Get 5% off Loupedeck Live with code: Ephotozine5

Latest Review Comments

Latest comments, thoughts and reaction to our recently reviewed Photographic Equipment, including the Ricoh Caplio R6.

Wow, look at all that noise at iso 1600!

Made by RipleyExile on 4 May 2007 10:27AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Ricoh Caplio R6 - Images are noisy
Ricoh Caplio R6 - Portrait mode too soft
Ricoh Caplio R6 - Flash fairly weak

Not very good then Duncan!


Made by User_Removed on 3 May 2007 5:17PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Both cameras feature the same focal length shift so you can discount that. The bodies are identical so you can discount that as well. It's a fairly simple choice. If you are mostly shooting landscapes or in the studio where the light can be controlled, or you need a faster shooting speed I'd buy a D200. If you are mainly shooting outdoor portraits or weddings, I'd go for the S5. The prices for both are pretty good.

Made by Duncan_E on 3 May 2007 2:20PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Q Using discounts I have sourced the Nikon D200 and Fuji S5 pro (body only) for 775 and 939 respectively. Which of the two would you recommend for the prices stated? ie does the Fuji warrant paying an extra 164 for technically a lesser chip and focal length shift (turning my 24-200mm lens to a 36-300mm) although it does profess a wider dynamic range...? My photography has a wide subject base with the occasional wedding thrown in for friends etc. Really confused as to what to buy! Any help is appreciated.


Made by flash783 on 3 May 2007 10:58AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Yes, the more you crop the less data you have to print with, then the bigger you print, the cruder or softer it will look. This applies to all cameras. However, i would point out that the output from the S5, in terms of detail and sharpness is not the same as you would get from a standard 6Mp CCD that was interpolated to 12Mp. This is much better - thanks to the honeycomb design of the CCD array meaning that that there are more surrounding pixels to sample from to create the interpolated ones.

Made by Duncan_E on 2 May 2007 10:39AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Thanks for your review on the S5 PRO I have been considering this camera and the D200 nice to see the comparisons
John Douglas

p.s. Does the fact that the S5 Pro has 6million real pixels have any bearing on printing at A3 size if you were cropping the original print]

Made by Johndouglas1538 on 1 May 2007 12:36PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Just bought one and it's top hole. It's exactly the same size as my 75-300mm IS, so it's easy to carry around in your bag, although it's quite a bit heavier.

Made by rickbowden on 1 May 2007 8:27AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

How do I get in touch with Ian Kerr please?

Made by JulieR on 29 Apr 2007 5:28PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

I use the older non USM version of this lens and am a bit fed up with the time taken to focus. Performance wise it's superb and I believe the USM one is thought to be better.

Time for an upgrade then...!

I'm also a member of the Ian Kerr fan club having bought 3 lenses from him and a few folk in my club have had a good experience too with their purchases.


Made by Tony_Baloni on 28 Apr 2007 8:43PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

The image with the Nikon was taken from further back to counter the effect of the 1.5x crop factor caused by its smaller sensor.

Crop Factor = the camera crops the central part of the lens image circle. By moving the camera back you are nullifying the comparison.

If you take both pictures at 50mm f/8.0 with similar lenses; you take them at the same distance. It doesn't matter if you have a wider field of view on the 5D's full frame; that's because the circle is not cropped. You are only interested in a 100% crop comparison anyway so that extra part of the image circle is not even kept. And you're not even comparing the whole surface of either sensors.

That crop factor is a pain for comparisons; it was already hard to compare APS-C sensors to film; but now Full frame vs APS-C is not much easier; sensor size influences depth of field; distance as well... they're different formats; and not comparable.

You don't compare a 50mm lens at f8 on a 6x6 camera to a 50mm at f8 on a 35mm camera. The exact same reasons you don't apply here as well. You can't have an accurate mathematical comparison by only multiplying distance.

Made by hivewasp on 28 Apr 2007 12:56PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply