The S2 is very different from any film camera I've ever used. Expect to change your shooting methodology to accomodate it -- not vice versa.

That said, I'm not going back to film. The S2 produces terrific images when its quirks are embraced, and design bugs tend to get fixed over time. My bottom line is image quality, which the S2 delivers better than any 6 megapixel DSLR on the market, and considerably better than 35mm film.

The N80 has a decent feature set, but lacks 1/250th flash sync or mirror lock-up. Multiple web comments suggest it has enough mirror/shutter vibration to make it a lousy candidate for crisp telephoto shots.

My own experience confirms that, despite using a hefty tripod. A $2,000 camera should offer mirror-lockup, which suggests Fuji needs to start building its own camera bodies. So should Kodak, offering more pixels but the same amateurish Nikon body.

With no film costs and no scanning time, I'm shooting 3-4X my normal number of frames. After shooting 100 S2 frames, it takes only minutes to transfer the images to a computer and do a rough evaluation. With film-based images, the process of "loupe/cut/scan/examine" takes me about 5 minutes per image.

A purely digital workflow like the S2 is a huge time saver!!!

S2 images tend to be a little warm, much like putting an 81B warming filter over the lens. That works well for flesh tones, and even some landscapers prefer the look, but I find it dulls a blue sky. Largely correctible in Photoshop, of course...

The S2 allows the user to roughly set image density and contrast via the "Color" and "Tone" options, but color balance is another matter. For landscape work, I find Fuji's standard settings work best.

Images can also be saved in RAW mode for maximum post-processing correction, but at the expense of storage size and speed. Expect to add several minutes to your normal touch-up time on a PC, since each RAW image must first be converted by a dedicated program. Personally, I don't find sufficient advantage to justify using RAW mode instead of Fuji's 12MP jpeg mode.

A simpler approach might be a custom white balance, aiming at a lightly colored sheet of paper instead of pure white. Mentioned briefly in the user's manual, Fuji might facillitate this technique with a dozen tinted 4x6 sheets -- the equivalent of colored lens filters without the cost.

Many folks have initially been surprised at how "unsharp" an S2 image is, right out of the camera with no post-processing. Including me, so I ran some tests.

These images were shot at 6 megapixels, ISO 100, using a recently realigned Nikon 28-105mm at 50mm (effectively 80mm on the S2). The images below have been "auto-leveled" and judiciously sharpened in PhotoShop, and are shown at 100% (1 S2 pixel = 1 screen pixel). I tried a wide range of shutter speeds, but these are typical.

Hand-held, 1/250th

Monopod, 1/250th

Tripod, 1/250th

It's hard to judge the monpod-vs-tripod tests without viewing at 200%, but the tripod was always the winner. The clear loser was the hand-held shot, even at a shutter speed much faster than that recommended by the old "Daylight Rule" -- 1/focal length.

Surprised, I reshot the scene on film, using the same lens at 80mm to match the "effective focal length" of the S2 tests. As expected after several decades exposing film, the tripod and hand-held images were very similar at 1/250th.

Tripod, 1/250th Nikon N65, 80mm, Reala

Hand-held, 1/250th Nikon N65, 80mm, Reala

So digital requires a tripod when film doesn't? This is progress?!

Take a deep breath, and look at those shots again. Notice that the hand-held S2 image is about equal to the hand-held and tripod shots on film, while the S2 tripod shot is clearly superior.

To me, this suggests the S2 is capable of better resolution than Reala scanned on my Nikon LS-2000 film scanner. Both film shots are similar because Reala just can't show the addtional detail possible with a tripod.

The S2 can...

Cool -- those "soft images" I worried about were probably at least as sharp as the same shot done with film. Still, to really do the S2 justice, use a sturdy tripod. An old adage, but more relevant than ever...

The S2 produces very usable images at ISO 800 and even 1600 if a little grain is acceptable, but TTL flash seems most reliable at lower ISO's. Fuji specifies ISO 400 as a maximum.

Reaction time seems to be the culprit. At wide apertures and moderate distances, flash times become so short that the S2 can't turn most flashes off quickly enough.

Even at ISO 400, an f-stop of 5.6 or 8.0 may be required to avoid overexposure. That may prove disappointing to folks who paid handsomely for an 85mm f1.4, hoping the S2 would provide fill flash to balance but not overwhelm weak ambient light.

The solution is to add "neutral density" to the strobe head and make the flash fire longer, giving the S2 more time to quench the strobe. I've gotten some arguments about this approach, but adding some ND acetate or even a Stofen or Lumiquest softbox to the strobe head can often save the shot.

Despite Fuji's admonition to stick to ISO 400, instant feedback and a few test shots can make flash useful at higher ISO's. That ISO 1600 shot of Dale Watson above convinced me, and my recent Billy Bacon page was shot entirely at ISO 800 and TTL, with 2 stops of ND material over the strobe.

Why all this emphasis on high ISO shots, where grain becomes objectionable? Because grain can be tamed, using programs like Neat Image.

The S2 seems conflicted by its dual battery system. The base Nikon N80 uses CR-123A batteries to power metering, AF, and that cute pop-up flash. Fuji added a lot of electronics and powers it all with a battery tray holding 4 AA's.

The net effect is erratic behavior which can be crippling during a fast-moving shoot. The S2 just stops cold for no apparent reason, sometimes even after CR-123A's and AA's were recently installed. This is a real problem, and Fuji really needs to fix it.

Fortunately (sic), the camera will operate on just AA's, which often seems to calm the S2 down. That pop-up strobe won't work without CR-123A's, but otherwise the camera seems to function reliably.

Currently, I'm using PowerEx 2200 NiMH batteries and CR-123A's. The S2's electrical problems seem largely solved by a steady voltage supply, and NiMH batteries do that better than alkalines. Since switching to this setup, I haven't had a problem.

Need a source for cheap CR-123A's? Try Botach Tactical , where Toshiba CR-123A's go for about $1 each.

Hot Tip:

If your S2 quits and seems dead to the world, take out both sets of batteries and install only fresh AA's -- no CR-123A's. Let the S2 sit a few minutes before turning it back on. No guarantees, but this may save you a trip to a Fuji repair center...

Superb... almost.

The S2 features a set of buttons and a small display for commonly adjusted settings, and it's back-lighted. Changing white balance or image resolution takes seconds, and it can all be locked to avoid resetings by a nose or errant finger. Brilliant!

But I was baffled the first time a CompactFlash card filled and the S2 stopped working. The TFT display indicated some current settings but nothing so helpful as "Storage Full". Hint to Fuji-san: that display is a swell place for user-friendly messages in large fonts.

Also puzzling was the steady "ERR" message that shows up occasionally in the LCD panel on top. Resorting to the manual alerted me to depleted batteries, but "BAT" would be more helpful. Probably a Nikonism, not Fuji's fault, but it should be addressed.

As with every other digital camera, the TFT viewer on the back is nearly useless in full daylight. I tried one of those silly "chimney" add-ons and wasn't impressed. My next "solution" may be a dark cloth, borrowed from earlier flirtations with a 4x5 field camera.

Even in dim light, the viewer isn't a perfect indicator. Changing your angle of view just a few degrees changes the apparent density of the image, making exposure judgements difficult.

Happily, the S2 histogram can roughly indicate density, though I'd also like to see problem areas highlighted directly on the TFT image, like most image editors already do. It'd be nice to know if that histogram spike indicates a blown-out cloud, or if you've just lost important detail in a bridal gown.

However, the proper place for a TFT display isn't on the back but in the viewfinder, shielded from external light and prying eyes. A fast efficient 1 megapixel EVF (electronic viewfinder) should rival a traditional SLR viewfinder, and opens up a lot of design possibilities.

First, the mirror can be eliminated, since the EVF would get its signal directly from the sensor. With the mirror gone, lenses can be moved closer to the sensor. Sharper and more compact lenses could be designed -- one reason mirrorless rangefinders like the Contax G2 and the Leica outperform 35mm cameras.

Heck, the sensor itself can be moved, simulating the rear standard motion of a 4x5 view camera. Every lens gains some "perspective control" capability, though most current 35mm lenses don't have a sufficiently wide image circle to much movement of the sensor.

Yet another reason for new lens designs...

Realtime image previews also become possible -- a feature already offered by even the lowliest digicam. With a mirror in the mix, a photograph must be taken before it can be examined -- archaic in a digital camera.

Another potential bonus: dial in the desired image format (35mm, 645, square, TV, panoramic) and see only that in the viewfinder and in the final image. I hate trying to make an image framed for 4x6 fit into a 5x7 frame -- something always gets lopped off. A maskable viewfinder would help.

An all-electronic viewfinder, no mirror, a new line of sharp short-mount lenses -- it's major design leap, to be sure. But somebody will do it -- the advantages are compelling, and the competition is relentless.