  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My very personal and emotional comparison
by Axel R. Thill
|
I have to stress, that the following comparison of the 3 cameras is very subjective, but I hope not totally biased. To put my comments in perspective, I want to make it clear that I own a Nikon D1, am very very happy with it and never touched the S1 or D30. So this comparison is done without even having seen the last 2 operating live. |
If you read Chapter 1, you will know that I came from Canon-land, but at the time I decided for a digital SLR, the Nikon was the only girl in town. Not even an announcement of FujiFilm or Canon was made to leave consumer-wait-land before I placed my order. So I did not have the impossible pleasure to compare the present 3 contenders for the professional or keen amateur, but simply took the Nikon D1 purely on availability and as only alternative. If I had to select a camera today, I would go for the Canon, but not because I am convinced of the new CMOS sensor or picture quality, but I have to admit that I started with Canon and would have continued with Canon. I trust them, they have a well balanced range of lenses, and never let me down, not even the point&shoot AutoJet Boy. And the Canon is more my budget league.
Let me also stress that if you continue reading, you will not find any picture comparison, or statement with respect to sharpness, color balance, pixel count, ISO strength, noise or whatever else might be measurable. Whole forums and websites do nothing else, in my view with limited success to give a clear guidance for purchase. All 3 have their strengths and weaknesses in picture quality , but to compare them, specially on the web, where everything is visible in meager 72dpi, does not make very much sense to me. Sharpness and color depth, important for everybody, are however at the end also a question of taste. Some real professionals (artists) even don't touch color, they only shoot B&W. So I came to the conclusion that you might need some PhotoShop touch for each one of them, in different fields however. None is perfect, none is really bad.
|
|
You will
however find quite some critical views on the FujiFilm, and here I go
again.
In my view, even with the good digital record of the Super-CCD, the "FujiFilm S1" is a fake. Above I told you I would have gone blindly for the Canon, because I trusted them. I think today, even with its inferior pixel count, that the D1 is better. But I still would take the Canon. FujiFilm on the contrary did everything possible in its marketing for me to create a perfect situation of distrust. Already, while I was waiting for my D1, consumer cameras of FujiFilm were reviewed quite critically, as its claims of the Super-CCD are simply exaggerated. Exaggerated is not the right word, I think FujiFilm is misleading the consumer. PC Watch (www.watch.impress.co.jp) uncovered, that they removed the initial claim of 4.3 megapixels printed on the front of earlier models, as in fact the Super-CCD of the 4700Z is only 2.4 megapixels. The discussion is going on, but for me, interpolation will always be interpolation, and a pixel is a pixel. I wonder if they had to take the mentioning of 4.3 megapixel off out of fear of lawsuits for misleading advertisement. I can follow their reasoning of wanting to claim 4.3 megapixels, as this is the most important comparison factor in the consumer world, but it definitively did not increase my trust in claims by this maker. To the contrary. |
But I am getting emotional again. Lets try to get back to the basic facts, objective and real. As I said, to be objective, picture quality is hard to use, as it is very subjective. But the price and what you get for your money, should be be the most objective comparison. I will continue to compare the Nikon D1 and the FujiFilm S1, as both rely on Nikon bodies and mechanics, whereas the Canon is a slightly different animal, being a EOS composite. Also, the Canon is the cheapest of these 3, thus you might not have the feeling of burning money as with the US$ 5.000 Nikon D1 or US$ 4.000 Fiji S1.
In my world (of finance), whatever price can always be separated in its many components, and each component can then be valued separately. For digital SLR's, I am using 2 easy price components:
|
Price = Body Value + Digital Value |
|
|
Body
value: Kodak are the leaders in
professional digital SLR's, and they charge. Their range of cameras are
all based on successful to-models by Nikon or Canon, where the Nikon F5
can be described without doubt leader of the pack. Nikon's D1 is not
purely based on the F5, being stripped of some features, and including
others from the newer F100. In my comparison, I value the body of the
Nikon D1 at US$ 2000. The FujiFilm S1 however, relies on one of the most
basic models of Nikon, the F60 (or in some countries the N60). Its price
is somewhere around US$ 575 (!) only.
Looking at the graph to the right, you can see what share the body value has in the total costs of the camera. The S1 is around US$ 1000 cheaper than the D1, but you get peanuts as body. Or, the digital value, the second price component, is so much superior. But that isn't the case, as the Super-CCD concept is also used in consumer camera, priced in line with other models. |
|
| Digital value: well, you know it already, its the difference between the actual price and the underlying body value. No need to be a big mathematician for that. But one element of the digital value behaves differently from the body value, its TETA. Now what the hell is TETA? Is loss of value over time, and guess who is loosing most value over time, the body or the digital part? With the enormous development speed of anything electronic, be it digital imaging or computing, the value of digital innovations is very quickly ZERO. So when today you spend thousands of dollars for a digital SLR, be realistic and do not expect its value to depreciate slowly over time. Its all over within a year or two. The only thing remaining is off course your camera, it will still make good photo's, and its value will solely depend on its body value. Those of us who buy a digital SLR today, burn money, being the digital value of the piece, and this very quickly, hopefully having fun. And with the FujiFilm S1 you burn US$ 3.425, with the Nikon D1 around US$ 3.000. Your choice... ! |
|
|
|
|
But there is more. As stated, the FujiFilm relies on the Nikon F60 body. This is without doubt a consumer camera, plastic, and you might have realized that I never used the PRO attachment when speaking of the FujiFilm S1. It simply is not a camera for the professional, and here I see another attempt of FujiFilm to mislead the consumer like myself. I am not a professional photographer, and have to rely on documentations and some very good forums to understand the differences. I think that FujiFilm is not helping itself by claiming more than there really is. Did you know that the S1 does not support the Silent Wave AF-S focusing lenses? This is not a mistake by FujiFilm, but a result of Nikon's F60 design. So no need to buy the very good and very expensive "S"-ones. This might be acceptable for many keen amateurs, but then, FujiFilm should recognize its real clients and the true values and limits of its product. I would welcome such honesty and then start to look at the product with interest. Because the S1 not a bad camera. But before I give thousands of US$ to someone, I have to trust them. Sorry. |
A last word on the Canon D30, and remember that I was born with a Canon in my hand. Body-wise the Canon D30 is in a similar league than the FujiFilm S1, but Canon does not overcharge. The DigVal/BodVal relationship is much more healthy. The guys at Canon have been reluctant to overcharge the new CMOS sensor technology, as FujiFilm does with its Super-CCD, but I think the Canon D30 is a honest product, not claiming what its not. I am sure that Canon will be the first to launch a upgraded version of the D30, then clearly satisfying the professional requirements. As long as they do not do it, they do not claim it, as tempting as it might be. I wonder how Fuji will call its upgraded model: the proPRO+
Sorry Canon, I would have taken you, but you came too late. Axel, Sep2000
..... now gone out taking pictures
Back to 
Home
