Canon Powershot S2 IS
The Canon Powershot S2 IS is an older model. It has been superseded by the Powershot S3 IS.
CompUSA provided this camera as a replacement for a camera that they lost (or sold at a clearance sale accidentally) during a warranty repair. The camera it replaced was a Minolta dImage Z1.
The only real downside to the Canon verses the Minolta is that the optical quality of the lens on the Minolta was superior. The Minolta had a 6:1 optical zoom, the Canon has a 12:1 optical zoom. The Minolta produced high quality images, within the limitations of it's 3.2 megapixel sensor and inferior software, across the full range. The Canon suffers from chromatic aberration at long lens settings and vignetting at short lens settings which together limit the usefulness of all that zoom range.
Now that I've had the camera long enough to really become familiar with it I thought I'd write a little review for those of you contemplating a used S2 and in all probability it shares a lot of traits with the S3 since the design appears almost identical and the specifications are only slightly different.
There are three major things I dislike about the camera. The problems with the optics that I mentioned above, chromatic aberration and vignetting, a shutter speed limit of 15 seconds, an F-stop limit of F8 max, a six-leaf iris, and a noisy sensor.
The chromatic aberration I can mostly fix in software. PaintShop Pro has a chromatic aberration removal tool that works quite well but is time consuming to use effectively. The vignetting is another matter. If the subject contrast is high then it's not too noticeable, but for low contrast subjects like clear skies it is very noticeable. The lens is a bit longer than I would like at the widest angle setting so I find myself often using the very widest angle where vignetting is the worst. Given the predictable nature of vignetting I'm surprised PaintShop doesn't have a tool for this and that the camera firmware doesn't compensate.
At night sometimes 15 seconds is not enough exposure even at 400 ASA, and because of noise I prefer to not use anything above 50 ASA. Even 50 ASA isn't completely clean. Some longer shutter speed options out to several minutes would really be a large bonus. A higher ASA film setting would not be useful without a higher quality lower noise sensor.
The lens can't be stopped down below F8. This makes it impossible to get a large depth of field. I used to have a Mamiya 35 mm camera, and some of the lenses I could stop down to F22 if I wanted to and have virtually everything in focus.
The six leaf shutter of the Canon Powershot S2 IS also causes six pointed star artifacts on city lights at night. I really think they cheesed out on the lens of this camera, that's really it's biggest weakness, but sensor noise is also a significant problem. In addition to the usual "noise" (fine grained snow), the sensor also seems to be prone to "stuck pixels", red or blue almost always, that stick "on" in low light. At first I thought these were just defective pixels but they change from time to time. If they were fixed it would be easier to deal with in software.
There are things I really like about the camera. The software that derives an image from the sensor is vastly superior to that which was in the Minolta. It squeezes a lot more resolution out of those 5.3 megapixels than the Minolta managed out of 3.2 megapixels given the simple ratio. That to say the image is much sharper than the upgrade from 3.2 to 5.2 megapixels would indicate. Canon seems to do a much better job of extracting chroma and luminance information from the pixel array cleanly.
It may be this in part that reveals the flaws in the topics. The resolution on the Minolta may not have been good enough for the chromatic aberration to be noticeable.
Image stabilization is an incredibly useful feature. It substantially improves what you can get away with and makes hand held photography possible sometimes with exposures as much as second long. That depends of coarse upon conditions, but it's easily two or three stops more than what I could get away with without it. Image stabilization works particularly well for video giving video shoots a much more professional appearance. The zoom is also operational when shooting video and it is quiet enough that it doesn't noticeably affect the sound.
The audio in the Canon is actually very good quality, not what I'd expect for in body microphones. The Minolta had only 8 KHz sampling (telephone company quality), the Canon will sample up to 44 KHz 16-bit stereo (CD quality). The microphones manage to produce reasonably good base and uncolored crisp highs.
The Canon has buttons for most things important so that it is possible to make adjustments rapidly. It also responds to the shutter very quickly if focused in advance. This means a lot more photo opportunities that would have been lost with the Minolta due to having to do everything with one set of buttons through menus.
Another strong feature of the Canon is that it is a real power miser. The only times I've had batteries go dead on me is when I first used a set of nickel metal hydrides that had been sitting a year without use and another time when I had the automatic shut-off disabled and it accidentally got turned on and left on until they were drained.
I've taken more than 300 images on one battery charge and until recently that was all I could fit on the SD memory card. Recently a friend gifted me a 1GB card that I've yet to fill up so I don't know if the card or batteries will exhaust first now.
Neither the Canon Powershot S2 IS nor the Minolta dImage Z1 had a hot shoe or an external jack for a remote flash. Neither had a provision for a remote shutter release that didn't require a computer. These seem like fairly simple things that a good design would incorporate. Both had a video output jack. If I had a choice between video and a remote shutter release and flash control, I'd take the latter.
The Cannon Powershot IS autofocus sometimes functions erratically. I can take a number of pictures of the same subject using autofocus and most will be in focus but some will not. This can occasionally lead to a lost good photograph. It also doesn't seem to focus entirely accurately. I can sometimes obtain better results if I am not in a hurry by focusing manually.
The operational temperature is listed as 32-104F. I have operated the camera at temperatures below freezing and it showed no ill effects.
All in all, this camera is a mixed bag. Battery life is excellent. The image stabilization really is a major plus. The firmware is good. The controls are good. The flexibility is good but not quite as good as I'd like. The lens quality and sensor quality leave something to be desired. I like the overall aesthetics of the camera. If I had the same amount of money to spend again I don't know if I'd go this route or not.
CompUSA provided this camera as a replacement for a camera that they lost (or sold at a clearance sale accidentally) during a warranty repair. The camera it replaced was a Minolta dImage Z1.
The only real downside to the Canon verses the Minolta is that the optical quality of the lens on the Minolta was superior. The Minolta had a 6:1 optical zoom, the Canon has a 12:1 optical zoom. The Minolta produced high quality images, within the limitations of it's 3.2 megapixel sensor and inferior software, across the full range. The Canon suffers from chromatic aberration at long lens settings and vignetting at short lens settings which together limit the usefulness of all that zoom range.
Now that I've had the camera long enough to really become familiar with it I thought I'd write a little review for those of you contemplating a used S2 and in all probability it shares a lot of traits with the S3 since the design appears almost identical and the specifications are only slightly different.
There are three major things I dislike about the camera. The problems with the optics that I mentioned above, chromatic aberration and vignetting, a shutter speed limit of 15 seconds, an F-stop limit of F8 max, a six-leaf iris, and a noisy sensor.
The chromatic aberration I can mostly fix in software. PaintShop Pro has a chromatic aberration removal tool that works quite well but is time consuming to use effectively. The vignetting is another matter. If the subject contrast is high then it's not too noticeable, but for low contrast subjects like clear skies it is very noticeable. The lens is a bit longer than I would like at the widest angle setting so I find myself often using the very widest angle where vignetting is the worst. Given the predictable nature of vignetting I'm surprised PaintShop doesn't have a tool for this and that the camera firmware doesn't compensate.
At night sometimes 15 seconds is not enough exposure even at 400 ASA, and because of noise I prefer to not use anything above 50 ASA. Even 50 ASA isn't completely clean. Some longer shutter speed options out to several minutes would really be a large bonus. A higher ASA film setting would not be useful without a higher quality lower noise sensor.
The lens can't be stopped down below F8. This makes it impossible to get a large depth of field. I used to have a Mamiya 35 mm camera, and some of the lenses I could stop down to F22 if I wanted to and have virtually everything in focus.
The six leaf shutter of the Canon Powershot S2 IS also causes six pointed star artifacts on city lights at night. I really think they cheesed out on the lens of this camera, that's really it's biggest weakness, but sensor noise is also a significant problem. In addition to the usual "noise" (fine grained snow), the sensor also seems to be prone to "stuck pixels", red or blue almost always, that stick "on" in low light. At first I thought these were just defective pixels but they change from time to time. If they were fixed it would be easier to deal with in software.
There are things I really like about the camera. The software that derives an image from the sensor is vastly superior to that which was in the Minolta. It squeezes a lot more resolution out of those 5.3 megapixels than the Minolta managed out of 3.2 megapixels given the simple ratio. That to say the image is much sharper than the upgrade from 3.2 to 5.2 megapixels would indicate. Canon seems to do a much better job of extracting chroma and luminance information from the pixel array cleanly.
It may be this in part that reveals the flaws in the topics. The resolution on the Minolta may not have been good enough for the chromatic aberration to be noticeable.
Image stabilization is an incredibly useful feature. It substantially improves what you can get away with and makes hand held photography possible sometimes with exposures as much as second long. That depends of coarse upon conditions, but it's easily two or three stops more than what I could get away with without it. Image stabilization works particularly well for video giving video shoots a much more professional appearance. The zoom is also operational when shooting video and it is quiet enough that it doesn't noticeably affect the sound.
The audio in the Canon is actually very good quality, not what I'd expect for in body microphones. The Minolta had only 8 KHz sampling (telephone company quality), the Canon will sample up to 44 KHz 16-bit stereo (CD quality). The microphones manage to produce reasonably good base and uncolored crisp highs.
The Canon has buttons for most things important so that it is possible to make adjustments rapidly. It also responds to the shutter very quickly if focused in advance. This means a lot more photo opportunities that would have been lost with the Minolta due to having to do everything with one set of buttons through menus.
Another strong feature of the Canon is that it is a real power miser. The only times I've had batteries go dead on me is when I first used a set of nickel metal hydrides that had been sitting a year without use and another time when I had the automatic shut-off disabled and it accidentally got turned on and left on until they were drained.
I've taken more than 300 images on one battery charge and until recently that was all I could fit on the SD memory card. Recently a friend gifted me a 1GB card that I've yet to fill up so I don't know if the card or batteries will exhaust first now.
Neither the Canon Powershot S2 IS nor the Minolta dImage Z1 had a hot shoe or an external jack for a remote flash. Neither had a provision for a remote shutter release that didn't require a computer. These seem like fairly simple things that a good design would incorporate. Both had a video output jack. If I had a choice between video and a remote shutter release and flash control, I'd take the latter.
The Cannon Powershot IS autofocus sometimes functions erratically. I can take a number of pictures of the same subject using autofocus and most will be in focus but some will not. This can occasionally lead to a lost good photograph. It also doesn't seem to focus entirely accurately. I can sometimes obtain better results if I am not in a hurry by focusing manually.
The operational temperature is listed as 32-104F. I have operated the camera at temperatures below freezing and it showed no ill effects.
All in all, this camera is a mixed bag. Battery life is excellent. The image stabilization really is a major plus. The firmware is good. The controls are good. The flexibility is good but not quite as good as I'd like. The lens quality and sensor quality leave something to be desired. I like the overall aesthetics of the camera. If I had the same amount of money to spend again I don't know if I'd go this route or not.
posted by Nanook at 9:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home