reality check?
 

I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and while
Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!
Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing things? Or are the
samples that bad?

reality check?
 

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
...
I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and while
Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!
Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing things? Or are
the samples that bad?

They really do look bad for 6mp. Part of it seems to be the poor lens
quality. I don't know if we can expect much better from such a small area
devoted to optics.

reality check?
 

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and while
Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!
Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing things? Or are the
samples that bad?
For what it is, a very small camera, it does not do too bad. It can in
no way compare to a DSLR. As ugly as the photos are on the screen they
would produce a pretty good looking 8 x 10 print, not great but not bad
either.

Scott

reality check?
 

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and while
Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!
Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing things? Or are the
samples that bad?

I think the colors looked really pumped up. When I comparison shopped
for a digicam last fall, I picked the Canon A520 over the Nikon 4600
because there was definitely a lot of color exageration with the Nikon.
Some manufacturers more than others, seem to think that's what the
low-end digicam buyer wants, which may be so with many/most purchasers.
I didn't.

reality check?
 

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote

I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and
while
Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!
Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing things? Or are
the
samples that bad?

Wow, that's interesting. Some of the sample photos were taken just a few
miles from here.

I think for what the camera is the sample photos are fine. It's not an SLR
after all.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

reality check?
 

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:24:43 -0500, Kinon O'Cann wrote:

while Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly horrible!

That's odd. I noticed no real enthusiasm for the S3 in Steve's
review. His opinions - fair. The camera's images - also fair. But
for that type of small camera, "fair" is actually pretty good. Is
there a comparable camera you're aware of that takes much better
than what you consider to be "utterly horrible" pictures?

reality check?
 

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
I just read the review (www.steves-digicams.com) of the Nikon S3, and
while Steve seems to like it (a lot) the sample pix look utterly
horrible! Vignetting, amped up colors, soft, and noisy. Am I seeing
things? Or are the samples that bad?

I stopped reading Steve's Digicams a long time ago for this reason.
He never saw a camere he didn't pretend to like...