review of S3Pro from Luminous Landscape

[nightwolf75]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/s3-pro.shtml

[arttl]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/s3-pro.shtml

Let's wait for the price of S3 to drop..... Hopefully not too long.... Keke....

[vince123123]

review doesn't look too promising

[forbytes]

thanks for sharing, will forward the link to a friend who is keen on S3Pro.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by forbytes thanks for sharing, will forward the link to a friend who is keen on S3Pro.

no problem!

vince123123 - well... michael reichmann did qualify dat he's not doing a review, but just his experiences of using the cam for a few days. but, yah. i'm quite surprised too, at the not-so-promising reviewing. thot they would have improved the already excellent s2pro.

[sequitur]

i'm sort of wondering about the last part he says :

Quote: As usual, when a review like this appears there are those who question the results. In this case there have been a few people who have written to say that the error in this test is that I underexposed the shots of the barn, and therefore the S3's "R" pixels didn't have a chance to do their work. No, that's not the case, and that's not the way the digital photography works. When we talk about the ability to capture more highlight detail (which the S3 does), it's not because the chip can record data above 255 (assuming, for the sake of clarity 8 bit mode). The way this works is that if you expose so that the brightest object in the scene is just below 255, then the extra dynamic range will be found in the shadows. In other words, everyone bumps their heads up against the same ceiling. The advantage is in how far away the floor is.

as much as what he says does make some sense, i think more users in the real world are facing a problem of blown highlights than lacking shadow details... in the test he did an exposure for highlights and checked how much shadow detail he could get... the point is the s3's R pixels are meant to expose the highlights at a lower metering than the S pixels.. so as to give the user perceived "improved" dynamic range... by exposing for highlights... if the S pixels are already accurate, there is no "higher exposure value" than the S pixel measured value for the R pixel to bring down... i think this is food for thought as to whether this is an accurate "review"...

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by sequitur i'm sort of wondering about the last part he says as much as what he says does make some sense, i think more users in the real world are facing a problem of blown highlights than lacking shadow details... in the test he did an exposure for highlights and checked how much shadow detail he could get... the point is the s3's R pixels are meant to expose the highlights at a lower metering than the S pixels.. so as to give the user perceived "improved" dynamic range... by exposing for highlights... if the S pixels are already accurate, there is no "higher exposure value" than the S pixel measured value for the R pixel to bring down... i think this is food for thought as to whether this is an accurate "review"...

well, reichmann did qualify he din meant it to be a review. i think most buyers will wait and see for the official reviews on dpreview or steves-digicams.

[yanyewkay]

Originally Posted by sequitur i'm sort of wondering about the last part he says : as much as what he says does make some sense, i think more users in the real world are facing a problem of blown highlights than lacking shadow details... in the test he did an exposure for highlights and checked how much shadow detail he could get... the point is the s3's R pixels are meant to expose the highlights at a lower metering than the S pixels.. so as to give the user perceived "improved" dynamic range... by exposing for highlights... if the S pixels are already accurate, there is no "higher exposure value" than the S pixel measured value for the R pixel to bring down... i think this is food for thought as to whether this is an accurate "review"...

i think you're right and have a valid point there. but since this article has been put up.. it will definitely be used as a point here to prove the S3 Pro down. He should have placed that note right at the start that he isn't doing an equipment review.

I was a bit disapointed at the results of the test also. Hope some one can enlighten us on the proper usage of the S and R pixels.