The S5 Pro does an outstanding job of keeping noise under control. Our test images were nearly noise-free all the way out to ISO 400. Even at ISO 800, we saw only the tiniest traces of noise on our monitors when viewed at 100 per cent -- it didn't show up in prints at all.
Noise crept up a little at ISO 1,600 but was still very well tamed and didn't adversely affect prints. At ISO 3,200 noise grew to some extent, but it never took on the annoying, larger, off-colour blob-like look that some cameras exhibit -- instead it remained as tiny speckles. At this highest setting, images do lose some shadow detail. Fujifilm's noise-reduction processing robs a minor amount of fine detail, but overall, the noise profile looks more like what we'd expect at ISO 800 or ISO 1,600 in other cameras. Noise, or more accurately the lack thereof, was one of the most impressive and surprising things about the S5 Pro.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro feels more like a studio camera than anything else. Its unique sensor gives the camera an edge with its extended dynamic range but also translates into bloated, pseudo-12-megapixel files that can fill up your memory card quicker than 8- or 10-megapixel files would. This becomes especially noticeable when shooting in raw, or even worse, raw-plus-JPEG mode.
Also, if you're not shooting in a studio, the Nikon's blazingly fast AF system will most likely be more useful to you than this camera's dynamic range or fancy features. While this Fujifilm definitely is a nice camera, we'd have to opt for the D200 or Canon's EOS 5D, considering their higher effective resolutions and that our personal shooting habits tend as much towards the outdoors as to the studio. Of course, the D200's lower price also helps.
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
| Time to first shot | Raw shot-to-shot time | Shutter lag (dim light) | Shutter lag (typical) |
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
Edited by Jim Hoffman
Additional editing by Kate Macefield
User reviews1
Add your review
YILIN LIAO 7 June 2007
Good: Style
Bad: Heavy
Comment: Worth the price.
See all user reviews