Any thoughts pro or con about the Olympus 1s versus Fujifilm S series S1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ndukes

Whenever I consider buying a new camera (and, being honest, I have been through more than stacks up in logic) I research thoroughly based on a list of features essential to what I shoot and how the financial outlay might improve the scope and quality of my output and add to convenience. Carefully and honestly going through this process determines what model, if any, I wish to buy to achieve my objectives at a price that's acceptable.

The down side, as I see it, is that Nikon's kit lens won't do macro but focuses down to 11" which might just do it for you. I don't recommend lens changes at all in your environment.
If this is a direction you might be tempted to consider, a phone call to B&H might be worth while to see if they will supply you with a D5200 with a macro lens in place of the 18-55 kit lens within your budget.
Kathy Li's and Manfred's views on this post might be interesting also.

Sorry for putting a spanner in the works but it's with the best of intentions.

---

Not a spanner but rather a well thought opinion. The trouble is that it is a DSLR. It will require changing lenses In the last 3 weeks I have dropped and broken two jars of jam, (I am truly clumsy) and even worse it offers the possibility of buying more and more lenses.

And as you say it doesn't get up close and personal. I just posted a rather neat frog shot and to get it I had to get down on all fours, half crawl under a bamboo chair, adjust the flashlight and shoot from about 4" away. Undoubtedly with a marco lens the D5200 would have gotten a great shot. But then I would have to switch back to a regular lens and that starts to get expensive? The Olympus may not have gotten quite as good a shot but then again perhaps while i was changing lenses the frog would have hopped away?

Still and all I shall look forward to any other opinions on your opinion. and I will go back to B&H to take another look.
Thanks.

@Neville, I had a similar thought, only mirrorless instead of dSLR, for smaller size/weight, and--with micro four-thirds--cost (my old G3 is now something like $150 on the used market). But came up with the same conclusion Brian did--adding on lenses for an interchangeable lens camera makes it a vastly more expensive/inconvenient proposition than a fixed-lens camera. And all the large-sensored fixed-lens compacts are vastly more expensive. I went nuts and bought an X100T, but I have two interchangeable lens systems if I need more versatility than a fast-prime fixed lens can give me. :D

The tradeoff between small and big sensors with fixed-lens cameras is the companion lens. Smaller sensors in the 1/2.3" format can have lenses that focus close for macro shots, as well as offer supertelephoto reach. But once you get up to 1" format, something's gotta give. Even more so the larger you go. Typically macro and supertelephoto are the first to go, for the lens size, and then the wider the lens goes, the less reach it'll have, so it can remain compact enough to be convenient/portable. So, it generally comes up to reach/zoom versatility vs. low-light with fixed-lens cameras.

Nothing's perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

....The tradeoff between small and big sensors with fixed-lens cameras is the companion lens. Smaller sensors in the 1/2.3" format can have lenses that focus close for macro shots, as well as offer supertelephoto reach. But once you get up to 1" format, something's gotta give. Even more so the larger you go. Typically macro and supertelephoto are the first to go, for the lens size, and then the wider the lens goes, the less reach it'll have, so it can remain compact enough to be convenient/portable. So, it generally comes up to reach/zoom versatility vs. low-light with fixed-lens cameras.

Nothing's perfect.

---

Totally agree.
But I checked out the Macro function on my Stylus 1 and the closest I can focus will give me an area measuring 6cm. x 4.5cm. which I assume is typical of most good point and shoots. I then checked out specifications of the APS-C sized Nikon D5200 with the 18-55mm kit lens which focuses down to 28cm. at 55mm. This produces an area in focus measuring roughly 7.5cm. x 5cm.
The D5200's sensor is 24mp., compared to 12mp. in the Stylus 1s. So a crop factor of 1.4 applied to an image from the D5200 would mean the cropped image would match the Stylus 1s's resolution and the image area would be cropped to roughly 5cm. x 3.5cm.
So, as far as I can determine, the macro capability of the D5200 with the kit 18-55 lens would at least match that of the Stylus 1s.
Depth of field is an issue between the two cameras. My 'off the top of the head' guess would suggest a difference of about 4 stops. But this is certainly manageable. I believe the noise experience with the D5200 would more than compensate as would the controllability of the larger sized DSLR.
It is certainly conceivable that the kit lens might just be all that Brian needs for what he does and he would therefore never need to remove the lens (or purchase any others for that matter), avoiding dust and moisture invading the private innards of his camera in his local environment.
I have to add, though, that one's own experience can influence one's recommendation of what's best for others but of course I accept that it takes no account of personal preferences and I personally find I have to get a comfortable feeling from my camera set-up for me to use it effectively.
Lets wish Brian well in making his choice.

Just a few to demonstrate how good the D5200 sensor is:-

Sycamore leaves (I think)
http://i57.tinypic.com/9q92eo.jpg
1/80 at f11, iso 800.

La Rochelle, France
http://i59.tinypic.com/o76exk.jpg
1/10 at f8, iso 1600.

Saint Martin-de-Re, France
http://i62.tinypic.com/33ykk0m.jpg
1/60 at f11, iso 100.

Saint Martin-de-Re, France
http://i62.tinypic.com/r2jiwg.jpg
1/5 at f11, iso 800.

Assuming a silicon box I am not worried about humidity so I like Kathy's Panasonic G3 at $150 and have seen a 14-140 zoom for around $400.... I gave my G3 to my son last visit in 2013 as I like the knobs of the GH2 but still have the 14-140 and while my favourite CU lens does not get the tight framing I would like it is well within the figures quoted above, My solution has been extension tubes, but simply screwing on a CU lens should be well within the ability of a the most kack-handed individual who remembers to have the strap around their neck.

Using a long lens [ 140 is 280mm in general terms when on MFT ] now a decade ago for me was an eye opener and no longer did I get up close and dangerous in achieving tight framed shots. [ I started with a 35-280 Nikon zoom on my 5700 bridge camera, and yes I still have it and occasionally use it even today ]

Since I paid $700 plus shipping and duty for my camera and another $700 + + for the lens ... such prices above make me sad but if you can find them it [MFT] is a vastely superior way to go rather than either bridge or DSLR.
Remember you do not HAVE to change lenses on an ILC .. I rarely do but enjoy having the feature for when I NEED it.

An important fact is that Jam-jars do not have neck straps but cameras do, even a piece of string works well if not the best looking :) Had one on my Zenit when family priorities meant I couldn't replace my seawater damaged Pentax in a shipwreck.

Remember I am the guy who dropped two cameras, a week apart, because my boss didn't provide strap or string
Years later I forgot my camera strap was outside my jersey as I removed it ...seriously cracked the prism and ruined the exposure meter ... but continued shooting for the rest of the day ... it was a Pentax SLR :)

Neville, perhaps it is only my monitor but the shots you posted from your 1s seem superior to the ones from your D5200?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Neville, perhaps it is only my monitor but the shots you posted from your 1s seem superior to the ones from your D5200?

---

Comparing two shots from two different cameras posted with small files posted on the internet is totally meaningless.

In a valid lab test setting where we are doing a like-to-like comparison, the larger sensor D5200 would blow the 1s out of the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Comparing two shots from two different cameras posted with small files posted on the internet is totally meaningless.

In a valid lab test setting where we are doing a like-to-like comparison, the larger sensor D5200 would blow the 1s out of the water.

---

Meaningless? If I was going to do any number of things with my shots then meaningless it would be. But as this is my working environment how they look here is hardly meaningless:)

I think you misunderstand me here, Brian. You were commenting on different images of different things posted on the internet and were commenting that to you, one camera seems to be giving better results than the other.

I was merely stating that this was not a meaningful way to compare camera output. If you want to do that, you have to take the same shot under the same conditions and enlarge to the same output size (and an output size where you could compare the two images).

I'm not saving that an Olympus 1s does not take great shots. I am saying that given the difference in sensor and lens design, it would surprise me greatly that the D5200 would not beat the Olympus s1 in an "apples-to-apples" test, especially as you start getting away from "ideal" shooting an lighting situations.

The pixel pitch of the 1s is 1.88 µm whereas the D5200 is at 3.9 µm; the low light and noise performance of the APS-C sized sensor are simply going to blow away the 1/1.7" one. Simple physics. The 28-300mm FF equivalent lens will certainly not perform as well the kit Nikkor that ships with the D5200. If Olympus published dynamic range and colour depth specs for the 1s, I strongly suspect it would come out weaker in performance, just because of the tiny photoreceptors used in the sensor.

But, I also understand that you are not in the market for a DSLR and the inherent costs of more lenses down the road.

Just to confuse things some more; dpReview just published a superzoom review today, and the Olympus S1 is one of the cameras that was reviewed.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/719...camera-roundup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

I think you misunderstand me here, Brian. You were commenting on different images of different things posted on the internet and were commenting that to you, one camera seems to be giving better results than the other.

I was merely stating that this was not a meaningful way to compare camera output....
Just to confuse things some more; dpReview just published a superzoom review today, and the Olympus S1 is one of the cameras that was reviewed.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/719...camera-roundup

---

We are in agreement that bigger sensor means better shot. I hope that we are also in agreement that the 1s will give a serious upgrade to my S4200? I have usually found that the Goldilocks theory work well for me. The 1s is better than the Fujifilm S1 and not as good as the D5200.

I also like the concept of the hybrid focus ring on the 1s.
Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

We are in agreement that bigger sensor means better shot. I hope that we are also in agreement that the 1s will give a serious upgrade to my S4200? I have usually found that the Goldilocks theory work well for me. The 1s is better than the Fujifilm S1 and not as good as the D5200.

I also like the concept of the hybrid focus ring on the 1s.
Brian

---

I wish I could answer your question, Brian, but I don't shoot the type of images that you do. If your look at my work, there is a definite lack of bugs and flowers... :)

To me, there is only one good reason to upgrade gear (other than that your original is no longer working) and that is when your existing camera and/or lens and/or flash and/or .... (fill in the blanks here), is consistently preventing you from getting the image that you are trying to get or there is some other significant limitation to using that camera.

I've always followed my own advice and was shooting the same film camera (Leica R3) for over 30 years because it gave me the results I wanted. When digital came out, that changed the equation and I eventually went that route when the value proposition (price / quality / obsolescence) hit the point where the purchase made sense to me.

I started with a D90 to try out digital, but was never comfortable with the format (crop frame), so I went full-frame when the D800 came out. I'm sticking with it right now because the other, newer offerings (although they are an improvement over the D800, for instance the D810), I find I have not hit a wall where I need a camera with "better" features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

I wish I could answer your question, Brian, but I don't shoot the type of images that you do. If your look at my work, there is a definite lack of bugs and flowers... :)

To me, there is only one good reason to upgrade gear (other than that your original is no longer working) and that is when your existing camera and/or lens and/or flash and/or .... (fill in the blanks here), is consistently preventing you from getting the image that you are trying to get or there is some other significant limitation to using that camera.

---

And there be the rub. I rarely get out to shoot so flowers, bugs and whatever else comes into our half acre is what I get to shoot.

As well you have hot the nail on the head. The Fuji is a great teacher but I am coming up against the limitations of the camera. The good news there is that the cameras limitations have pushed me along the pp path.

The selling points for the Stylus 1s are in no particular order; RAW, manual focus, hybrid ring, larger sensor, tiltable but not swing out to the side LCD, light weight, and except for a telephoto extension there is no lens changing.

A big selling point is that I will get to control many functions with my left hand and the hybrid ring.

This is the review that showed the pluses and minuses of the 1s and has weighted my opinion towards it.

Brian,
I do hope that this debate has helped you to form a conclusion that works best for you. Apart from ergonomics I suppose two of the main considerations for your specific needs are depth of field and image noise (or lack of it). It is certainly true that there is a tradeoff here between the positive noise experience associated with the larger sized sensor and the greater depth of field of the smaller one. My estimations would rate it at roughly four stops although I realize it is not a constant. In other words, in a given situation, f4 at iso 100 on the Stylus 1s would roughly equate to f16 at iso 1600. Higher achievers in maths and scientific studies than I with the help also of DPReview's image quality comparisons could presumably get this more accurate than my estimations. So in reality it seems to be more about handling and how the lenses perform than the sensor size. The Stylus 1s lens is certainly good in spite of its impressive zoom range.
One final thought occurred to me. You found the 'Imaging Resource' review of the Stylus 1 to be useful. I would suggest taking a few minutes out to check out their excellent and well balanced review of the D5200 at https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr#q=i...resource+d5200
I must say that, with the opportunities to capture some of the wonderful flowers and creatures you have brought to us so effectively on CIC, I would gladly be delighted to have either camera at my disposal.
Finally, which ever route you take, there will be a learning curve, but that's part of the excitement of new discovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

And there be the rub. I rarely get out to shoot so flowers, bugs and whatever else comes into our half acre is what I get to shoot. ...

---

May I possibly divert your attention for a moment from camera choice, and mention another thing that might help you out a ton, regardless of which camera you purchase? Since both of those cameras have M mode and a flash hotshoe, I'd also say consider getting (at least a little bit) into off-camera lighting. With macro/table top shots, etc. and especially with a small-sensor camera, off-camera lighting can make a very big difference by adding enough light into the scene that you don't have to get into the territory of where those cameras don't perform so great (low light), as well as giving you the freedom to control and create the light, not just shoot what light is there.

And the cost of the gear is not astronomical. I shot the following with my G3 and a bare YN-560 (US$60) with RF602 triggers (US$25), simply held in my left hand:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7224/7...37abc854_z.jpg

A little bit of off-axis fill flash can go a looong way. See also the Strobist sunflower shot done with a Powershot G7:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31454864@N00/1327354590/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

May I possibly divert your attention for a moment from camera choice, and mention another thing that might help you out a ton, regardless of which camera you purchase? Since both of those cameras have M mode and a flash hotshoe, I'd also say consider getting (at least a little bit) into off-camera lighting. With macro/table top shots, etc. and especially with a small-sensor camera, off-camera lighting can make a very big difference by adding enough light into the scene that you don't have to get into the territory of where those cameras don't perform so great (low light), as well as giving you the freedom to control and create the light, not just shoot what light is there.

And the cost of the gear is not astronomical. I shot the following with my G3 and a bare YN-560 (US$60) with RF602 triggers (US$25), simply held in my left hand:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7224/7...37abc854_z.jpg

A little bit of off-axis fill flash can go a looong way. See also the Strobist sunflower shot done with a Powershot G7:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31454864@N00/1327354590/

---

This shot speaks more than a thousand words. It's stunning and certainly makes your point powerfully. Added to wish lisst and near the top.

Beautiful photograph and point well illustrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

This shot speaks more than a thousand words. It's stunning and certainly makes your point powerfully. Added to wish lisst and near the top.

---

My work here is done! BTW, the Yongnuo gear I mentioned are older models. Today, the analogs of those super-cheap and possibly not-so-reliable pieces of gear would be the YN-560III (or IV), and a YN-560-TX transmitter. A little more expensive, but the radio triggering system is built-in to the flash, and the transmitter can control the power level of the remote flash.

when I click on the link I get an advertisement that includes a link to 'natural breast enhancement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

when I click on the link I get an advertisement that includes a link to 'natural breast enhancement!

---

Which link? The flickr link to David Hobby's picture of a sunflower? That link works fine for me--sounds like you may want to check your machine for malware/adware.

But here's the image:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1057/1...6d46c119_z.jpg
Canon Powershot G7: Sunflower by David H, on Flickr

And his text on it is:

Quote:

---

Canon Powershot G7: Sunflower
Sunflower, directly as from the camera (except for slight crop) shot with Canon Powershot G7 point and shoot camera and two speedlights. Check "all sizes" (largest size) to see a full-res file.

©David Hobby, http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/02...-strobist.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Which link? The flickr link to David Hobby's picture of a sunflower? That link works fine for me--sounds like you may want to check your machine for malware/adware.

But here's the image:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1057/1...6d46c119_z.jpg
Canon Powershot G7: Sunflower by David H, on Flickr

And his text on it is:

---

nope that link works fine. It is the link to 'off camera lighting' that gives me a strange outcome.