Is the S2 Pro a good Point and Shoot?

[Chris G]

I started to reply in another thread but it got quite lengthy and off topic so I decided to start a new thread. What prompted me was the comment something like "I don't understand why someone would by the S2 and use it as a point and shoot".

I started out 20 years ago with a 35mm SLR that allowed me to "point and shoot" but with the flexibility to play around with f stops, shutter speeds, etc as I became more familiar with the camera. I moved to a point and shoot Sony CD300 because I have such a difficult time with labs that don't know how to print photos with the right colors, exposure, etc. and this allowed me take charge of it myself. To me, the images from the Sony are GREAT on screen. Makes me want to carry around a laptop with a good screen to show my photos instead of prints.

Then came school sports, concerts, etc. Can't use a flash. And the shutter lag with the CD300 makes it next to impossible to get any action shots. And the zoom was only a 3x. Nowhere near enough. The 2x and 3x teleconverters are a joke. . And ISO400 is horrible for noise.

What are my options? I like good quality pictures. I need ISO1600 at f2.8 and no shutter lag. No point and shoot can deliver that. I narrowed it down to the D100, D60, and S2. Were they too expensive for me? Yes. But I bit the bullet and decided my children weren't getting any younger (nor am I) and I do this the "right" way. So I purchased the S2. I won't go into all the focus issues here, but I ended up with expensive Nikkor glass to eliminate that as a possible cause.

As much as I hear "it's not a point and shoot", there is one thing I don't understand. Some people talk about it like it's the difference between driving a car and launching the space shuttle. Tell me why one can't expect to pick up the camera, leave it on factory settings (other than that crazy CSP on CSM 7 or 8), put it in "P" (*listens to the pros cry out*) mode, turn it on and, yes, point and shoot, and get a decent pic of junior (and no, I am not talking about shooting low light, indoor sports. I understand that is a different animal that will require much skill and practice).

I need it for the demanding nature of indoor sports, but I also need it to take photos at Christmas, and maybe even an amateurish portrait or two.

I know a bit about depth of field, 1/250 minimum shutter speed for action shots, changing the EV + or - .5 or 1.5 in the snow, or in dark situations, or when you have a dark subject against a bright background. I even surprised myself and I use the histogram now to help me with exposure. I know enough to leave the focus area on the center, leave it in AF-S (I've tried AF-C and it hasn't helped me at all. I'll come back to it later), and lock the thumbpad so the focus area doesn't change on me. So far Dynamic doesn't appear to be of any use to me either. I could use the Custom WB, but I still need to get a grey card. Usually where I shoot there is not enough white anywhere to take a reading.

So, I'm back to camera defaults, with the the only exception being that I usually use Aperture priority because I know I need f2.8 and have to live with whatever shutter speed I get. I have been known to use P mode though (*gasp*) but I do know that I can turn the thumbwheels ("Control" knobs to Fuji) and change the F-stop / Shutter Speed combination to suit what depth of field that I want. Does that qualify me as a "point and shoot"?

The neat thing about photography is that you have your Pros that get paid to do this and use it to put food on the table and they take it very seriously (as I do in my line of work), but there is also the hobby element to it as well, which is where photography serves me. A hobby and an essential family record keeping tool. I would love to have all my pictures professional looking and I look for ways to improve everyday, but when I look back on the photos of my children, that hardly ever comes to mind.

So, I didn't buy my S2 and my Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, 85mm f1.8, and 24-85 f2.8-f4.0 to be a point and shoot, but I don't understand why it can't be when I need it to be.

[memobug]

If you are getting great results using the S2 in program modes for casual or professional use, go for it! Some people buy expensive cameras expecting them to be "better than film" but don't understand wjy the results aren't as carefree as even the one-time-use cameras.

There are several ingredients to the point and shoot equation:

1. Color negative film has an wide latitude (exposure tolerance). You can often underexpose as much as a stop and overexpose up to 3 and still get a usable photo.

2. The lens, shutter speed and ISO of the film on a point&shoot are optimized for "typical" shooting conditions. Most people will get acceptable results. The small CCD or fast shutter will minimize out-of-focus conditions, and make the camera less susceptible to camera shake. You won't see a 2.8 lens on a point&shoot for example, because Alice will try to take a picture of Walter and Nancy and point the camera between them, pulling a nice focus on the distant wallpaper.

3. Confusing controls, manual modes and decision making is minimized to reduce the possibility of confusion.

4. The film lab has expensive equipment (and theoretically, at least, trained operators) to recognize fleshtones, sky and grass and correct exposure and color problems to a large extent. The average user who shoots and prints his/her own digital photographs may not have the same capabilities.

Thankfully, it's improving on most fronts. Technological advances are increasing the latitude range of digital, reducing noise, and increasing sensitivity. At some color labs, you can process your digital photos right alongside conventional 35mm or APS prints.

Regards,

Matt

[janetG]

hi chris - you summed it up for me - i ditto just about everything you have said. AND i've used the *P mode for sports shots - isn't the greatest, but it' not bad....

all i can add to this forum, is it sure is FUN learning how to become better at this, how to use the camera more wisely. I told a friend the other day - the only BAD camera is one that sits unused. Once your initial setup costs are finished, digital costs virtually nothing to maintain -

[Chris G]

Matt:
Actually you will find some nice bright lenses on the point and shoot. The guy behind the counter was stunned when I pointed out to him the minimum f stop on the Sony F717 (2.0 at the widest angle and 2.4 at telephoto). My CD300 is f2.0-f2.5. The Olympus C-730UZ has a 10x zoom (380mm 35mm equivalent) and is at f2.8-f3.5. I don't fully understand the concept completely, but due to the sensor size in these P&S cameras, the depth of field that you get at these lower f stops in a point and shoot is the equivalent to something like a 4 of 5.6 on an SLR (if I understood what I read correctly). Even in P mode on my Sony it will pick 2.0 and 2.4 quite a bit.

Also, with my Sony, in P mode the camera limits the ISO value to no higher than 200. Sony knows that its ISO400 is no good.

Hi Janet - I have been closely following your posts and photos on dpreview and have learned quite a bit from you and those that have responded. I think I have looked at everyone of your pictures. It sounds like we are both in about the same predicament (sp?). Trying to get some decent shots in these dimly lit Gyms. My son is in Marching Band and most of the times they perform at half time and the games are at night. It sure was great the ONE time they performed during a day game and the sun was out! After struggling at my daughters indoor soccer games I really look forward to summer and outdoor soccer.

[janetG]

hi chris - its good to hear from you - i could only hope that gymnastics would be in a brightly lit gym - but...that's not going to happen - and i'm stubborn enough to keep trying to get it right - one day later this week, that's just what i'm going to do. i WILL find the perfect lens for this kind of activity - i WILL find the right settings - if nothing else (haha) i am determined! This camera should be no different than any other SLR (film or digital) on the market and should be able to produce good quality photos in low light situations where there is fast movement (ie sports).

spent some time this weekend at a car show - half of the pictures are decent - so i guess that's an improvement. I think it's just going to take some time and experimentation to get the hang of this camera - the colors are great though - resolution is outstanding - now if i could just get sams or costco to be able to open my jpeg files, i'd be very happy. (that's another interesting problem i've not had before and it just way strange)

[memobug]

Most consumer digital cameras can boast really great Fstop numbers because the CCD is in the neighborhood of 1/4 inch, and there the "problem" of limited depth of field is minimized. Also the typically slow ISO sensitivities of these digital cameras require fast lenses.

F 2.0 on your Sony is probably closer in DOF to F8 on 35mm film. Typically 4-5 stops difference. You can read more here:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/index.html#TABLES

Regards,

Matt

Originally posted by Chris G
Matt:
Actually you will find some nice bright lenses on the point and shoot. The guy behind the counter was stunned when I pointed out to him the minimum f stop on the Sony F717 (2.0 at the widest angle and 2.4 at telephoto). My CD300 is f2.0-f2.5. The Olympus C-730UZ has a 10x zoom (380mm 35mm equivalent) and is at f2.8-f3.5. I don't fully understand the concept completely, but due to the sensor size in these P&S cameras, the depth of field that you get at these lower f stops in a point and shoot is the equivalent to something like a 4 of 5.6 on an SLR (if I understood what I read correctly). Even in P mode on my Sony it will pick 2.0 and 2.4 quite a bit.

Also, with my Sony, in P mode the camera limits the ISO value to no higher than 200. Sony knows that its ISO400 is no good.

[Wichita Wayne]

I shoot brides and grooms in the dark with my Hasselblads and Metz flashes. Set the flash on auto for f-11, set the lens to f-11 and the shutter to 60. Then set the focus to 15 feet for a full body shot and 10 feet for waste up shots. The Metz flash is powerful enough to bounce without changing any settings. Color negative film will allow the lab to have a good negative to work with, due to the latitude of the film. I tend to keep my camera set this way just in case I see a good shot and want to take a quick picture without messing with the focus. Thats all there is to point and shoot with a Hasselblad. I am sure that I will get to the same point (and shoot) with the S2 but I will probably depend on the electronic exposure controls to make up for the loss in latitude with the digital CCD. The bottom line is to get a good picture. You don't tell anybody that you set the camera to operate in point and shoot mode.

[janetG]

haha - good point! (no pun intended)

[Chris G]

Exactly Wayne. I've never used a Hasselblad before (unless that was what I used waaaay back when in high school. Or was it something like a Roliflex? Medium format anyway) but I would think I could read a manual a take some decent photos with it and have them come out at least as good as my Sony CD300 digital. The lighting would be off, the exposure may be a stop or two off, but I would expect it to be in focus and something I wouldn't mind giving to someone as a "snapshot". Something that I am not very close to yet with my S2. I really have my hopes set on getting a new body from Fuji that will have a predictable focus and then I can go from there. It's at their shop now (just took them a few days to find it).

[Chris G]

Thanks for the link Matt. I knew there was quite a difference, I just underestimated how great that difference was. Now if Sony could just increase the 5x zoom on the 717 and get that shutter lag down to something usable (and get it to write to a mini CD instead of the memory stick) I'd be taking a serious look at it for indoor sports.

Originally posted by memobug
Most consumer digital cameras can boast really great Fstop numbers because the CCD is in the neighborhood of 1/4 inch, and there the "problem" of limited depth of field is minimized. Also the typically slow ISO sensitivities of these digital cameras require fast lenses.

F 2.0 on your Sony is probably closer in DOF to F8 on 35mm film. Typically 4-5 stops difference. You can read more here:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/index.html#TABLES

Regards,

Matt

[Swampy]

Chris - The reasons I bought the S2 to "replace" my Sony CD1000 (10x zoom, 2 mega pixel, Mini-CD) was for greater control, "better lenses", higher pixel count and of course, "No lag" from button press to actual shoot.

I'm seeing all kinds of great pictures here on this site from the S2 that I haven't been able to achieve quite yet. Up until Bjnichols posted some extremely sharp samples he took just a week ago, I was going to toss my S2. Now I believe it is my errors that are causing me not to get the results I am looking for which I am improving on shot by shot. The S2 is not the point and shoot you and I are used to with our Sony's (if yours is anything like my model). It'll get some getting used to and practice to get what we are looking for I think.

I am more than happy with my S2 for what it's starting to give me now and seeing what I could be getting from it, even if it is more "work". The focus thing is an intrigueing situation though and I've never had such a problem getting sharp images from any camera, except my S2. What I'd really like to do is find someone like BJ nearby, go over there, hand them my camera and have them take a sharp picture with it, even with one of thier lenses, just so I know it's me and not my camera. :) I'm sure it's me though, but I'm still happy - I've got some great candid's and some good nature shots using the "P" mode as well as manual. I find it interesting that the S2 compresses the jpg's something like 1 1/2 times more even in fine mode than my Sony does which is why I believe the S2 jpg's aren't going to be any sharper than my Sony. I've done some tests today in a controlled environment in jpg mode and tomorrow I'm going to try RAW with the S2 versus jpg on the Sony and see if I get better results. I'll post some results sometime at the end of the week perhaps.

[Chris G]

swampy101- I know the CD1000 very well. At least from a distance. Back when it first came out I was drooling over it. I don't know why they didn't keep the 10x zoom and update the CCD.

I understand why you went to the S2 for the higher pixel count but I don't understand the "greater control" and "better lenses" part. Did the Cd1000 a Carl Zeis lens like my CD300? I've never been disappointed with the quality of my lens. Just the zoom limitation. And the only control I miss on the CD300 is shallow depth of field, which does limit it for portraits and such, but that has never been a great area of interest for me anyway. And if they could speed up the CD write speed, I still think that it's a great storage medium. Instant archive.

As far as your sharpness results with the S2 and it not being a point and shoot I understand but only to a degree. Can you place your S2 on a tripod with a cable release (or timer), use a decent Nikon f2.8 lens at f2.8, point it at a birdfeeder (or other static object) and get a nice sharp picture? I could accept the "it's probably just me" if I got a sharp picture off the tripod, but soft focus in my hand.

I would be happy if my S2 was just as sharp (not sharper) than my CD300. But again, hopefully I am just complaining in vain, and the new body will pleasantly suprise me.

Please let me know how your RAW experiment works out. That was going to be my next step as well before I decided to send the camera back. In this mode I believe the in camera sharpening is automatically "off" even if you don't have it set up that way in the menu.

[Swampy]

My Sony did have the Carl Zeis lens, but, I wanted to be able to get wider angle, possible further zoom and even hook up to a telescope. Don't get me wrong, the lens on the CD1000 is awesome for the range that it has and the sharpness you can get from it and I'll be keeping it and still use it.

I wanted more control as in faster shutter speeds, the ability to control both the aperture and the shutter speed at the same time (can you do this with the CD1000/300? I haven't been able to figure it out!), no lag time on the shutter release, faster recording, more frames per second, the ability to have a larger flash (and larger flash selection - I know there's an external flash available for the CD1000, but I want to have a choice). There's probably more that I'm missing here in my sleepy, 1 sip of caffeine morning, but those are the bulk, especially the no lag time on the shot.

I've taken over 1000 pictures with the S2 now and I'm comparing them to the 2 1/2 years of pictures I took with my Sony and haven't had even one picture from the S2 come out as sharp or sharper than my Sony yet. This has been disturbing me, until, like I said, BJ posted those shots of the train, and especially the close ups of the dollar bill. I've taken new pictures with the Sony in the same environment along side with the S2 and even printed them. On screen the Sony was sharper and had greater depth of field, but printed versions of these show the S2 shots to be better quality (with the exception of the depth of field). It's hard for me to tell on screen though because of the larger pixel count.

I'll be disapointed if I have to shoot raw with the S2 to get the sharpness I am looking for since the Sony was, for the most part, point and shoot. I won't be looking forward to all of the post processing on every picture that will have to be done. Not to mention the cash layout I'll need to get a decent storage amount to accomodate now even larger files.

For examples of the sharpness I had with the sony, I have posted my favorites and sharpest pics from the last 2 years at the link below. As I've said before here, the yellow snap dragon flower shot on this page is my favorite. Make sure your browser isn't set to resize to fit your screen. All of these were taken with basically default settings, some in macro mode, one with a flash. No modification to the photos were done and they are all the original Jpegs. All were taken freehand except the diamond ring, which was on a Slik tripod. I have many other sharp pictures as well, but these are my favorites.

I do have a bird feeder in my backyard and is also surrounded by many trees, so, maybe what I'll do is try and do a duplicate shot of yours with both my Sony and my S2. I won't be able to get to that until this weekend probably though. I'll do some more testing today though with the RAW and TIFF.

Anyone have any suggestions for obtaining a sharper image with the S2? Sharpening, Off, STD, Hard? Tone? Anything?

To be continued....

[janetG]

swampy - am interested in your link - i don't think you posted it.....

janetg

[Swampy]

Originally posted by janetG
swampy - am interested in your link - i don't think you posted it.....

janetg

Told ya. Only 1 sip of caffiene for me.. :)

http://theswampbbs.com/sony/pics/default.htm

[Swampy]

OK, I lied. I got to the "bird house test" this morning. I haven't posted the bird house yet, but I decided to take the suggestion of the picket fence and do that as well while I was out there and post that one first. It can be seen at http://theswampbbs.com/s2/focus

Pretty much all info is posted at the top there, but if you have more questions, post them here. I guess all the ragging and worrying about my S2 over my Sony last night hurt it's feelings or something. I finally got a sharp picture from my S2 compared with my Sony this morning. Let's see if I can do it again though.

The Fence set came out sharp (for the DOF in each one that is) and the bird house one came out satifactory considering the lighting conditions. Just an hour before these pictures, I couldn't see across my own street because of fog. Should have the bird house set up shortly as well.

[Chris G]

Yes, those look very sharp to me. And so do the ones from the Sony. BTW, My Sony CD300 does have an "M" (manual) setting where you can set Aperture and Shutter Speed. Probably quite different from the CD1000. A different body style altogether. It is on a dial similar to the S2. "P", "S", "A" and "M" modes are all set with this dial. When in "M" there is a thumbwheel that you use to set the F stop and the shutter speed that are displayed on the LCD screen. Push the thumbwheel in and the aperture becomes active. Rotate the thumbwheel and the aperture changes. Push the thumbwheel in and it sets it. Rotate it to shift to the shutter speed. Push in the thumbwheel, rotate it and change the shutter speed. Above the two the EV is displayed. When it reads "0", the camera thinks the exposure is correct. Or it reads + or - as you adjust the shutter or aperture. Same concept as the S2. Or you can put it in A or S mode and repeat a similar process.

I posted some of my CD300 shots here:

http://www.pbase.com/cj_michigan/sony_cd300

[Swampy]

My birdhouse pictures are up now. 4 shots ranging from f2.8 through f22. Again, today, for some reason, my focus is working great. Maybe some revalation came over me while I slept last night. :)

http://theswampbbs.com/s2/focus/birdhouse.htm

[Chris G]

How far away were you? I am trying to figure out how much DOF you should have had. Were the ferns on the right at about the same distance? They look pretty sharp.

I tried to right click to get your file and zoom in on it, but it doesn't work on your site. Good feature to have. The birdhouse is a bit dark on my monitor as well, so I am having a hard time seeing what kind of detail you were able to pick up on.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
How far away were you? I am trying to figure out how much DOF you should have had. Were the ferns on the right at about the same distance? They look pretty sharp.

I tried to right click to get your file and zoom in on it, but it doesn't work on your site. Good feature to have. The birdhouse is a bit dark on my monitor as well, so I am having a hard time seeing what kind of detail you were able to pick up on.

The Birdhouse is approximately 29 yards from the front of the lens. The Bird feeder to the left is about 25 yards. There's a propane heater (silver pole on the right side) that is about 20 yards out. There is a fern hanging on the fence which is only about 1 foot further than the birdhouse, so, the branches of the fern would actually be touching the back of the birdhouse if they were closer together. There is another fern on ther right side that remains mostly out of focus until I get out to f22.

Towards the back, behind the birdhouse, there's my neighbors lot, which is about 110 feet, then a street (5 cars wide from curb to curb), then a front yard of about 35-40 feet, and you can see the roof shingles of that house out at F22 as well.

Let me make it easier on you. I'll try and figure out private messaging and I'll zip the whole unedited full sized sequence up and send you a link on where to download it shortly. (So I don't have 300 people downloading the 20-25 megs on my bandwidth...:))

[Swampy]

Ok, looks like you can only send a private message while the user is online and your email is blocked. Send me an email (if you can't get it here, go to http://theswampbbs.com and click on the email button at the bottom and I'll send you a link. I might not get to it tonight, if I do, it'll be around 10-10:05pm PST, if not, then it will be between 5:30-6:30am PST tomorrow morning. :)

[Wichita Wayne]

I especially like the nude.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Wayne
I especially like the nude.

Like how I snuck that in?? :D

I forgot to mention that the actual focus point was dead center of the triangular roof section of the birdhouse. I'm not extremely pleased with the focus of these shots, but, as I posted in the photo's section, I did nail a real sharp picture this morning while I was out there. Man. Only when I'm screwin' around could I get a decent shot. Heh. Maybe things will get better now.

Y'all know I'm trying to gain every photographer's knowledge here in 8 weeks, right? :P

[Tom V]

I use the my S2 for commercial stuff, personal stuff, and for "point and shoot" stuff.

The camera is a tool. How you use the tool is up to you. If you go about your photography professionally, and you use your camera professionally, the camera is a professional camera. If you grab that same camera, point it and shoot it, you could call the camera is a "point and shoot" camera. The camera is easy enough to use, and use quickly.

There are cameras that would be very inappropriate for "point and shoot" stuff, such as my Cambo Legend 4x5 view camera that weighs 13 pounds without a lens and has no provision for a neck strap. I could venture out and try shooting it as a point and shoot, but I know that very little of the resulting exposures would result in anything remotely worth the expense.

[bjnicholls]

There ain't no point & shooters in this thread. The mere fact that you bother to figure out issues you have with the camera means that you're willing to invest some effort using a camera that has more complexity than any real snapshooter would tolerate.

I apologize for the condescending tone of my "...can't understand.." comment. For me, a $2200 DSLR along with the investment in media, batteries and chargers would be hard to justify for only casual shooting. Although I do get some direct business use of my camera for my graphic design business, I use my photography as a personal creative outlet. My words come from looking at the the camera with my own particular blinders. There are other valid perspectives on what to expect and do with an expensive camera.

On the other hand, an interchangeable lens SLR, no matter how user-friendly, will require more of the user than a simpler camera design. Fuji has a legitimate reason to give the S2 the "Pro" moniker. The camera and software have features that are targeted at pros and serious amateurs.

I can imagine a "pick up and shoot" DSLR based on something like the Nikon N65. The N65 has simplified controls. The flash will pop up automatically if light is low. It has the pictographic modes for "action" and "portrait", etc. Although it has some more advanced controls, they aren't the dominant controls and it takes more intent by the user to work with them.

The trick to more casual shooting with the S2 is knowing the camera well enough avoid settings and workflows that can lead to problems (or the perception of problems). I don't think you can avoid learning some advanced settings, even if it's just so you can avoid them.

Is the S2 a good point and shoot? No. Can the S2 be used for casual shooting? Yes, absolutely, but it has a significantly more subtantial learning curve compared to simpler cameras that are designed specifically for casual shooting.

Always remember the paradox that the higher the resolution, the more possibilities there are to compromise sharpness. A lower res camera isn't capable of showing the warts, and the default settings typically look better at display resolutions compared to images straight out of a camera like the S2.

[Chris G]

No apology needed bjnichols. I agree that the S2 really isn't a point and shoot. I just understand those that act like only a seasoned Pro can pick it up and take decent photos (and I know you didn't imply that either), and as soon as an amateur such as myself has trouble with it they want to blame "operator error".

I really believe one could use all the factory defauts (except turn CSP off!) pop up the flash in P mode an take some OK pics. Lighting may be a bit off, composure might stink, but have a decent in focus shot of junior sitting on the porch. I guess it all stems from my focus problems with the camera and knowing all the time and effort I have spent trying to resolve it.

swampy101, I have been having trouble accesing your site. Looks like it is down. Looks like maybe someone pulled the plug now that the one photo has been "exposed" (and before I had a chance to discover it). I'll try again tomorrow.

[Wichita Wayne]

The nude I was referring to was the squirrel that was sitting on the limb. And I really liked your daughters prom night picture. How did you ever get her to pose for such a tight head shot? Anyway it looks as if you edited your post and changed the site reference so I will shut up.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Wayne
The nude I was referring to was the squirrel that was sitting on the limb. And I really liked your daughters prom night picture. How did you ever get her to pose for such a tight head shot? Anyway it looks as if you edited your post and changed the site reference so I will shut up.

Had no idea what you were talking about with that nude comment, so I thought I'd roll with it and say what I said and see how many people went through all the pictures looking for some hidden naked person. :) (how many of you did anyway?!!? Haha)

Getting my daughter to stand still? Ha! Only at 9am on a Saturday morning will she stand still. Only because she's dead asleep. That is the great thing about that Sony camera, it's "P" mode was 95% ready everytime. She wasn't standing still, I was just following her like I was using a video camera. She was looking in a mirror behind her, then turned around and I fired. There is a way to get rid of a lot of the lag with that camera, simply by holding the shutter release halfway down, it will auto focus and hold (Equivalent to the S2's "AF-S" mode) and will then fire the shutter almost immediately. Worked for that kind of situation, but try that with my son and his skate board going down the street then grinding on a curb in front of me, forget it. Out of focus. Another reason I wanted something like the S2.

I'm still waiting for comments from JanetG since she specifically wanted to see the pic's. :P

Bryan

[Chris G]

I've viewed the 4 birdhouse pictures at full size that you sent me and I am seeing the focus point behind the birdhouse. The fence is nice and sharp to me. I can make out the roughness in a few of the panels. The leaves on the vine above the birdhouse look nice and sharp as well. If you take into account the +/- 3.5 foot DOF that you had, I would have expected something different.

For instance, take a look at the horizontal board in the fence. Follow it from left to right at full screen and see if you can tell where it is in focus and where it starts to get out of focus. For me, it seems like it is in focus almost all the way to the left of the screen. Going to the right, it looks like it goes out of focus somewhere directly behind the birdhouse post.

I did adjust the lighting in PS Elements to get a better look at it. Something I find myself doing quit often in my shots. In fact, I think that most of the time the correct exposure on my camera is +.5 EV but that's another topic.

[Swampy]

Chris,

Just sent you a partial drawing of my back yard with better distances and added a few of the features in the picture. I was shooting at an angle to the fence, so for everyone here, this is why the focus on the fence is strange. Not a large angle mind you, maybe 12-15 inches difference in distance from side to side.

[Chris G]

After more viewing I compared the pictures and just looking at the birdhouse, I think the birdhouse is in best focus in #0006 and #0007. They are about the same. Next is #0008, and then #0009 being the worst. Then, looking at the fence to the left side, I think that #0007 is the best followed by #0006 and 0008 (about the same) and #0009 being the worst again.

Then I took at look at the exif and found:

#7= f11
#5= f5.6
#8= f22
#9= f2.8

Which seems to indicate that even though I think that the focus point is behind the birdhouse, the best quality comes from the middle f-stops and that the extremes (f2.8 and f22) are the softest.

[bjnicholls]

That's typical lens performance. At smaller apertures, diffraction starts to degrade image quality. Wide open is usually a bit soft. The "sweet spot" with many lenses is in the mid apertures.

[Chris G]

Swampy, I'm anxious to hear back from you on my comments on your birdhouse photos. Did you see the same back focus that I did?

This is my first experience with these high quality lenses on the S2 and I'm starting to wonder if I am being overly critical and maybe this is typical for this setup and this is as good as it gets. That's why I am anxious for your opinion and other opinions.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
Swampy, I'm anxious to hear back from you on my comments on your birdhouse photos. Did you see the same back focus that I did?

This is my first experience with these high quality lenses on the S2 and I'm starting to wonder if I am being overly critical and maybe this is typical for this setup and this is as good as it gets. That's why I am anxious for your opinion and other opinions.

Ahh, answered you in the photo's section. Quick and easy answer, yes. I did see what you saw. Which compelled me to shoot some more, which is that one picture in Photo's. Another interesting one there, but you're reading that one too.