wrong, your camera may be fine and it may be just the settings you are using or something odd. I noticed that my when shooting with my 1st S2, I was very unhappy, and then I played around with matrix/spot focusing, closest object, etc. and found settings that were better, but still not to my liking. I did extensive tests and prints to finally prove that my 1st camera did have a problem and it was replaced by Ritz Camera and I all of a sudden began shooting sharp.

If you need some test Idea's, let me know and I'll share some of the things I tried (what I remember I tried anyway).

[Rockett8]

Smunky, sorry to hear of your frustration. I went through the same ordeal but this has seemed to pass quickly.I'll try to post a shot that is typical of mylevel of expertise. I hope this shows an example of the sharpness that can be had with the S2. The photo was shot at 2304x1536 at the fine setting at ASA 100. So this was a rather low res. picture.

[Rockett8]

Smunky, sorry to hear of your frustration. I went through the same ordeal but this has seemed to pass quickly.I'll try to post a shot that is typical of mylevel of expertise. I hope this shows an example of the sharpness that can be had with the S2. The photo was shot at 2304x1536 at the fine setting at ASA 100. So this was a rather low res. picture. Woops, no photo.

[pauly99]

Smunky, I too had many initial problems with sharpness right out of the box with the S2. Some I correlate with a crappy lens but others was my sheer lack of knowledge of how the S2 works.

In the end, I was given some very solid advice when it comes to sharpening pics. I do use hard sharpening on most pics on the camera setting and use Photoshop's unsharp mask of
49%, Radius .7 pixels, and Threshold 0. When using these settings, I often hit Control-F once, twice, or three times to get the sharpening effect that I am after. Of course the sharpening only is used (the very last touchup) after changing the levels to the specifications I am looking for, adjusting color to my liking (if necessary) and cropping the pic to a 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10.

[izzy]

Thank you all for the responses and suggestions. I have been shooting quite a bit using different modes and settings, and I still can't obtain sharp enough images.
I took this photo today a little after sunrise using my 20mm nikkor and I'm not happy at all.
Andre, thanks for pointing out the dead pixel, I just noticed it too.
I have to finish a project I'm shooting and in the next few days I will send my camera to fuji to have it fixed. The sad part of it is that it will take a while and I really use it quite often, hopefully they will give me a loaner (but I doubt it)...

[puglover]

I have been meaning to get here and post this for over a week - I met a wedding photographer using an S2 and he gave me the most valuable tip that I cannot believe the people at Fuji didn't have the knowledge to share...

I have been experiencing extremely frustrating softness problems with my S2 - so much so that I sent my first one back - and they replaced it. Then, same problems. I had pretty much figured out on my own that the problem was this "predictive motion tracking" that the camera has - and there is only one sentence about it in the manual and there doesn't seem to be an option to turn it off.

WELL, this photographer asked me if I knew about using the AE/AF lock button to auto focus the camera and I was very interested. He showed me, and here is the tip:

In the custom menu change the AE/AF function (custom setting #9) to "AF OPERATION". Then you use the "AE-L/AF-L" button to focus. This button locks the focus until you press the shutter. The problem I was having is because I always use the center focus point to focus the shot and then recompose - well, this predictive motion tracking BS moves the focus most of the time to whatever is in the center point after the shot is recomposed. I use shallow DOF's most of the time so for me, this is critical. So, my focus was almost always off.

This new way of focusing takes a little getting used to but it is so well worth it - I was ready to throw the camera in the trash! Fuji should inform people about this - and recommend this method. When I mentioned the predictive motion tracking to them the rep acted as if it was the first time he had ever heard of it! Maybe it was, who knows.

Also, I have turned the sharpness setting to "OFF" - I do all my sharpening in Photoshop and that seems to give me better results. I am so much happier with the camera now, so I hope this post can help others breathe easier.

Diana:p

[pauly99]

Diana, Whoa. Never heard that before but is sounds great. Would the custom 9 (AF operation) method work for sports photography or action that is constantly moving?

[puglover]

well, i think the predictive motion tracking function of the camera could be beneficial but only in the sports or fast action area (and if you stick to the focus point you have selected without recomposing, and this is key) - and as long as you aren't dealing with a really shallow DOF... but absolutely, if you are sure you hit your mark on focus and can press the AF-L button and then the shutter fast enough it would work great. I do a lot of portrait photography and work in low light with very shallow DOF's - so even the slightest movement on the auto focus was causing me to miss the mark. I would focus on the person's eyes and the recompose and the camera would adjust and end up making the focus of the image the person's hand or something...because the focus won't stay locked. This AF lock function in the custom menu solves that problem by making sure the focus stays locked.

[pauly99]

but if you were outside, did a portrait setup in the shade, and the sun poked through the clouds on to your subject then the
AE-L/AF-L would not lock in the correct exposure settings? Correct?

[puglover]

as far as i know that is true - but i really use the AE lock feature...the focus was my big issue so I was willing to give up anything else to get that to work! so, yes - you have to sacrifice the AE lock capability - just use spot metering i suppose...

[sandman]

you can still use the shutter button to lock exposure ,just move your thumb onto the A/F button and lock that as well , it takes a bit of time to master it, but it does work, i found out about the A/F custom button from my F80, so it was one of the first changes i made when i got the S2, trouble with using the shutter to lock both exposure and focus ,is that there not always on the same plane , i sometimes take my exposure from a neutral colour, grass , the pavement, anything mid grey (in B&W), great for exposure ,but you've only set the focus at 8 ft or whatever, i set the focus first on the shutter, then expose for the sky, the land, whatever, hold that on the custom A/F, then re-compose (without moving either button) and shoot. in the custom menu you can set that button for whatever you like.
i found that this worked for me on the F80 , and so far on the S2.

[puglover]

How are you getting the shutter to lock the focus though? I couldn't make it do it consistently, that was the problem - atleast half of the time it would move...

[sandman]

not sure what you mean? if you half depress the shutter button it locks the focus, just don't move your finger, then use your thumb to lock the A/F button , try this ............... lock the focus ,then wave the camera around ,you'll see the exposure values change in the top view finder. now hold down the custom A/F Button( after you've set it to A/E lock only in the custom settings). and you'll find nothing changes

[puglover]

You might not have read my earlier posts - I have had a problem with this 'predictive motion tracking' function of the camera - i press down the shutter halfway to lock the focus and then recompose - and the focus moves - apparently 'predicting movement'... I met a photographer with the S2 who solved this problem by using the AF operation in the custom settings and then using the AE-L/AF-L button to auto focus. This solves the problem of the focus not staying put.

[sandman]

Sorry i thought your first question was too simple, i just don't have a problem with focus. it stays locked . i shoot with closest subject disabled and single shot mode , as i just take landscapes mainly ,thats all i need. but i've tried other kinds of shots too ,without problems. It could just be you've got one of those early models which seem to have given so many problems.
I only posted my remarks about the A/F.A/E. lock button because i've used it for a long time without a hitch. but it seems it's not the miracle cure for you.

[puglover]

I have already sent mine back once and had it replaced...this has been the solution for the second one so far (the AF operation function)... with landscapes it shouldn't cause too many problems, but shallow DOF portraits it has been murder! :) I don't know if this second one is faulty or not - but i am satisfied with the results now that i have been using this new focusing method. thanks for your comments.

[sandman]

I was going to post this just to make 1000 views ,but i've been beaten to it. have a look under PHOTO'S, then 'border collie lovers, i've put a pic of my dog, (skip) taken on a 50mm nikon 1.8@ 1.8 for a shallow depth of field ,and using natural light, handheld.

[smunky]

I just want to say that with the help of Swampy and my local camera shop guy I figured out the softness I was getting was no fault of the camera. It was the shooter! Seems I was acting a little nervous when shooting my new toy and not holding properly. With the help of these two guys I have straightened up and now fly right. No more sharpness issues, its as sharp as a tack.

[puglover]

you'd have to send me a link to that pic - i have only explored the problems forum on this site - tried to find it but got good and lost :)

[sandman]

http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1562

[easternherp]

Just looked at the border collie and I wouldn't be too impressed about sharpness. On screen it looks a bit soft. I would guess it is a bit of camera shake.

[ghawk]

I've used the S2 for about 3 or 4 weeks now. I'm a professional portrait and wedding photographer and sharpness is an issue in everything I do. I used the camera the other day on an engagement shoot and I found that just about every image shot slower than 1/125th was almost too soft to use. I used the camera hand-held (something I never did with a Hasselblad but do with 35mm). I have used an N80 for B&W wedding photos and it's prone to shake because of its weight (or lack thereof).

I think that most focusing problems are actually camera shake. I'm doing tests to try to eliminate this problem before I take it to a wedding. I shot some b&w infrared yesterday and the photos at 1/125th are fine while those shot at 1/90 or 1/60 are soft - using a 24mm 2.8 lens.

The shots in the studio are wonderful but outside shots are still problematic. I'm going to do more tests with the camera on a stroboframe and tripod and I'll post the results.

[SteveH]

As a new owner of the S2 I'm interested to read these postings about image softness.
I originally tried a Canon 10D and took it back to the store because of this problem - very soft images - and was told that it was designed to be sharpened in PS etc. The S2 was better by comparsion but still a little soft.
Try downloading sample Canon images from the 300D from the Canon site for comparison
www.canon-europe.com (http://www.canon-europe.com)
navigate to the 300D section and look for sample images. At least it gives a bench mark for comparison purposes.

But for sharp prints directly from the camera I use my Olympus E20 - no extra sharpening needed at least up to 7 x 5 pics and produces good results up to A3.

[puglover]

I would be interested in knowing what the camera tech guys thought you were doing wrong - was it a camera shake issue? Since so many people have had such a problem with soft images and the S2 i have a hard time believing it could be so simple to solve... if it was for you i would love to hear about it!

[Wichita Wayne]

There is a lot of concern about softness in DSLRs that could be the result of technique rather than equipment fault. Check your technique first and see if you are doing one of the things that leads to fuzzy pictures.

1. Are you shooting at a shutter speed lower than the focal length of the lens. This is common with todays zooms. A big lens can also be a little heavy and unstable. If you are you shooting with a big zoom lens set to 200mm with a shutter speed of 60, then you might have trouble holding the thing still? Run some tests with the camera on and off of a good tripod.

2. Are you using a bad lens? Test the camera with a prime lens that you know is sharp, like the Nikkor 50mm F-1.8D or the 60mm F-2.8D Macro. Again, run your tests with a tripod. Notice I did not say cheap lens, I said bad lens. There are a lot of cheap lenses that take sharp pictures. You can also test your lenses with another camera to see if it produces sharp pictures. Be sure to look into the lens when you release the shutter to see if it is actually stoping down properly. If your lens is bad then send it for repair or replace it.

3. Are you using a low numbered F-stop that limits your depth of field. Shoot some of the tests with the prime lens set to F-8 and higher so that your depth of field is increased. Also shoot at things in the distance because depth of field increases as the focus distance increases.

4. Try shooting with the "sharpning" at different levels then see if the "Unsharp Mask" function in Photoshop brings you to an acceptable level. Sharpning can add noise and increase the file size if you let the camera do it for you. Adding the sharpness with software can give you more control and lets you see the results as you work. When I shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 I have noticed that the pictures are much better with the sharpening OFF on the camera and applied with software in the computer. Once you add sharpening to a picture you cannot remove it and get good results. So it is better to start with none and add it to the file yourself. Again, running tests will help you to refine your technique.

5. Is your subject holding still? This may sound sillly but when you shoot a landscape and the wind is blowing you might try increasing your shutter speed to stop the motion of the leaves in the wind.

6. If you do all the above and still get fuzzy shots then try manual focus with the above tests and see if that improves things. If it does then send it back to Fuji for adjustment, and if it doesn't then also send it back to Fuji for adjudtment and tell them your whole storie.

This might seem like some pretty elimentary stuff but when I moved from medium format with prime lenses to a DSLR with a big zoom lens I had to change my ways to get sharp focus. Hope this helps to pinpoint the trouble.

[Swampy]

I had her put her camera on a tripod which the resulting pictures were sharp. I don't know exactly what she did (valium, smoking weed before shooting, ?), but she apparently relaxed finally and with that, started shooting sharper pictures.

[justinb]

Well,

I guess since I started this thread, I might as well post a reply as to some of my findings. ;)

First of all, thanks to Wayne for meeting with me to do a side by side comparison of his camera and mine. This helped me rule a major problem with the body.

75% of my problem ended up being the lens that I was using. I guess maybe I had a hard time admitting it since it was the same lens that I had used most of the time with my N80 and S1 without any focusing problems. Whether the lens developed a problem or just had some type of interface problem with this body, I don't know. Replacing this zoom with an 85mm prime for the shots I use it for made a world of difference.

The remaining 25% can be written of to technique, and in some cases, getting used to this particular camera. For instance, in low light situations, even shade on a sunny day, my S2 hunts and sometimes has inaccurate focus. My N80 would hunt, but when it locked, it was in focus. The AF sensors on this camera also seem a little more finicky when it comes to needing a hard edge to focus on - on a portrait, for example, even placing the sensor on the edge of a persons cheek won't guarantee accurate focus. Lastly, learning to trust the continuous AF setting did wonders for chasing our two-year-old around.

All in all, I'm willing to trade my zoom for a prime if it means sharper photos, and I am thrilled not to have to send the body back to Fuji for adjustment.

Justin

[Swampy]

You met with Wayne?! Did you get to try any of his famous BBQ?

Work on your technique and I think you'll find that your Zooms will do much better than you've experienced so far.

[LinhLe]

Thank you Wayne,
For very helpful sharing

Lính Lệ

[ghawk]

I've shot this camera every way possible - tripod w/ cable release, hand-held, f/11, f/8, f/2.8 (etc.), good glass, cheap glass, auto-focus, manual focus and every shutter speed known to man. I'm a professional portrait and wedding photographer and have been so for 23 yrs. I think that there's an optical issue with camera-to-subject distance and the sensor - at some focal points camera will not be sharp because of its inability to focus the lenses (that are presently available) onto the sensor. The lenses available are designed for film cameras. I think that Fuji needs to do research in this area and resolve this issue.

Most group photographs taken from 15 or 20 feet away aren't sharp no matter what you do. Just read all the threads on various pro photography boards. They are full of threads about "back focusing" and the sort. I suspect that auto focus is not the culprit but a problem that's inherent with digital cameras.

[Wichita Wayne]

If you have done all of that then send it to Fuji and have it repaired. You don't want to own a defective camera and Fuji does not want you to have a defective camera. Just don't let the warrenty expire before you contact them. Be sure to check with the place where you bought it. I bought mine from a local camera store and they will provide me a loaner while mine is at Fuji.

[ghawk]

Wayne,

The camera is extremely sharp on closer-up subjects. I don't think that I have a defective camera. My single-subject portraits are magnificent with this camera - I just got a 30x40 back from the lab that's as good as one with my Hasselblad. Far-off people aren't as sharp and I hear this over and over - like a broken record - from lots of people. I have a friend who shoots everything with an S2 except family group portraits because the camera won't work as well as film on groups. I'm convinced that there is an optical problem with existing lenses at certain distances. Eventually someone will come with a series of lenses made specifically for digital cameras - I'm no scientist, but I believe that the digital sensor records light waves with different characteristics than film records them. Our studio does around 140 weddings a year and we have to be consistent - so far, my groups shot with this camera aren't up to our standards.

[Wichita Wayne]

If the S2 is not up to your standards then replace it. Right now you sound like you're snake-bit, and no matter what the camera does you will not have confidence in it. When that happens it is time to change. I for one still love the ease of use and the quality that I get with my Hasselblads. I cannot match it with the digital yet and I hope it is just a blip back up the learning curve, but only time will tell. I also truely love the simplicity of the digital work flow, and it is so dry.

[ghawk]

If the S2 is not up to your standards then replace it. Right now you sound like you're snake-bit, and no matter what the camera does you will not have confidence in it.

Wayne, did you read this?
The camera is extremely sharp on closer-up subjects. I don't think that I have a defective camera. My single-subject portraits are magnificent with this camera - I just got a 30x40 back from the lab that's as good as one with my Hasselblad.

I like the camera - I just want some issues with it resolved - I'M NOT TAKING MY TOYS AND GOING HOME AS YOU SUGGEST.

In my business, digital IS the future (film users PROBABLY won't be able to compete in a short while) and I want it to be the best that it can be....I won't settle for less.

Greg

[Wichita Wayne]

And I am also not saying that you should give up on digital. All I am saying is that if you are not happy with your camera then look for some alternatives.

I once bought a couple of Bronica's from a friend going out of the photography business. We had always used Hasselblads but these S2a Bronicas seemed to be great cameras, and the pictures they took were great. After a year of using them I couldn't get rid of them fast enough. With the dark slide ajar you could take a whole back's worth of film without getting a single shot on film. And the film backs constantly broke down without any warning. A dead battery caused me to have exposure problems durning a whole wedding. Than goodness we always double shoot with a second camera. After all that I was snake-bit when it came to Bronicas. I will probably never consider owning one again. It was back to Hasselblad for me. But does Bronica make bad cameras. Not at all. They were just not going to work with me.

You have been a pro for a lot of years and the change to digital should not be that hard. The answer to your digital problem might be a D1 or D2 series Nikon or one of the new Canons. In other words if you are not happy look around. You might find that dream camera that is a perfect fit for you personally.

[puglover]

I felt my blood pressure rising as I read Wayne's posts.

I have the same experience with the S2 as ghawk and it is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. I too shoot weddings and it is really a problem not to be able to trust your camera. Wayne, I searched high and low for an answer to the softness issure with this camera, sent it back once and they sent me a new one. Same problem. What is the most frustrating is that as I asked questions, trying to find an answer for the issue - so many other photographers almost talked down to me, as if I just didn't know what I was doing and the problem must be user error. I knew that something was wrong with the camera. The funny thing is that one of those photographers who made me feel like i didn't know how to work a camera led me to this site - and here I discovered other people having the same issues with the S2.

My S2 can create very sharp images - but mostly it creates unacceptably soft ones.

What ghawk said about images coming out sharp when the focusing distance is short is very true - studio portraits - no problem. Outdoor closeups, no problem. If I try to focus on a subject more than a few feet away - that's where the problem starts. Group portraits - not a chance. Very fast shutter, slow shutter - large aperture, small aperture, high ISO or low....doesn't make a difference. There seems to be no method to the madness.

I LOVE digital, and I don't want to give up. I have never had a problem like this with a camera before - I have to assume that something went wrong along the way with the S2. Too many people are experiencing the same problems - and these people are pros who have shot for decades. And not only that, but people who are very digitally minded and have used numerous pro digital cameras and have experienced softness issues with the S2 that they have not experienced with other digital cameras. It just bothers me, as one of these people dealing with this frustrating camera that others on this site would assume that we don't know what we are doing or that we haven't bothered to read the manual! I have read the manual - many, many times - and thoroughly. I assure you that if I have not mastered this camera it is not from a lack of trying.

If there are people on this site who are not experiencing this problem of softness at longer focal lengths I would love to hear about it. It would be interesting to know if some of the S2's work fine focusing at distances.

Sorry I got a little worked up there - but I am at my wits end with this camera - and a few of these posts just rubbed me the wrong way.;)

[Swampy]

I'm not having much problem at long distances. I mean, sure, if I try and take a picture of small backlit subject with a short lens of 24-70mm, I get a little soft. But, I'll attribute that to the fact that I really don't shoot many shots of those and I haven't learned how to do it properly.

Other than that, I don't have softness problems at further distances. Here's a thread from my 50-500mm The Hawk is 65 or so feet away. The Night shot of the lake, that's 3/8's of a mile at least, if not 1/2mile away...
http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452

Even midrange distances were fine for me with an 80-200mm.
http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1445

[puglover]

Ok, I am going to do my best to post some examples that will show you what I am talking about. These are just snapshots (I think that will be obvious :)) to give you an idea. This one is a group shot I took the other day at a friends shower. It was the middle of the day (2pm) as you can probably tell by the shadows. The specs were:Nikkor 50mm 1.4, 1/500, ISO 200, F 6.7 - matrix metering, no flash. I focused on the front two women of which I am including a cropped version so you can see the lack of focus. This happens with almost all of my group shots - with flash it is better - but the flash (SB80DX) is so unpredictable I hate to use it! I will post more examples in a minute that I just took - if anyone has any answers I am desperate. I am about to send it back for the second time since the warranty is up in November...

[puglover]

Here it is a little closer in....

[puglover]

Here is one of my roommate's pug... I am trying to show that at far distances the camera has trouble. I very locked the focus on her back, the specs: Again, Nikkor 50mm 1.4, F 2.8, Matrix metering, 1/1500, ISO 160. I should have used center-weighted metering I realize...i'll explain my problems with exposure at another time - one issue at a time :)

[puglover]

And since I know that is really small, here is the crop. I just wanted you to see the original directly out of the camera first. Also, with all of these - I turn sharpness off. However, even with it on it makes little difference. The focus is still too soft to use...

[puglover]

This is the final one...I just want everyone to get a real feel for what my issue is - and i think pictures are the only way to get the point across. I focused on the very center of this flower. Using the center focus point (as I did with all of these images and always do) I then recomposed, focus locked (supposedly). Notice that the only thing somewhat sharp is the vine at the top of the frame - not the center of the flower. Specs same as above: 50mm 1.4, F 2.8, ISO 160, 1/500 sec... matrix. Notice it blew out the highlights, which is pretty consistent with what always happens. AND, i tested to be sure that the flower was within focusing range - put my finger infront of the flower and the focus locked in on it just fine. I have the camera in single servo AF mode - closest subject priority is turned off, always is.

[puglover]

And finally - here is a crop of a portrait I did this week - focus fine.
Specs: Nikkor 50mm 1.4, F 8, ISO 160, Matrix, 1/60 sec. Diffused SB80DX and two strobes...

[puglover]

Thanks for replying, and I know the light can be fixed in photoshop - believe I am spending 8 to 12 hours a day editing right now I have so many shoots - but it shouldn't come out of the camera like this. And the softness is bad - this one wouldn't even be acceptable as a 4x6 - or web use in my opinion... but i have to blow things up to 8x10, 11x14 and this softness causes me to have to trash a majority of my images.

[puglover]

The flower shot - no wind whatsoever - and the shutter was 1/500 of a second - shake shouldn't be a problem - and no, no tripod - my point with that image was that at the edge of the frame the vine is in focus - however I focused on the middle of the flower.

As far as snapshots go - the point is this: even a snapshot from an amateur - shouldn't come out like this - harsh shadows or not, the image is not in focus. Why? I can't find a reason for it, can you?

A point and shoot disposable could do better than that.

[LinhLe]

Another version

Lính Lệ

[puglover]

I am sorry, no offense, but that looks horrible! :) The editing is very apparent - especially the sharpening. Back to my point, the image shouldn't come out like this - so much editing shouldn't be necessary. It takes days to edit 300 images from a wedding that don't come out of the camera like they should. I have to have very high quality images for my clients - and so far, unless it is studio work - the camera has been well below average. My main concern is whether or not some people have S2's that don't exhibit these problems in outdoor/lowlight situations, is it only a bad batch (and i just was lucky enough to get two of them) or is it a consistent problem across the board?

[puglover]

Ok, here is an image from an actual shoot - an extreme crop so that I can show you the detail (or lack thereof) in the faces and give you an idea of what I am talking about. This is the image at 100%.

This was shot with a Nikkor 50mm 1.4, F 4, 1/500 sec, ISO 160, Matrix. This has already been edited (and sharpened)... No tripod was used. It was a cloudy day - but there was obviously enough light according to the camera to give me a 1/500 sec shutter - on aperture priority - which I almost always shoot in...

Do you see that it is not actually sharp? For a 4x6 it looks fine - but 5x7 the softness is noticeable - and forget an 8x10.

[smunky]

Pug:
Please post what all your CSM settings are.
Thanks

[puglover]

Ok, here we go (i'll post the ones that apply):

closest subject priority - DISABLED on both

AE/AF lock - AF Operation - this is because i now use that button to Auto focus so it will lock - since the shutter won't stay locked and that predictive motion tracking moves the focus on me half the time. However, the AE button had not been always locking it now either - so maybe I will switch back again...

Auto Assist Illuminator - ON

Want any other specifics?

[pvalerio]

Everybody that used a "S1" says the S2 produces softer pictures. That is basically correct, and Fuji has accepted they changed the S2 because the S1 was "too sharp".

However, using fast lenses, the S2 is sharp enought. I've been using it with different lenses getting very different results. The best one for me is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-D: poduces very clear and sharp pictures, but after some time playing with the images I started to use "raw" format, which eliminates all camera processing of the image, so you get what the CCD "sees". I quickly discovered that you are better off doing your own processing.

Now I'm mostly shooting Jpeg fine at maximum resolution with ISO-100, WB sunny, ORG-ORG-ORG and postprocessing in PS, usually USM 80,2,0 and +5 saturation, adjusting levels as needed.

[puglover]

Hi Theo, yes, the DOF was shallow - but my complaint was that the woman's face wasn't even in sharp focus... had it been I would have been fine with the results.

Pvalerio- thanks for the reply. I guess I am just going to have to accept that I am going to be spending large amounts of time in front of the computer processing images. I just wish converting the RAW files was quicker....

[Swampy]

It's hard to see what the camera was trying to focus on. I do see you have some moire going on there which is distracting. Can you post a resize of the whole frame as well?

[puglover]

There isn't an area of sharp focus - I have searched...

[lightwrangler]

Send this S2 back to Fuji. I think you have a legitimate complaint. While there isn't a great amount of DOF at f4 on a 50mm, it should be sharp somewhere. I think the cropped shot isn't too bad considering the huge crop, but if that's as good as it gets, well then something is amiss. If there isn't anything sharper anywhere in the shot then there is an issue. Is it the lens? From the sound of it, you are getting similar results from other lenses, so I think not. Before you send it back however, I would do a test on a tripod with your lenses and a fixed flat subject at various fstops. Tedious yes, but you can send that with the camera so that the technicians can see exactly what you are talking about.

Best of luck

[BillBass]

Hello everyone. I have been reading this forum on the side for months. I am finally getting sharper looking images on my three week old S2! When I called B&H about the problem with soft images the guy suggested setting the Sharpness to HARD and it seems to have made a difference.

This is an image/self portrait I put together in Photoshop to try and illustrate how today`s test went. I focused on the corner of the wall using the AE/AF lock - AF Operation, then before releasing my finger I switched the lens from AF to Manual focus to lock the focus at that point. Then after setting off the self-timer I tried to sit with my eyes directly at/above the point of focus.

Camera on tripod: 1/60 at f4.8 (Jpeg, Fine, 3024) VR on lens turned off.

It seems pretty sharp but the eyes are not tack sharp in the way a sharp negative or slide can look under a loop. At some point the eyes eventually get soft if you keep clicking the magnifier in Photoshop and you can see that in the close up of the eyes. Looks a bit like Puglover`s image once you enlarge the eyes, but acceptably sharp at full size. Maby we can`t expect it to look sharp like a negative because this is digital and a different kind of sharpness.

Do you guys think this is sharp enough or can it/should it be better? Is the camera ok?

An 8.5x11 print done on an Epson 1200 looks acceptable, and so does a handheld landscape type shot that I tried with the focus switched back to CSM #9 - 0. Seems like you really have to hold this camera steady even at higher shutter speeds.

Thanks
:)

[pvalerio]

When I first got the S2 I had a Nikon F80 (N80) for a year, so I tried the original 28-80 cheap zoom that came with the camera. The images were all unsharp, dark and very low quality.

Then I tried a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 prime. What a difference, I never used the 28-80 again. Now I'm using a Tamron 19-35 for wide angle shots, the 85mm prime and a 50 mm prime for full body portraits.

One thing I noticed quickly: the S2 is very sensitive to movement, much more than film, add the 1.5 crop ratio and you need a very steady hand.

So before sending the camera back to Fuji I recomend you try the same picture with and without a tripod, same speed and other settigs and compare the results. Even at 1/500 sometimes camera movement is an issue.

The picture attached is a crop of an original Jpeg fine 4256x2848. White balance sunny, ORG-ORG-ORG 1/250 f/4 on a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, handheld. No PS work, just a crop of the original file. Let me know what you think.

[smunky]

I agree with pvalerio, i think this camera is just more prone to shake. When I tested it on my tripod vs handheld, the difference was big.
I have since been trying to hold it better, but its not the easiest thing.

[Swampy]

I don't think it's just a problem with this camera though. I've noticed similar problems using the D100, D1x, D1h, and now, even the 14n.

[smunky]

I have not seen this problem in the d100 or the d1x when I personally shot with them. I did notice other problems with those cameras though, thats why I went wtih the s2.

[puglover]

Well, these two samples above look much like my images - the only time I can achieve very sharp results is in direct sunlight or a studio environment with several lights. It seems the CCD must have a lot of light to achieve sharpness - it is not enough that the camera registers enough light to give you a high shutter speed - because even at 1/1000, if my subject is in a shadow I still get a soft image. Camera shake is a big issue - and since I shoot a lot of live shows, outdoor concerts, etc...carrying around a tripod is a problem - and using a 28-200 zoom handheld cause soft images. The camera really seems to have a hard time locking focus with low contrast subjects - such as when the sky is overcast the light is very diffused. I think that is what the problem was that day on the beach. The year before I shot on that same beach - same camera but it was partly cloudy not completely overcast and the resulting images were much sharper. Not sharp, but sharper. I am getting ready to load my shoot from yesterday - if I get any interesting results I will post them here.

[puglover]

Here is a shot from yesterday's shoot. It turned out good - although this image is complete and has already been processed in PS... but the camera generally doesn't seem to have a problem when the focusing distance is this close - which is why I do A LOT of close up work :)

[smunky]

I think thats a nice shot Pug, came out good. And a handsome man too! :)

[puglover]

Ok, here are two shots - the close range shot - the face is pretty sharp and this was at F 2.4, 1/30s, ISO 400...

The second shot, farther away... F2.4, 1/45s, ISO 400.... focused on the face as well - not sharp at all. Given this is a slow shutter - but the close up was even slower and it came out sharp. This is the problem I am talking about that the camera for some reason has trouble creating a sharp image at longer distances... any ideas??

[puglover]

Here is the other shot...

[puglover]

And because I know it is very hard to tell anything from the full shot - here is a crop of the soft one so you can see what I am talking about...

[cthornhill]

I understand your frustrations and I live with sharpness issues every day.

Even so, a few observations:

If I understand the post correctly your last shots were taken with a 28 - 200 lens at ISO 400...and the lens was fairly wide open.

My experiance with most of the non F2.8 (and I am assuming the lens is a 3.5 -5.6 lens...) is that is is pretty soft at wide open. I have done lots of tabletop shots of products wide open with the 28-105 F3.5 to F4.5, and wide open the zone of critical focus (ZOCF) for this lens can be a small as a few millimeters deep. Way to small for any handheld work (at least when I am handholding). In any event, even wide, the ZOCF is going to be very shallow for this lens in my opinion.

I found that the F2.8 glass had much better behavior wide open, so I just stopped using my slower glass. I miss it, since money is always an issue, and some of those lenses were great as far as range, but I could not live with the sharpness issues.

Even when I switched lenses, I still have to live with the very shallow ZOCF that wide open offers. There are lots of articles on this effect with DSLR units, and as far as I can tell, I do have less DOF than I would have using the lens with film. Less DOF than I was used to on meduim format cameras at equivilent lens lengths.

I also find that my Nikon 20mm is no where near as sharp overall as my 35mm glass. It is still OK, but for architecture work I have to be really carful, and for anything critical I find pano techniques with a longer lens produce much better results. I do use the 20mm lots, since many subjects can stand the lack of resolving power due to smaller reproduction, but I agree with many reviews that the extream wide angles do not perform very well on the S2 compared to the way they worked on film. Still good, but not great. BTW, I am often stopped down on the 20mm, and I notice lots of potential for flare and diffusion due to higer F stop settings. Overall this lens does a nice job, but not anything like the results I was used to on film for comparable lenses.

Then there is the multiplier effect. If you were using the 29-200 at 28mm, that is about like a 41mm or 42mm lens, and I thought you were using about 1/30 to 1/60 shutter speed. The general rule of thumb (that I'm sure you know) is twice the focal length for sharpness. That would be a good bit faster than what I thought you posted.

I would suggest you try a few similar shots on the tipod and see what happens. I find the S2 very hard to handhold compared to my F100, or my medium format gear. I am working to re-learn a good way to do it, but most of the time I use a tripod - which is not possible for many types of job - I understand. A monopod might help - I found it very useful for meduim format, and should (but don't much) use it for the S2.

Final thoughts - I never liked what I saw from my variable speed glass once I saw results from fixed F stop Nikon glass. You may not agree, and I understand how personal that evaluation is. I also found in testing that most of the sharpness was a combination of shallow ZOCF and camera shake. On the tripod I get a sharp picture somewhere - I just need it to be where I want it. My approach to making this better was to change lenses, and to adjust my working F stop for much portrait work up a bit to provide more safety room. I also use a tripod for most critical work, or I try and brace myself when I am at low F stops in dark places.

Not perfect solutions, but not really as related to the S2 as they are to optics and my shooting technique. I hope this helps provide a perspective, and I hope you can get to a place you are happy with.

Yours,

Cecil

[puglover]

Thanks for the reply Cecil - but actually these shots were taken with my Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4 D. So it was just a matter of moving a few feet away. I realize the shutter was very slow - but why did the close up come up reasonably sharp and the other not? I can't figure it out. I am still suspicious that it has something to do with the way the image is processed...i just posted this shot elsewhere in the forums - but i will post it again here because I think it applies - this image was taken last night - I tried out the RAW format for low-light shows and this image came out really well for the situation and the settings - ISO 1600, F 1.4 with the 50mm 1:1.4, 1/750s, sharpness OFF (then processed in PS), Matrix metering. So why did this one come out sharp at 1.4 and the other couldn't do it at F 4? Yes, the shutter was much faster - but one sharp and not the other full shot? None of it really makes sense to me...

Ok, won't let me post it twice - here is the link :

http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2081

[cthornhill]

Interesting...The 50mm is just about as sharp as it gets - even wide open - I can vouch for that! I just can't say unless some other factor is at work.

Lens shake is going to be an issue with an equivilent 75mm lens (the 50mm), but other than randomness, I would look at AF issues (assuming you used AF). Perhaps the focus slid?

I really can't say since my experiance on the 50mm is that it is very sharp. I really couldn't see any in focus areas in the sample showing the problem, so I have to assume the lens was not set for the subject, or the camera moved, yet I don't see clear movement indications.

I can only suggest trying the same sort of thing on manual focus, and a tripod and seeing what comes back...

Good Luck,

Cecil

[photodent]

Originally posted by lumens
Hard to say with such a small picture. The toy looks sharp enough. At F6.7 and 90*1.5= 135 mm you won't have much depth of field.

Try it again with F11 or F16 and be sure to focus on your son's head/eyes and see what happens then. Also try 55-60 mm on your lens. After all there is a 1.5x focal length multiplier to consider.

That is not entirely true: the focal length multiplier does not change the depth of field. Only your sensor is smaller. So the image of a 90 mm appears as a 135. The distortion and angle of the lens stays the same.

The softness caused by camera shake is on par with the magnified focal length, though.

(Prachtig polderlicht in Emmeloord, overigens)

[puglover]

Even in direct sunlight - for group shots the camera fails horribly. Close ups are fine - even great most of the time - but portraits (wedding groups) are really missing the mark - even at F11. I can't understand it and it is a very big problem. Does anyone else experience this? I would really like to hear from someone who is able to achieve sharp group shots - and what you are doing to get them, I am at a loss... And using 'fill flash' to help with shadows in the TTL mode gives you some crazy blown out results. Extremely unpredictable.:(

[ghawk]

Here's a group shot from a wedding and a close-up from that group at full resolution.

Info:

Lens: 35-70 f/2.8
Setting: 35mm, 1/60, f/5.6, MANUAL FOCUS! on a tripod
Lighting: Vivitar 283 slaved & on a light stand...Nikon SB28 on camera.

NO POST-PROCESS SHARPENING.

[ghawk]

A section of the photo at full resolution

P.S. - I used a cable-release...VERY IMPORTANT

[ghawk]

You have to treat this camera with kid gloves....you can't shoot it hand-held like a 35mm in ambient light....it's a different animal, but I'm now getting great results by learning to cope with it's quirks. Auto-focus at medium to far distances is not a good idea.....I shoot it like a large-format camera and take my time. With flash, hand-holding is possible if the ambient exposure doesn't figure in the mix, so most wedding receptions require minimal fuss in order to get sharp photos.

[puglover]

Thank you for that response, very helpful. What F-stop was this shot with? I guess i am just going to have to slow down - i never use the manual focus at weddings because time is such an element - but if i am going to be forced to do posed portraits (which I absolutely hate doing...) I will have to slow down and do them right. Is it just that the autofocus struggles to get it right at longer distances? Because there was plenty of light and a high shutter - so the portraits being so soft just didn't make sense to me...i guess i am going to just have to accept that digital is not like film when it comes to sharpness. bugger.:mad:

[ghawk]

Time is an element for us too....I'm Speedy Gonzales....but not at the sacrifice of quality on posed shots. The info on the previous shot was in my post.....f/5.6.

Heres another group. This one was 1/60th @ f/4. Again a full frame resized for the web and a section at full res.

[ghawk]

The section

[Wichita Wayne]

This is an unadjusted shot. All I did was reduce the size from 4256X2848 to 800X600 for the internet. It was shot with the camera set to manual f-11 at 1/60 at ISO 400. The lens was a Nikkor 28 to 200 D lens that was zoomed to 157mm. The picture was recorded to a JPG file at Org, Org, Std with the WB set to Auto. The main light was a 1800 White Lightning, set to full blast, with a 60 in. umbrella. On camera was a SB-24 flash set on Auto at f-11 with a diffuser over the flash head. I used the center autofocus point on the brides face to set the focus. The shot looks posed but it actually was not. She was standing their in that pose and I just took a quick snap in between the Hasselblad shots.

[puglover]

Wayne, that shot is sharp - but I don't have a problem achieving sharp images at this range (especially with a light setup) - it's the shots like the one ghawk posted that are making me crazy.


Ghawk, that shot looks a lot like mine - and maybe i am being too picky and not realizing the limitations of the camera, but that still looks pretty soft to me. Most of mine come out like that - some a little more sharp and most a little softer...and if clients only ordered them as 5x7 i wouldn't be so worried - but these images at 8x10 and 11x14 just don't cut it IMO.

[ghawk]

Puglover,

Images that have this much detail in a close-up section will print beautifully.....I've done a couple of 30x40's and they appear as sharp as film. We've already sold gobs of 20x24's and they are wonderful. If you don't have one, get yourself a good lab....I use CPQ. The interpolation software that they use to upsize the image adds sharpness, so don't oversharpen in Photoshop or you'll be too sharp. I'm a former Hasselblad user, and I'm pretty sure that I'm comfortable enough with digital to not buy any more film.

[puglover]

well then, there you go...maybe I am expecting too much. I realize that when i used to get film prints back they were generally small (5x7 or smaller) and they always looked tack sharp - but with digital, being able to blow up the image to 100% it just makes everything look soft to me.


Can I ask you an unrelated question? What flash do you use and what settings do you typically put it on for fill flash - my SB80DX has no TTL and in bright light it blows everything completely out - this flash was obviously not meant for the S2...

[ghawk]

Puglover,

I've found that prints from my lab are sharper than the computer image appears.....I've had to make adjustments because the prints are too sharp for people pix.

My flash --- SB28. For fill outside it works best (so far) on TTL at MINUS one to three stops. When I use the flash inside as a main source of illumination I use it on auto at f/5.6 or f/8 and the camera set the same as the flash.

Here's one more far/close example that looks good on the print.

FAR:

[ghawk]

Here's a close-up section of the photo at full resolution - no interpolation

[puglover]

well, again, looks like my images - that is a nice shot, by the way. I was just expecting more - if i don't see eyelash separation i am annoyed, and that must just be asking too much from these farther away shots. so does the TTL work any better on the SB28? On the outdoor shots that blew every detail out I had the flash down by 3 stops...didn't matter. I will have to start using the P mode i guess. I was getting ready to send my camera back to fuji again - they just sent me the loaner form - maybe these issues just can't be fixed and it is something i will have to deal with - I know the TTL won't be fixed - and apparently this softness at longer focal lengths is normal as well...

Here is a shot from my wedding last weekend - i'll submit a close up at 100% next - it isn't bad - but still soft to me - expectations too high? will I only achieve the sharpness I am wanting out of medium format?

[puglover]

Here's the crop...

[ghawk]

Your bride shot looks ok to me.....a print from this file should be fine - as sharp as film. Have you had prints made yet?


so does the TTL work any better on the SB28?

I don't know....I only have an SB28.

Try this forum for a lot of info on flash for the S2:

http://digitalphotographers.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=9196015511&u=9016086021

[puglover]

no prints yet - still in the editing process. like i said - i think i just expect too much. when i do make a print i'll post results...

[Wichita Wayne]

TTL is more myth than fact. Especially with the S2. On my picture above I set the flash on Auto and set the camera manually, just like my old Hasselblads. And I punched up the DOF by shooting at f-11. The advantage with digital is that I can check the picture and histogram (chimping). If the shot is not right then I adjust the f-stop accordingly and get a second shot. I like to think that I can make better exposure decisions than an electronic camera. Check out this thread so you will not spend a lot of time and wasted effort trying to get TTL to work like it should rather than within the narrow rules established by Nikon and Fuji.

http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2136

[Jay]

Believe me I'm so disgusted with Fuji for calling this a Pro camera and targeting us Pro's with the S2. It can have all the bells and whistles it wants but if it can't produce a sharp image it's amature city. Someone posted a disclaimer from Fuji where they admit the camera can't produce a sharp image and even recommended the settings for unsharp mask in photoshop (how pathetic). Where were all these warnings when I laid out my hard earned money. The store that sold it wouldn't even take it back because I went beyond 10 days after purchase. Every week I look at the images I get back from my wedding photography (candids) and want to cry. No consistency at all, the poor sharpness varies from bad to worse. Unsharp mask sharpens some and can't even help others. Then to make matters worse the SB28 flash has to be put on -3 compensation and NEVER aimed at the subject but up into the ceiling to get a correct exposure. You can't under compensate the flash enough to point the flash at a subject, regardless of distance, and get a correct exposure. I'm fuming at FUJI for targeting us Pro's and wasting my time and money. I'm fuming at Fuji for costing me shipping charges every time I have to send the camera back for them to basically do nothing with except clean the CCD. I'm sure I will ultimately write the President of their company and demand some time of explaination. Let me tell you if Hasselblad had built a product and marketed it to the Pro's which was this unacceptable there would be a deluge of complains FORCING them to do something. Would you believe I actually didn't buy the Canon D10 because of complaints of soft images?? All I heard was that the image quality of the S2 is unparalled. Yeah it's unparalled alright - IT SUCKS.

[Wichita Wayne]

I had the same problem with Bronica in the 90s. After one season they were gone and I went back to Hasselblad. No matter how good a camera they make I will never use a Bronica again. I've been snake bit when it comes to Bronica. If you must have digital then unload the Fuji and get something else. You cannot afford to live and work with this level cognitive dissonance. As a pro you should use tools that make you confident and comfortable with your craft. The S2 Pro will probably never be the right tool for you, so dump it fast, and try something else.

[Jay]

Probably good advice Wayne. I'm shooting my last wedding for the season today. After today I'll see what I can do.

Jay

[Wichita Wayne]

There is nothing worse in photography than not having confidence in your tools. It only adds stress and confussion to the process that really distracts from the art and craft of photography.

[puglover]

They sent me the info to get a loaner (again) to check mine out and I have been sitting on the form because i think as you do - that there really isn't anything "wrong' with it other than the basic design of the camera is wrong, and how it processes images is 'wrong'. I bought a portable hard drive so that i can start using only RAW files - they are better - more time consuming to deal with - but the results are more predictable and easier to manipulate. I know that Photowife just sent her second body in and they aren't coming up with anything 'wrong' with it - told her some excuses about the limitations of digital, etc... unfortunately -i think those of us that are stuck with the camera are going to have to find ways to make it usable.

[puglover]

Wayne, the problem is that at this level of 'pro' digital there really aren't any other options. I have heard big complaints about the Kodak 14n and i thought that was going to be the one to beat. I think the technology is experiencing big growing pains and those of us who chose to ride the digital wave to smoother seas are going to have to do just that. Frustrating, but true.

[Wichita Wayne]

I set them on ISO 400, Org, Org, Hard with 4256 jpg at Normal compression and Auto WB. If I shoot at ISO 1600 I turn the Hard to off and do all the sharp work in PS. I am also using the flash more and more on Auto and set the camera on apature priority or manual. If I am closer than 15 feet I use the flash straight and if closer I cover the flash head with a Stofen diffuser. If we are using monolights then I always use manual with a hand held flash meter. I shot manual for years with the Hasselblads, and still do, so it is second nature for me to shoot that way. Besides I can make better decisions almost as fast as an automatic camera. If I use TTL then I let the camera make its best guess and shoot at that. If you try to mess with the f-stop then the TTL will not work correctly. Four-eyed Tom from Chicago has pretty much proved this fact. Rather than fight it I just live with it or go manual. I will sometimes use a Morris Mini Flash that fits in my pocket. It is great for knocking down shadows or lighting up the background. When I use it I do not change the camera setting at all, and it usually always fits right in and gives me the results I want. We use both autofocus and manual focus lenses. I usually use the center focus spot and lock the focus by holding down the shutter half way while I frame the shot. We usually always get good results. Not Hasselblad results on a 20 X 24 but good results up to 11 X 14. digital only has about 7 zones of latitude instead of the 8 to 10 that you can get out of film so the pictures do look different, but not bad. Also I look at the pictures and histogram a lot. I still take enough stinkers with digital that this is required. When shooting manual it is easy to go up or down the f-stop scale and leave all other things the same to fine tune the exposure. I really wish I could do this with my Hasselblads.

[flan]

After getting some tips, I took a bit more care to avoid camera shake, set the ISO from 100 to 200 and I think, changed the shutter speed. The next batch of photos I took, which included this one, were ALL pretty sharp, I thought. I'm still very much a novice and very reluctant to write the S2 off for soft focus. But it does seem strange that so many people are having these focus problems.

[Jay]

OK shot my last wedding of the season. Now I've got to do battle with Fuji and demand my money back. This camera should not have left the factory until it was capable of producing sharp images.

I also purchased the camera because Gary Fong said he used them on his weddings. He swears by them. Last time I listen to Gary Fong (trust me on this one). He's lost all credability in my opinion.

Jay

[lightwrangler]

I use my S2 just about every day. I often rent a backup from a shop with about 6 in rental stock. Another photographer I know uses two as well and I have worked in the studio with his. I sometimes have an issue with sharpness too. But in general I believe that it is a focus issue inherent in the design of the N80 body. I have been finding this is less of an issue as I take special care to focus and confirm focus. The camera does quickly demonstrate any shortcomings a lens may have. Two of the lenses that I used without complaint on my film Nikons (a Sigma zoom and a Nikon zoom) have problems with the S2. Sharpness across the field at some aperatures is one issue. Another is the autofocus system. I am slowly upgrading my glass and am finding that most zooms I test are not up to the job, so I am looking mostly at primes. Rule number one in my book, all digital SLR cameras require top quality glass. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). If the camera is purchased with the idea of going econo on lenses, you are just begging to be disappointed with the results, I've learned that the hard way.

I do believe that there are S2's out there that are not working as they should. I believe there are legitimate issues with the camera, and the way it focuses. The adaptation of a film body to digital may have not been as good as it could have been. Does this condemn the entire brand? If that were the case then nothing will ever be suitable, as nothing is ever perfect. Certainly if one is having a problem, I expect too that a company should stand behind it's product. If you are one of those for whom Fuji is not doing all they can, I think you have every right to let them know and invest in another company's gear. In my experience, Fuji does attempt to respond, but of course there is always room for improvement. Compared to Nikon, I think they do pretty well.

Is the Fuji up to what a Hasselblad can produce? When used with care in focus, precise framing, a firm support (tripod) and the right glass, IMHO the Fuji can produce images that are equal to what I am used to from the two Hasselblads I used to own. However there is a size limit to output, the Hassies clearly produced bigger images (20 x 24 and up) and of course there is less ability to crop with a S2 image. But let's look at a very important element; lenses, unlike an S2 you can't put a so-so lens on a Hassie. There isn't an unsharp Hassie lens made and certainly all of their lenses are very good to excellent at all aperatures. Also it is unfair to hold the Fuji up to this comparison considering that most Hassie lenses cost more than an S2 body. A Hasselblad when introduced was a fresh design working with established technology. Digital photo technology is in no way as mature. Very few lenses are available that have been designed with a CCD in mind, most are throw backs to the analog age and that means they are a compromise when mounted on your S2. Hence the need for more diligence in focusing.

IMHO the Fuji S2 is a professional camera that when used properly (and functioning properly) produces professional results. I frankly believe it is great bang for the buck. If that isn't your opinion then you need to put your faith (and your hard earned money) elsewhere. What works for me, may not for you and there is nothing wrong with that. I personally would never own a Ford, I like imports, but I think they must suit someone as I see a lot of them out there. Just because I've had a bad experience with a Ford does that mean all that Fords SUCK? I'm sure some do, but then again a whole lot of other folks seem to like their Fords just fine.

[crabby]

I shoot with the Fuji S2, Canon 1Ds, Megavision S2, and primarily the Phase One H20 and I have tested quite a few others. I can tell you that none of them take a sharp picture right off the ccd or cmos. And that also includes our Screen 1040i drum scanner. They all shoot through a anti-aliasing filter except the Kodak which I haven't tried yet and the scanner of course. They all have some sharpening added in their software. Some behind the scene on the fly. Some more where you can make the decision. If you could see what a true raw image looks like you would not believe that anybody could pull a clear image out of that fuzzy mud. But they do. And it's done with the software in the camera and/or on your computer. Before we bought our H20s, I really wanted the Kodak Proback. After all, it had the exact same ccd as the H20 and it was half the price. So we had them both in for extensive testing and spent the extra money on the PhaseOne's. What was the difference? We did the same shots with the same hasselblad setup. The only thing different was the software developing the file.
The other factor, as Lightwrangler said, is the lens. As we learned with the PhaseOne back on a view camera, the resolving power of the back was greater then the resolving power of most of our large format lenses. So we replaced them all with Schneider Digitars. I have noticed the same thing with my Fuji S2, and with the Canon 1Ds. They too need the best glass, and what they really need is glass optimized for a digital sensor.
My point to all this is shooting digital isn't as simple as just putting a sensor where the film used to be. It's a new tool with it's own benifits and obstacles which must be learned. But great results can be achieved. If Gary Fong can do it, so can you.

[Jay]

Then Crabby you never owned a Nikon D1X with a 28-70,2.8 lens or my meager 4.0 meg. Olympus E-10. Both give me razor sharp images right out of the camera. Surprising my E-10, with it's built in lens rivals photo's taken with my Hasselblad 80/2.8.

Jay

[smunky]

The e10 is a good camera, but its not very versitile.
I liked the D1x with a good lens, but prefer my s2.

[crabby]

I did own an E-10, an E-20 and played around with a friends D1x when they first came out. You totally missed the point! All these cameras have their own little computer inside. They have their own little operating system called firmware. No cameras' native file system is jpg. It takes the little camera's computer to convert it to jpg. And that's not all it does. And you missed my second point, The Olympus's lens is optimized for digital which I feel also helps with sharpness. But the smaller micron ccd takes it away. I have never done a side by side test with the D1x and S2 on the same set with the same lens but I have seen plenty of images from both and I cannot say one is better then the other. I would love to have a D1x too, but I didn't think it was worth the extra cash for a file of similar quality. just a better built camera.

[Jay]

Thanks for the clarification Crabby. You were right I didn't get where you were coming from. I do now. Thanks for making it clearer.

Jay

[Jay]

So here's the latest update. Fuji in Edison will not give me a phone numer of someone that has the authority to give my distributor their money back for this camera. So I'm stuck dealing with the top guy at the repair division.

Color me completely nuts but I'm actually dumb enough to try it once again. I'm gong to send my flash, the lens I keep on it (28-105 Nikon) and the body down to them.

They will take my lens and test it on a number of loaner camera's. He thinks that he can find one that produces sharp images. He admited that it's all over the place. Some are OK and others aren't. He couldn't guarantee me that he'd find one that works which just confirmed my beliefs that the camera has an inherent default.

However, he said that Gary Fong uses them a lot and he has good luck. He did say that Gary has his camera's in and out of repair all of the time. I wonder what his problem is because on his web site he doesn't admit to this.

I flat out asked him if Gary was being endorsed by Fuji to say good things about this camera. If Fuji gave him all free equipment to promote it. He said that Gary is just another paying customer.

So the saga continues. Will they find a camera that can produce a sharp image? I can't wait to find out. I'm so desperate to have a working camera that I'm willing to settle for a used loaner from Fuji in trade for my brand new camera. That's pathetic but right now it's the only game in town.

Jay :)

[Swampy]

This is where I may come in handy soon. One of my boss' wants to test a bunch of cameras all together. Same lenses if possible or thier equivelants, again, if possible - read - if it's not a Point and shoot.

In fact, I'm going to start another thread to keep this in. Go read it. Post in there what you'd like us to test/try.

[crabby]

Jay,
I truely wish you luck. I was not trying to be a smart a$$, only explaining it in a way my unscientific mind knows how. I went through similar trials and tribulations with the H20 backs. One was in for repair three times in a very short period. Finally I said, we're keeping the loaner it works fine, you can keep our paperweight. I don't know what we'll do when the warranty is up.
I am happy with my S2. Could I be happier?Sure, but it surpassed my expectations. But I do understand your frustration, to paraphrase Wayne, It sucks when you can't trust your equipment. By the way Wayne, I love my ETRSi outfits. Their 105 macro is my all time favorite lens. But I digress. Anyway, I was getting the impression that you were no longer trying to seek a solution, but to seek revenge against Fuji. And that my friend is a futile proposition, especially around here with so many happy campers. If I am wrong I apologize for I did not read every single post in this thread. And if it's just a matter of venting off your frustrations, I guess I can understand that too. I hate wasting money too. That Bronica 105 lens I love so much got used for about one year, now it's been sitting untouched for over a year since I went completely digital. It's one of their most expensive lenses and I can't bear to part with it and only get pennies to the dollar. Damn, now I'm bummed too.
I think I can speak for most everyone here in saying I hope you do find a solution, if not with fuji then with another.

[Jay]

Thanks for the reply Crabby.

There are actually many points I love about the camera. It is just shear fustration. I'm not looking for revenge. I just want my money back if I have a lemon.

Hopefully they'll find a loaner that shoots reasonable pictures and I can move on.

It became very fustrating when customers started to notice the difference on some shots, even after USM.

But I'm not trying to insult those that made the choice and are doing well with the camera. I hope to be one of those happy campers some day too. If it's never resolved to my satisfaction then I'll sell it as used, take my losses and probably by the new Olympus E-1. Seems like a good choice. I wish it was more than 5 meg. but it should still perform pretty well.

Jay

[crabby]

Jay,
I am kinda excited about the E-1 myself. I started with Olympus in the 70's and I loved my E-20 and still use an E-10 once in a while. Everyone is going on and on about how Canon is blowing away all competition, but I think Olympus might just sneak up and leap frog them all. Maybe not with this one but I think they are on a good course. Of course part of me hopes my fuji is better.

PS-Again I apologize for misinterpreting your motives.

[Jay]

No problem Mike. Thanks for all your courtesies and you're not so "crabby" after all. (smile)

Jay

[lightwrangler]

I too had the E10 and E20 and I still have an E10. Although limited they are great cameras, with an excellent lens which as Crabby stated is digitally optimized. Which was one of the points I was trying to make.

Good luck with the test and Fuji

[95nostalgia]

Hi all. After a year and some 3000 shots with my S2, I think I can post what I have learned about it's focus issue. Let me start with facts about some of my prior work.

I worked with some of the first CDD's made. These were not in cameras...more like guidance systems. My application was as a quider for several telescopes I made. Typical exposures were 60-90minutes thru filters so dark, focus could not be achieved by the eye. One was a 12" f/4.8 Newtonian that also had a Tamron 300mm F/2.8 piggybacked. My shots were consistent. A Mt. Palomar scientist examined some of them and said, "They don't get any better than this." This is not my ego talking...it was a fact. I recorded round star images (points of light are a critical focus test) that were the size of the grain of film of the tightest grain film ever made...Kodak Tech Pan 2415 thruout the negative. One such photo was published on the inside front cover of CCD Astronomy magazine. The whole point is...I know something about resolution and critical focus. The Fuji S2 does not focus properly.

I have read, with great interest, the comments and tests performed. I had heard the frustrations in some voices. I write only to let them know they are not crazy. Some of the sample images posted to support a person's pleasure with their S2 are really great. Some only showed that the photographer was ether satisfied with poor shots or just didn't know the difference. As for me, I have shot with all the settings I could dream up. I have used a good tripod for all tests with a sandbag and timer. It wasn't shake. I used great lenses known to work well elsewhere...Nikon...Tamron...VR's, straight F2.8's, Zooms. Fixed etc. etc. I can't begin to list all the variables and all the tests I did to isolate them. That's all behind me. So here's my take in a nutshell.

1. Fuji admittedly changed the firmwear to soften images because some portrait guys wanted to not have to post-process and soften them. Big mistake. An optics company should always opt for the best resolution possible. Fuji should've gone for the sharpest image and let the chips fall.
2. The firmwear changes are not linear so the focus varies at distances/conditions.
3. The anti aliasing filter in between the CCD and lense alters the image and could be a factor.
4. Computer processors, IC's, and CCD's are not all made perfectly every time. They are "grown". But, that is what quality control is about and Fuji doesn't have any.
5. As some have hinted, the distance to the focal plane is critical. I realized that just the different thicknesses of films can throw a critical focus out. Fuji may be placing the CCD in the wrong ppace so focus is never achieved (unless a rare out-of focus condition happens)
6. Digital camera CCD's prefer bright, constant light to change the photons into electrons. Any flash is not as good as the sun, but a flood light would be better (although not always practical).
7.. Whether the camera costs $2000 or $10,000, if it says it has TTL, Auto Focus or anything else...it ought to deliver.
8. My S2 takes no better pictures at the same general settings than my old Kodak DC260. The only quality difference comes from the ability to use better, interchangeable lenses and other controls.

Regrading the subject of focus, the Fuji S2, in my opinion, is not a professional-grade camera. If you can use it in your business to your satisfaction, and your customers are happy, I am very happy for you. Personally, I would not try. Although I dropped film completely 6 years ago, this camera is just another stepping stone to me.

Allen

[puglover]

It doesn't help much knowing that (as I suspected) the camera was just made incorrectly - but it does help me to know that I am not crazy. :) For me the camera is worthless if trying to focus on an object more than 5 or 6 feet away - and that's with a Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4 D.

Can I ask you what digital camera you do use that produces consistent, acceptable results? Any recommendations?

[puglover]

And another question - what are your thoughts on RAW format - the images are much better, but is that because of the way the camera processes jpegs? Meaning that the focus just seems better with RAW images....any ideas?

[95nostalgia]

First, let me say that I don't consider myself an expert and my sidetrack on my original post was just to partially introduce myself. This forum has many respectable and talented artists. I have learned much from them and I am thankful. I obviously have an opinion about my S2 and with that (and a $1.50) you can get a Starbuck's.

My belief is that RAW images look better because there is less processing by the camera (it's not screwing things up near as bad). As others will tell you, these are the best images for post processing YOUR choices and you will probably start with some kind of brightness (Photoshop...Image Adjust...Levels or Curves). I like the Curves as opposed to Brightness/Contrast. Levels is great if you include a gray card in the photo for color balance and brightness. Also some others may recommend DeMoire actions. Some have USM built in.

As for another camera, I can't afford the new Canon and not sure I would anyway. The first thing one should ask when shopping digital is, "What kind of batteries does it use?" This is the best thing Fuji did...using AA's. Since most IF senders, Radio controllers, Auxillary flashes and other goodies use these, the S2 is compatible. Of course they had to mess that up some and use the CR123 to control some functions. Some have suggested the CD123 may have an impact on AF but I have not tested that. I don't put them in my camera because I don't use the on board flash for anything (too low and dead-on). A Canon battery is proprietory (yech) and costs about $130. So 3 of 'em is gonna be quite a chunk.

I have no other alternative digital camera although I keep my Kodak DC260 charged up for my teenager's use or for shopping. I examined an S1's images yesterday and the clarity was sharp at 30' distance with a cheesy lense (Santa Claus at the mall). Sure beat my S2 images with a $1600 lense. Perhaps there is a trader out there?

Allen

[Paul-Home]

I just wanted to say that I definitely had a 'soft' s2. I was very frustrated and uncertain as to whether it was me or the camera. Last month I dropped the camera and broke it. I have just received the insurance replacement and after just a few frames it is infinitely sharper, no messing with settings, no post-processing.

[t.hanz]

Man, I had to read all these posts just to see if anyone mentioned anything about the RAW setting. My wife and I shoot portraiture on the side, mainly children. We used to shoot a Hassy until we got our S2 and it has become our main camera since (not that the quality is equal but the S2 is convenient and meets the demands of our customers). We shoot prime lenses (85mm 1.8, 180mm 2.8, etc.) and seldom if ever have a focus problem, those can be attributed to user error 99% of the time. We also shoot in the RAW mode and post process in PS7. This is how the camera was designed, if you read any of the profesional reviews, they all raved about the image quality in RAW mode (uncompressed), skin tones, etc. I think the camera comes closer to meeting the demands of portaiture than other styles, yes the images are soft out of RAW but can be controlled through Photoshop. Most portrait photographers don't want an image so sharp that every wrinkle and blemish show, most customers don't want that either.
I have used the camera for sports and landscape as well as macro and have gotten great results when I have done my part to set the shot up correctly. This camera works for me, I hope everyone else has the same luck.

My two cents,
Todd

[t.hanz]

Here are some samples from the first 3 months with the camera.

http://www.pbase.com/thanz

[Wichita Wayne]

I hope there is not a rash of insurance claims when everybody with a "soft" S2 starts throwing them down and claiming they droped them. Please don't do it. All you will accomplish is to drive up the insurance cost for all of us with "sharp" S2s.

Ahhhhhhh! When will it all end...............:confused: :confused: :confused: :p

[Paul-Home]

Yes I know it worked out quite well really. I didnt even know it was covered under my house insurance until I called them.
Incidentally, the new S2 has a different finish to my previous one, its like a satin non-slip coating on the lower part.

[puglover]

I realize that the camera doesn't actually focus better when using the RAW format, but that was my point - the one that you reinforced - that the way the jpegs are processed makes for softer images - unless the S2 processes jpegs the same way as every other digital camera - then who knows, but i supposed since the S2 images were designed to be softer to begin with, jpeg processing/compression just makes them that much more so....