Am I nuts or is everyone delusional about Canon S3 IS?

About a week ago I got my first digital camera in years. My first camera was PowerShot S110 (2.1 MP). I was sick of the hideous quality of that camera. Well, no wonder, since it was I think 5 or so years old. Anyway, so I do all this research online and start with Fuji for under $100. Then as I read more and more I realize that I have to get a better camera if I want quality results. Then I reached the A series of Canon, finally stopping at the S3 expecting a “semiprofessional” camera. Everyone is raving about it. Well, as it turned out the camera is absolutely not what I expected.

Here is the problem: the pictures are too grainy. Let’s not get started with the settings because I have gone through everything. I have read the entire manual and several threads on different forums. Quality is Superfine, size is the largest. I also know about ISO. Basically, anything beyond 100 is not good; anything beyond 200 is garbage. So I have been forced to learn the manual mode and Av + Tv modes so that I can keep the ISO constantly at 80. I was not happy about sacrificing the point-shoot auto mode, but I said I can live with that. And what? The results at ISO 80 are still unsatisfactory!! Are all of you guys blind or am I ^%$$%^g nuts? Granted, I am not a professional so my exposure may not always be perfect, but that has nothing to do with graining.

My friend has the Nikon D-40. After shooting many pictures with her camera and noting the quality, I was entranced to get a new camera. I currently have borrowed the D-40 from her and am rigorously trying to understand what is wrong with my S3 IS. The only solution is this: S3 IS is garbage. And if you guys don’t think so, then I am sure you have never seen what a quality picture looks like. Yes, D-40 is a DSLR and more expensive (actually, not really, the MSRPs are pretty darn close). You can argue that DSLRs do have better quality, but that’s still doesn’t explain why S3 is sooo grainy. The graininess applies especially to objects that are behind the object of focus in the picture or are in the shadow. Or, point the stupid S3 IS at the sky at ISO 80, there is still grain all over. I am even not zooming in 200%. The grain is clearly visible at 100% in the computer. I have Photoshop CS3 and can send you any test data you want, including all the settings of the camera that I used to take the given picture.

I am truly at loss here. Why, why would so many of you recommend such a camera without fully knowing the facts? Luckily, I only paid $303 for this camera which after the rebate will be only $250. Even though that is a great price, I still don’t feel like wasting $250. I will not spend over $400 on a camera now, and if that means that I can’t get something that has as good of a quality as the Nikon D-40 (even if used or refurbished), I’d rather have no camera at all and stick to my S110. Maybe you some of you professionals can help me out here. Is the problem with S3 IS or is the problem with me? I can’t imagine that graininess is a user error. I have used the manual mode of D-40 with great results. So that can’t be it.

I have about two more weeks to decide whether I am going to return this camera. I hope that some of your feedback will put me on the right path. Are all non-DSLRs of such a low quality? If not, then which ones are good?

Below you can see what I am talking about. IMG is from S3 IS at only 100% zoom. DSC is from Nikon D-40 at 200% zoom and still no grain (but pixilation, which is ok). Also note that it was the same plant, same time of day. Nikon was set at ISO 200, small picture size, and NORMAL quality (both cameras are 6 MP). Canon was ISO 80, superfine, and the largest size. It was almost 4 times larger in file size that the Nikon picture. What an embarrassment.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I don't usually post here as I tend to draw a lot of flak being from 'the other side' (which side I will not comment, y'all work it out ), but I admit I followed a similar path. I worked with the Ixus first-generation and then the Powershot S40, which I liked, but I sometimes wondered what was up with the grain.

It'd be many years later before I discovered the magic of larger sensor chips. The thing is, with a small area, each of the however many megapixels must be made smaller. Smaller surface area = poorer light gathering ability, increased noise, and this noise is not helped by the automatic processing of many compact cameras. Compacts sharpen a lot, and sharpening brings out the noise even more. It's not an exposure problem - yours look like very reasonable exposures.

The S3 is a great camera.. within its architectural limitations. I like it, there's a lot to love about it, but if you want the absolute cleanest images, you are looking at a larger imaging sensor and everything that comes with it. A little bit of reading on dpreview.com about sensor sizes will point you in the right direction.

If you really hate the grain, consider moving on up. The Canon 400D/Rebel XTi is not bad. However, also be prepared to learn about postprocessing to get the best out of your images - as I said compact cameras do a lot of contrast/saturation/sh​arpening/color management work for you, so there *IS* going to be a learning curve associated with DSLRs. Don't say we didn't warn you

The upshot is that if you can master the learning curve, you will be rewarded with nicer images. A couple of tips: stay below ISO 400 for MAXIMUM quality on larger sensors (800/1600 are very useable, but that's my personal guideline). Program AE (P) mode is just fine. Avoid green box auto, start with P mode when learning (there is no need to go through the masochism with M - even I use M only sporadically and usually only when I am working with advanced flash systems).

The S3 does have some limitations and requires some tricks to get the shot.
Comparing any compact to nearly any DSLR is not really that fair as a SLR will generaly have greater range.
I think the "rage" of the S3 is simply based on the fact that it is a good quality compact. The greatest complaint is the low light shooting. I rarely bother going above 200 ISO and that creates further restrictions... one learns to have a steady hand!
If you can afford it and want to get the best, I would go with a quality SLR though. A buddy of mine just got the D-40, and while it is a good entry SLR, not necessarily the choice I would have gone with, but I am a loyal Canon fan.
I have not had quality problems with my S3, but I must stay within its limitations (almost completely), and have learned how to get better shots after about a month of use.
I have not experienced the level of grain you speak of. If I am below 200 ISO, I have no problem, regardless of lighting. I have not heard such a complaint by other users, so I am thinking there is something not right with the camera or the settings.
So, I neither think you are nuts, nor is everyone delusional... sometimes, different needs require different equipment.

I Agree with what's been said. First off, you just can't compare the gaininess of the S3 to a DSLR. It's comparing apples to oranges. Small sensors produce a lot more grain that large sensors (DSLRs). That's just the way it is.

Secondly, you can shoot in P mode like a normal point and shoot. This lets you set the ISO to minimize the noise and shoot like normal. You don;t have to play with any aperture/exposure settings in it.

Regardless, if you want maximum clarity and minimal graininess....i'd recommend taking back the S3 and making the jump to a DSLR. Like they said, be ready for a higher learning curve and MUCH higher cost associated with it. Even just to get equivalent zoom to the S3, you're looking at the higher cost of the camera plus another couple hundred bucks at least for the zoom lens.

To answer your title question, yes to both.jk.

Ok, where to start?

S3=P&S
D-40=DSLR

Theres the problem right there, comparing a P&S to a DSLR.

Another problematic habbit is pixel-peeping. Heres a suggestion, try not to do that. Even though some on here swear by it, 100% crop/zooms are not conducive to a "sharp" photo. Ask youself this, how many times have you developed a photo, opened the package at the photolab, pulled the picture 1/2 inch from your face and said ,"Nope too grainy."? Probably never, so zooming in beyond a point you would never look at an actual photo is redundant.

Also, exposing a photo correctly will help out with the noise.

And it seems you are expecting alot from the S3, and although a fantastic camera, it does have its limitations. One of them being noise issues. A saying I use reminds me of your situation, " Champagne taste on beer budget." Also when you go into full zoom, the grain will be alot worse, its a P&S for Pete's sake.

AND yes I once owned a S3 when I first started out months ago, and YES I stayed within its limitations and produced fantastic photos. Over a short time I realized to get the photos I wanted (low light and long exposure) I would need to move up to a DSLR.

The XT or XTi are fantastic cameras, if you want to spring for one of those then you wont be sorry, but like anything new in digital photography, there will be a learning curve. Patience is a virtue, and in this hobby/world its a must have.

Below are some shots I took with the S3 when I had it. The one of the stadium was taken just this past April, because they would not allow DSLR's. And the vignetting was added in, the colors and 'sharpness' are all unaltered and 100% S3.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thank you for your input. I don't want to spend much on a camera, but look what I have found: http://www.usaphotonat​ion.com …=13755&engine=s​hopcartusa

D-40 for $339! Includes the lens. Now maybe the lens can't zoom as much, but so what? At least I'll have quality pictures. Wouldn't you say it would be far better than my S3 IS?

On another note, I have read several articles that say P&S quality approaches DSLR these days. That's why I compared.

If I go with the D-40, the only thing I'll miss from S3 is super macro and video modes (plus a bit more compact size).

http://www.resellerrat​ings.com/store/USA_Pho​to_Nation

Cant say I'd get anything from them.

Thanks a lot. I wouldn't either. Here is another one: http://www.bestpriceca​meras.com/prodetails.a​spx?prodid=789888

Excelisus wrote in post #3434190
Thanks a lot. I wouldn't either. Here is another one: http://www.bestpriceca​meras.com/prodetails.a​spx?prodid=789888

Yeah bestpricecameras have a bad rep about scams.

Yeah, that puts the cheapest d40 at $500 (http://www.shopdigital​corp.com …oductid=1127&re​f=bizrate). I guess have to stick with S3 IS for now. I found out that many pros like it. The argument is that the pictures that I am going to print are not even going to be 50% of the size, which has almost no noise. That's a valid argument. But if I find a cheap DSLR, I'll still go for it. Maybe I should check out Canon EOS's before giving up.

I can't believe that scam website are allowed to operate so explicitly and illicitly.

Have a look at the Rebel/D400

Excelisus wrote in post #3434292
Yeah, that puts the cheapest d40 at $500 (http://www.shopdigital​corp.com …oductid=1127&re​f=bizrate). I guess have to stick with S3 IS for now. I found out that many pros like it. The argument is that the pictures that I am going to print are not even going to be 50% of the size, which has almost no noise. That's a valid argument. But if I find a cheap DSLR, I'll still go for it. Maybe I should check out Canon EOS's before giving up.

I can't believe that scam website are allowed to operate so explicitly and illicitly.

Or check out the 'Sell' section here. They have some great deals and very trustworthy members.

I had the S2 for a short time and was disappointed.

Couldn't find anything. Will have to stick with S3 IS and keep my images below 50% reduction. I'll take a few more pictures. If I see I can't live with the quality, even though many professionals live with it everyday, then I'll get rid of the camera and wait a year or two for a better camera. Maybe I should get the Hassellblad H2D.

The S3 is NOT an SLR, nor is it a professional camera, and Canon never claimed it was. (though it can get some professional results when used properly) Like most compacts, it has it's limitations. High ISO and low light without flash is a couple of those limitations, as is lack of control with DOF. But if the camera fits the type of work you do, and if you know how to use it, you can get super sharp, fine grain photos up to 11X14. Or at least I can with my S2. Though I can afford a digital SLR and anything I need to go with it, my choice is not to carry a big camera with a bag full of lenses as I did for more than thirty years in my work as a professional photographer. If a compact camera doesn't fit your lifestyle, then by all means get an SLR, but there's no need to call the S3 garbage, when it's been proven over and over that it's very capable of taking great pictures when being used by someone who knows how to use it.

Gary