Canon S2 conversion lenses test shots here

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make some shots
and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's uploading now, but
uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be completely up within some half
an hour from now.
Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some suggestion and
i will update my page. (real mail is available on web page)
I did this rather on a quick side...

http://sleeperman.topcities.com

 

[Per]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
news:38PJe.1222$cE1.181085@news.siol.net...
> Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make some
> shots and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's uploading
> now, but uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be completely up
> within some half an hour from now.
> Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some suggestion
> and i will update my page. (real mail is available on web page)
> I did this rather on a quick side...
>
> http://sleeperman.topcities.com
Thanks for sharing, I have just bought a S2 IS as well, and plan to get a
LensMate's adapter soon.
The Canon original tele converter seems sharp enough, but the Kenko wide
adapter does not really cut it.
Raynox wide adapters as seen on LensMates comparison test shots seem to give
much sharper pics.

Have you seen these links to the adapter reviews on this Norwegian site:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/?p=6
/per

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

per wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in
> news:38PJe.1222$cE1.181085@news.siol.net...
>> Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make
>> some shots and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's
>> uploading now, but uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be
>> completely up within some half an hour from now.
>> Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some
>> suggestion and i will update my page. (real mail is available on web
>> page) I did this rather on a quick side...
>>
>> http://sleeperman.topcities.com
> Thanks for sharing, I have just bought a S2 IS as well, and plan to
> get a LensMate's adapter soon.
> The Canon original tele converter seems sharp enough, but the Kenko
> wide adapter does not really cut it.
> Raynox wide adapters as seen on LensMates comparison test shots seem
> to give much sharper pics.
>
> Have you seen these links to the adapter reviews on this Norwegian
> site: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/?p=6
> /per

nice site. I'll look into it. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some say that the focusing of the S2 is much faster than the S1. If that
is true than the S1 must really be a drag. I tested the S2 and found
the focusing to me terribly slow, especially at longer zooms. This is
the main reason that I stopped considering it.

I am still considering an Panasonic FZ5. This focuses much faster and
has more features that are significant and an easier to use menu
system. Overall, the S2 has more total features and a superior movie
mode and balances very well but Canon only makes it in silver.

I tried these camera for about 5 hours. Both are nice but the more
significant features and much faster focusing of the FZ5 is pulling more
toward the Panasonic. As far as results go, I think it would be very
difficult to say one is better than the other overall.

I think the extra lenses for either of them is a waste of money. The
whole purpose for this type of camera is to travel light. If one needs
that flexibility than I would consider the Canon DRXT, 20D or the Nikon
D50/70. All of these DSLRs are top notch. The Nikon D50 balances
better than the DRXT (terrible grip) but I think Canon is more digitally
advanced than Nikon is at this point.

SleeperMan wrote:

>Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make some shots
>and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's uploading now, but
>uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be completely up within some half
>an hour from now.
>Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some suggestion and
>i will update my page. (real mail is available on web page)
>I did this rather on a quick side...
>
>http://sleeperman.topcities.com
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Some say that the focusing of the S2 is much faster than the S1. If
> that is true than the S1 must really be a drag. I tested the S2 and
> found the focusing to me terribly slow, especially at longer zooms. This
> is the main reason that I stopped considering it.


Well, terribly slow means terribly oversaid. Even cheap ones doesn't have
that slow focusing. And, if 0.5 sec max is terribly slow for you, then i
can't help you...


>
> I am still considering an Panasonic FZ5. This focuses much faster and
> has more features that are significant and an easier to use menu
> system. Overall, the S2 has more total features and a superior movie
> mode and balances very well but Canon only makes it in silver.

totally true


>
> I tried these camera for about 5 hours. Both are nice but the more
> significant features and much faster focusing of the FZ5 is pulling
> more toward the Panasonic. As far as results go, I think it would be
> very difficult to say one is better than the other overall.

id say that more than 0.1 sec faster focusing is important overall picture
quality, where Canon wins...

>
> I think the extra lenses for either of them is a waste of money. The
> whole purpose for this type of camera is to travel light.


Here's where you are wrong. These type of camera is NOT meant to travel
light, but to get as quality as you can from this money range. Note that
cheapest SLR (decent one) is more than twice as S2. Travel light, that's
those small models, not this one. This type of camera is top of compact
ones. If you want better, you must go into SLR, but this means a lot more
money involved.
Extra lenses...depends. True, wide one has distortion, etc... but, need or
not need is a relative question... It's same as when having SLR, you have
more lenses to cover wider range


If one
> needs that flexibility than I would consider the Canon DRXT, 20D or
> the Nikon D50/70. All of these DSLRs are top notch. The Nikon D50
> balances better than the DRXT (terrible grip) but I think Canon is
> more digitally advanced than Nikon is at this point.
>
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make
>> some shots and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's
>> uploading now, but uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be
>> completely up within some half an hour from now.
>> Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some
>> suggestion and i will update my page. (real mail is available on web
>> page) I did this rather on a quick side...
>>
>> http://sleeperman.topcities.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>Some say that the focusing of the S2 is much faster than the S1. If
>>that is true than the S1 must really be a drag. I tested the S2 and
>>found the focusing to me terribly slow, especially at longer zooms. This
>>is the main reason that I stopped considering it.
>>
>>
>
>
>Well, terribly slow means terribly oversaid. Even cheap ones doesn't have
>that slow focusing. And, if 0.5 sec max is terribly slow for you, then i
>can't help you...
>
>

I have had other people test this. Focus on something close at wide
zoom and then go to full tele and refocus. They all said it is not
acceptable.

>
>
>
>>I am still considering an Panasonic FZ5. This focuses much faster and
>>has more features that are significant and an easier to use menu
>>system. Overall, the S2 has more total features and a superior movie
>>mode and balances very well but Canon only makes it in silver.
>>
>>
>
>totally true
>
>
>
>
>>I tried these camera for about 5 hours. Both are nice but the more
>>significant features and much faster focusing of the FZ5 is pulling
>>more toward the Panasonic. As far as results go, I think it would be
>>very difficult to say one is better than the other overall.
>>
>>
>
>id say that more than 0.1 sec faster focusing is important overall picture
>quality, where Canon wins...
>
>
>
>>I think the extra lenses for either of them is a waste of money. The
>>whole purpose for this type of camera is to travel light.
>>
>>
>
>
>Here's where you are wrong. These type of camera is NOT meant to travel
>light, but to get as quality as you can from this money range. Note that
>cheapest SLR (decent one) is more than twice as S2.Travel light, that's
>those small models, not this one. This type of camera is top of compact
>ones. If you want better, you must go into SLR, but this means a lot more
>money involved.
>Extra lenses...depends. True, wide one has distortion, etc... but, need or
>not need is a relative question... It's same as when having SLR, you have
>more lenses to cover wider range
>
>
> If one
>
>
>>needs that flexibility than I would consider the Canon DRXT, 20D or
>>the Nikon D50/70. All of these DSLRs are top notch. The Nikon D50
>>balances better than the DRXT (terrible grip) but I think Canon is
>>more digitally advanced than Nikon is at this point.
>>
>>SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since i just bought two lenses (wide and tele) i thought i'd make
>>>some shots and publish them. You can see some on my web page. It's
>>>uploading now, but uplink speed is f***ing slow so it should be
>>>completely up within some half an hour from now.
>>>Mail me if i didn't make decent shots for comparing with some
>>>suggestion and i will update my page. (real mail is available on web
>>>page) I did this rather on a quick side...
>>>
>>>http://sleeperman.topcities.com
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart Bailey wrote:
> In Message-ID:<UCTYe.371$h6.120603@news.siol.net> posted on Fri, 23
> Sep 2005 15:42:29 +0200, SleeperMan wrote: Begin
>
>> but, need or
>> not need is a relative question...
>
> That's the often overlooked distinction.
>
> I'd think "need" referred to a circumstantial professional
> requirement, which ZLR cameras aren't even designed to be. However,
> being a retired old geezer with a penchant for photography, my S2 is
> an ideal package.

Sure, sometimes people think they can get pro equipment by buying such
models, which are shown to be excellent in all reviews...while they tend to
forget that this "excellent" is shown while bearing in mind camera class,
not overall figure.
Me...i use my S2 occasionally, just for hobby, but when i shoot, i want to
experiment a bit. For just hobby, SLR is definitely too expenisve, while S2
is ideal stuff, since you get quite a lot of manual settings, decent quality
for decent money (well, "decent money" is again a relative statement...🙂)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some say that the focusing of the S2 is much faster than the S1. If
>>> that is true than the S1 must really be a drag. I tested the S2 and
>>> found the focusing to me terribly slow, especially at longer zooms.
>>> This is the main reason that I stopped considering it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, terribly slow means terribly oversaid. Even cheap ones doesn't
>> have that slow focusing. And, if 0.5 sec max is terribly slow for
>> you, then i can't help you...
>>
>>
>
> I have had other people test this. Focus on something close at wide
> zoom and then go to full tele and refocus. They all said it is not
> acceptable.
>
>>
>>

tested...
difference is not that big...if you bear in mind that in full zoom mode
minimum distance is just over 1 meter... and sure, when zooming, you must
select a spot to focus. Overall, it's just not a matter to discuss, since
speed is not that important. If you want speed, then you pay for it (by
buying SLR)