About the many positive and negative characteristics in many tests and other reviews probably all been said. What has been in my opinion but only discussed inadequate, are the differences compared to other bridge cameras and in particular to entry-level DSLRs.
Compared to other bridge cameras:
The current trend is still: more megapixels and zoom tidy, everything goes under 20x no longer so. And that's just in terms of price reasonable limits only my small sensors, pixel density 35 - 45 Mpixel / cm2 The S100FS does it differently: Comparatively moderate zoom range, a relatively large sensor, pixel density 19 Mpixel / cm2. By comparison, entry-level DSLRs have a pixel density of approximately 4 - 6 Mpixel / cm2.
Therefore, it is very simple: The S100FS is probably superior to all current bridge cameras in the image quality by far. Detailed comparisons I can make SX1 with a Casio F1 and a Canon, who wants to plunge into the pixel-peeping for comparison with other cameras, eg because at Imaging Resource (compare sample images) find, or a look at dpreview or dcresource past.
Yes, there are almost over the entire zoom range at the image edges more or less visible color fringing on high-contrast edges. However, this therefore includes in particular a little stronger on (if one explicitly after looking) because the S100FS eg supplies compared to SX1 and F1 very detailed images, which the competitors have been "weggebügelt" by the noise reduction even at ISO 100 most of the details. And if you look at the pretty creepy in a direct comparison of images SX1, one realizes that there are at least as strong fringing their images, but just smoothed out somewhat. For RAW images the SX1 can see it more clearly. The F1 is beyond such detail discussion insofar as it provides no comparable details.
It is likewise correct that the colors of the S100FS images are relatively cool. This is a matter of taste and definitely by post to 100% correctable, as opposed to the moderate image quality other bridge cameras.
To see if for at least the large zoom range of current cameras brings advantages I have some pictures with the SX1 and the S100FS taken at full telephoto focal length (560mm to 400mm mm film equivalent) and of the images of the S100FS cutouts on the same image content of the SX1 made. The whole thing with optimal lighting conditions, ISO 100, tripod, self-timer (to eliminate any suspicion of camera shake). The excerpts of the S100FS images were at least as good (more is better) as the original images of the SX1. The large zoom range of the SX1 brings so against the S100FS absolutely nothing. The SX1 has its strengths in video, speed and ergonomics.
In handling me personally like the SX1 in most respects better, this is probably a matter of taste, however, and would be for me only relevant when an identical image quality. The folding screen I find in the S100FS much of practical as the swivel display the SX1, one is simply faster than if you fold out the display only 180 and it still has to turn. And the manual zoom with Internal Focusing (important when using a polarizing filter) is a class of its own. Many bridge cameras do not allow the use of filters for lack of filter threads, however, only.
Compared to entry-level DSLRs:
Now it is a little more difficult: First, the price comparison: The S100FS is compared with the current entry-level DSLRs with nearly comparable focal range (18-200 for Nikon / Canon or Tamron 18-270 of or just 2 lenses) about half as expensive. The image quality of F100FS at least until ISO 800 does not significantly worse, especially not when the DSLR is equipped with lenses in the "normal" price range (under 600 euros). And, only mentioned: The fringes of some of these "cheap" lenses are the same as the comparable F100FS! A look at relevant test reports worth a comparison of "travel zoom" cameras for Canon gibts eg straight at heise. A superiority of DSLRs is probably seen only with higher quality (and more expensive) lenses.
The main advantages of DSLR in my view (in this order)
- Significantly higher speed (focus, continuous shooting, storage times), thereby significantly snapshot-compatible.
- Due to the considerably larger aperture more creative latitude in Focus
- Usually 3: 2 aspect ratio instead of 4: 3 as the S100FS (and all other bridge cameras)
- Image quality at higher sensitivities (from ISO 800)
- For (much) money can be a DSLR with interchangeable lenses "tune" to specific fields of application
In contrast, the following disadvantages:
- At least twice the price for a comparable focal length range
- Live View with DSLRs still completely unfit (> 1s for focusing is no longer appropriate, and to use only for static objects)
- Designing possibilities folding screen, very few DSLRs and then only in not practicable Live View mode usable.
- If there are several objectives: weight, volume, dust / dirt / waste of time when changing lenses.
Here, everyone has to decide for themselves where the personal priorities and financial possibilities are.
My Conclusion:
A better camera with a large zoom range for less than € 500 as the S100FS there is not currently. Who is willing to pay twice, gets a good DSLR Advanced photographic opportunities, the picture quality was not significantly lifted off the S100FS. Only the handle to higher value (= more expensive and larger / heavier) lenses provides a DSLR even when the image quality advantages.
A few more words to the announced successor F200FS:
I have no idea whether the problem of color bleeding has been improved. However, this camera follows the trend towards smaller sensors with higher resolution. The possibility of pixel binning of special EXR sensor noise performance may remain bearable, but then with half the resolution (and the resulting 6 Mpixel are always sufficient). Is interesting to see whether Fuji hinbekommt the depth of field characteristic of a DSLR with multiple recordings and subsequent calculation to a single image. However, the first images of this camera will also show that the practical folding screen was apparently "weggespart". That alone would already for me a reason, prefer not to buy a F100FS.
Maybe it's the S100FS indeed similar to the legendary F30 / 31: Only after the successor models of poorer picture quality were on the market, it has been recognized how well this camera really was (and still is in today's comparison).
