Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 22, 2003, 5:44 PM   #11
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Boo brings up a good point about preferences. i think the fuji 602 is a bit larger than most olys or the minolta 7i. actually the 602 is still a bit small for me but it feels pretty good in my hands and i hold it like i do my 35mm slrs. what also determined for me to buy the fuji was the higher resolution video (640 x 480) which is only limited by the size of the memory card. price was another concern. i wanted to keep the camera and all the other stuff around $1K. i couldn't do that with the minolta 7i or the nikon 5700. if i didn't want the video function and price wasn't too much a concern, i would have opted for the nikon 5700 due to the 8x zoom and the adjustable viewer. but i have the 602 and really like it. now if i can just get it to focus when connected to my telescope i might be able to video the mars opposition.

dennis
djb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2003, 7:47 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default c750 and s602: comparable?

Soundengineer - Sorry, but the s602 and c750 are not comparable. They were designed for differernt niches. The Oly is a great comparct with teh zoom FOR THE SIZE of the camera. But, image quality severely lacks compared to a s602 in the following areas: Noise, chromatic abberation, resolution, dynamic range.

Refer to teh dave box test, refernce and sample the color graduation chips.. dynamic range is much smaler on the c750..actually i have not noticed another prosumer class to match the s602 in the dynamic range department. The ISO resolution charts at imaging resource show the s602 to have far superior resolution. The c750 extincts at approx. 1200 l/pph, while the s602 extincs at approx. 1500 l/pph. This is over 25% single plane difference, and approx. 50% considering the squared total resolution of both vertical and horiztonal planes. Chromatic abberations(fringing) of the c750 lens have demonstrated to be quite severe in many example photos i have seen, even into the middle of the images! Additionally, consider the flexibitiy of the shuter speeds and aperatures of the s602 and it's speed. The s602 is one of the fastest prosumer cameras on the current market. Imaging resource has timings for all of the cameras at issue here, refer to them on this matter.

I may sound negtive towards the c750....but it's just not on the same level as the s602, but IT WAS NOT MEAN TO BE. I would speculate the most of the price of the c750 is due to the 10x lens on it.

If you need longer focal length, consider a high quality teleconvertor. Their are units that will have almost no image degradation such as the Olympus TCON-14b, Sony VCL-HGD1758 and Olympus TCON-300(requires custom bracket mount). However, the result will be a heavy/large camera in cmoparison to a c750. That is the c750's main advantage.....if you can not deal with a heavy/large camera but need the extraordinary 380mm zoom it offers.

The main problem with the s602 is that it REQUIRES post processing of the images, and to be used only only on the SOFT sharpen mode to acheive high quality images. The internal sharpening/noise reduction(both contrlled with sharpen option) cause SEVERE image degradation leding to severe halo, noise, and resolution loss in low contrast areas of image. The s602 might have one of the worst internal processing systems around!

http://www.linaeum.com/productinfo/d...les/index.html

If you don't like the s602 for whatver reason, i would also suggest(on image quality and practicaly of adding additinal convertor lenses-TTL viewfinders) the Minolta 7Hi, Olympus E-10/E-20, Nikon 5700 and Sony F717. However note the Sony F717 and Nikon 5700 is not a quick camera like the others listed.

I see you are concerned with MP. Well, the 7Hi resolves 1550 l/pph, only a few percent higher then the s602's 1500 l/pph resolution. No signifcant difference. Be concerned with actual performance, not 'MP' rating. By itself, MP rating does not consider anything excpe photosite count. No concern for lens, sensor topology, etc. Marketing hype.

-Chris

P.S. -[ Added 9;12 PM EST] I did not realize you were discussing the 7i as opposed to 7Hi. The 7i resolves approx. 1400 l/pph; less then the s602's 1500 l/pph. So, MP really should not be a concern in this matter since the 5MP rating failes to outperform the 3mp of the s602. Besides, in this narrow of a range(10 percent or less single plane resolution) their is little percieved difference in detail in ANY use of the images(blow up, crop, whatever). In addition, per yoru inquiry of color accuracy------the s602 scord the 2nd most accurate digital camera in color accuracy ever tested by www.popphoto.com in objective min./max./averag Delta E testing. If you are jusing images in your browser or other non color manged viwer, this is an error. You msut view the images through a managed space such as Photoshop provides and on a calibrated monitor in order to view proper saturation/colors.
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 2:40 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Soundengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 313
Default

Thankyou all for your replies on this topic. I appreciate it very much.

Does anyone know whether the fuji s602 will be falling in price soon. Is it worth waiting a bit before buying it?
Soundengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 4:37 AM   #14
Boo
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48
Default

It's already dropped since I bought it 8 months ago, but my feeling would be, that what value do you place on photographic opportunities missed while you wait to possibly save a few pennies???

I've made a hundred times more money than I might have saved with the camera since that date, not even counting photos I'm managed purely for my own pleasure in the meantime, that might otherwise have been lost. I make my own greetings cards (and sell a few to friends and family) and the money I've saved on them alone in those months is more than I might have saved had I waited. Get the camera you want now and just enjoy it and forget about possibly saving a bit. I bought the 2800 first, some time ago and it's now 60% of the price I paid for it, but so what - it just makes it even better value for the people buying it now. Same with memory - here in the UK, a 128MB SM card was 70 GB pounds when I bought the 602 last November - I'd shop around now and get one for under 20 pounds - that's just life.
Boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 8:25 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 31
Default Re: c750 and s602: comparable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
P.S. -[ Added 9;12 PM EST] I did not realize you were discussing the 7i as opposed to 7Hi. The 7i resolves approx. 1400 l/pph; less then the s602's 1500 l/pph.
This is total BS! The "extinction" resolution you are refering to is not a good way to compare cameras. It's not a standardized method and the numbers vary very much depending on the reviewer. The main difference between the 7i and the 7Hi is the bigger buffer in the 7Hi. That can't affect the sharpness of the lens - it just shows how much variation there is due to poorly controlled conditions (different in-camera settings etc.).

Besides, a single number tells very little about a lens because the sharpness is not constant - it varies depending on the focal length and aperture and the corners are typically less sharp than the centre. The 602 is a "fine" example of this.

> So, MP really should not be a concern in this matter since the 5MP rating failes to outperform the 3mp of the s602.

Yes, on paper. In real life there are more factors, such as over-aggressive noise reduction systems that can eat fine detail (landscape photos...)

> Besides, in this narrow of a range(10 percent or less single plane resolution) their is little percieved difference in detail in ANY use of the images

You are ignoring the fact that the super CCD is optimized for the resolution test target used by most reviewers. Theoretically, the strange arragement of pixels (45 angle of pixel rows) increases horizontal and vertical resolution by 29 % (1/sqrt(2)) and decreases diagonal resolution by the same amount. That makes it look good on paper, because most reviewers don't bother measuring diagonal resolution.
MarkoB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 10:50 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

(1) To ignore extinction resolution, is, well quite ignorant. It contributes significantly, as it is the limit of data pickup. You can vary the effectivness despite it being under the absolute, with contrast and USM processing. The extinction points i refer to are my assesment based on the charts themsleves, not the reviwers. I see the same reviwer even use different basis for different cameras at extinction point. I use predetermined method for determining the point consistently between cameras, at least more so than i see being done by reviwers.

(2) The 7i measurment is nearly identical at www.dpreview.com as well. While I will say that in-camera setting can effect resolution, it would be quite unusual for it to have such an effect as this difference. Pleaes explain how an approximated 20 percent total resolution loss would occur, and from what setting in camera? The cameras at issue(7i and 7Hi), the 7i and 7hi were tested at min. focal length to reduce that variable, and the 7i was tested at a slightly larger aperature(lower fstop) then the 7hi, which can only increase the resolving power if the lens has signficant diffraction at the said focal length and aperature settings and can be confirmed by the EXIF data of the charts. So, I would say this rules out the difference. Do you contend that sharpening settings will reduce resolution to any notable degree? I have not found this to be true, and that USM only enhances the extinction ponts to be more perceptible(not accounting for the artifacts of sharpening-hala, noise, etc.). What other factors CAN have signficant effect? -lens -low pass filter -processing routines(bayer demosiacing). So, which factor(s) may be different? The resolution measurements simply demonstrate less ability to resolve for the 7i, as compared to the 7Hi. If you have specific data to explain the determining factor. Even IF the the two cameras meaured identically(which has not been demonstrated), the difference of 10% single plane(20% total) would NOT be signficant in any way(for cropping, blow up, etc.) to perception to these mosiac bayer generated images, if all esle is equal(post processing).

(3) Concerning enhancement of diagnol array, it would be wise to note that it has been idealized for the most sensitive orientation of human vision AND the primary content of the real world environment(vertical and horizontal). This was based on research and long held imaging theory on the importance of specifically oriented data. Humans are primarily senstitive to their adapted orientation(v/h). They can be reoriented, but this is not usual circumstance. The priamry makeup of the physical world, in man made AND nature is v/h. So why would one want to enhance diagnol instaed of v/h resolution?

Since you like to ignore resoluton tests, I only know of one semi-controlled SCCD vs CCD comparison of direct comparison off hand at memmory. Demonstrating this point in a simple manner, see this link(the static scene comparison): http://www.ddisoftware.com/reviews/s2/

Randomly ask anyone what they think of a SCCD image vs a standard orientated CCD of the same sensor count, and the results are almost always judge the SCCD image as having more data. The above link is a good example why.

I can not find ANY reason to support any claim that the 7i/7hi delivers any signficant different resolving power then the s602.

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 4:48 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
(1) To ignore extinction resolution, is, well quite ignorant. It contributes significantly, as it is the limit of data pickup. You can vary the effectivness despite it being under the absolute, with contrast and USM processing. The extinction points i refer to are my assesment based on the charts themsleves, not the reviwers.
I'm sorry. I didn't notice you were using your own eyes instead of quoting some stupid review. However, the test is still quite poor because it tells very little about the lens. Check www.photodo.com in order to see how lenses should be tested (the MTF charts).

Quote:
(2) The 7i measurment is nearly identical at www.dpreview.com as well. While I will say that in-camera setting can effect resolution, it would be quite unusual for it to have such an effect as this difference. Pleaes explain how an approximated 20 percent total resolution loss would occur, and from what setting in camera?
I have no idea where you got your samples and I have no idea what settings the reviewer used. For all I know, the difference might be a result of poor focus.

Quote:
The cameras at issue(7i and 7Hi), the 7i and 7hi were tested at min. focal length to reduce that variable,
That's mistake number one. I think (based on the MTF charts at photodo) most lenses have a sweet spot NEAR the wide end, not AT the wide end.

Quote:
and the 7i was tested at a slightly larger aperature(lower fstop) then the 7hi,
Mistake number two. Most digicams seem to have a sweet spot somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6.

Quote:
The resolution measurements simply demonstrate less ability to resolve for the 7i, as compared to the 7Hi.
All the test demonstrates is that there's a +/- 10 % error margin. Both cameras share the same lens, the same CCD and internal electronics. Interpolation and sharpening are carried out by a non-programmable co-processor. Therefore the results should be identical unless one unit was defective or the reviewer messed up something. BTW, no-one who has really used both cameras have noticed any difference in image quality.

Quote:
(3) Concerning enhancement of diagnol array, it would be wise to note that it has been idealized for the most sensitive orientation of human vision AND the primary content of the real world environment(vertical and horizontal). This was based on research and long held imaging theory on the importance of specifically oriented data. Humans are primarily senstitive to their adapted orientation(v/h). They can be reoriented, but this is not usual circumstance. The priamry makeup of the physical world, in man made AND nature is v/h.
This sounds interesting. I though the cells in our retina are not in any particular pattern. I take that this was published in some respectable medical journal. Can you tell me the name of the author?


Quote:
So why would one want to enhance diagnol instaed of v/h resolution?
You are putting words to my mouth. I said it possible to cheat because diagonal resolution is not measured although it's equally important.

Quote:
Since you like to ignore resoluton tests, I only know of one semi-controlled SCCD vs CCD comparison of direct comparison off hand at memmory. Demonstrating this point in a simple manner, see this link(the static scene comparison): http://www.ddisoftware.com/reviews/s2/
I thought we were talking about 7i/Hi vs. 602.

Quote:
Randomly ask anyone what they think of a SCCD image vs a standard orientated CCD of the same sensor count, and the results are almost always judge the SCCD image as having more data. The above link is a good example why.
I have a better example: the SD9 seems to be quite as sharp as the 6 MP cameras. However, it's also more prone to produce moire and jaggies because there's no anti-aliasing filter. It's indeed possible to increase horizontal / vertical resolution, but there might be some "unexpected" trade-offs.

Quote:
I can not find ANY reason to support any claim that the 7i/7hi delivers any signficant different resolving power then the s602.
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?...&page_number=1

7Hi: 1440, 1390, 1420 (horizontal, vertical and diagonal resolution)
F717: 1460, 1500, 1410
602: 1220, 1200, 1180

That's a 18 % differense, equal to 1.2 megapixels. I know this is the kind of test I've been criticizing, but you asked for ANY reason ;-)

Marko
MarkoB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 5:23 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

"I'm sorry. I didn't notice you were using your own eyes instead of quoting some stupid review. However, the test is still quite poor because it tells very little about the lens. Check www.photodo.com in order to see how lenses should be tested (the MTF charts). "

I am aware of how to perform MTF measurement. The ISO standard test is still quite valid if performed competently, for an analysis of these cameras. IT accurately measures the relative resolving power of the system at a fixed setting.


"I'm sorry. I didn't notice you were using your own eyes instead of quoting some stupid review. However, the test is still quite poor because it tells very little about the lens. Check www.photodo.com in order to see how lenses should be tested (the MTF charts). "


"I have no idea where you got your samples and I have no idea what settings the reviewer used. For all I know, the difference might be a result of poor focus. "

I referenced both references. You blame focus as a possibility. I beleive this is a bit of a stretch, even though it is possible....but furher reduced in probablity by two seperate enities(reviewers) testing different examples of the smae camera seprately, but yeilding nearly identical results.

"Mistake number two. Most digicams seem to have a sweet spot somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6."

Very true, considering far edge sharpness and CA behaviour. But, the diffraction limit lowers as a smaller aperature is used. The measurement references are near the center of the lenses in these tests.

"BTW, no-one who has really used both cameras have noticed any difference in image quality."

I believe i already assesd this, as the percentage difference would not have a percievable effect except on side by side controlled viewing from the two cameras.

"This sounds interesting. I though the cells in our retina are not in any particular pattern. I take that this was published in some respectable medical journal. Can you tell me the name of the author?"

When did I say this? I did not. I specified adaptive conditioning to an orientation. IT is a physchological effect, and has been documented that the human percepton has difficulty registering an object not in the standard orientation it is used too. This can be readapted to another orientation, at least temporarily, with repeated exposure to the new orientation. It has nothing to do with the eye structure.

http://www.journalofvision.org/3/3/1/article.html

" I said it possible to cheat because diagonal resolution is not measured although it's equally important. "

From the results of image compariosn i have taken notice too(one of which i linked to in prior reply to you), this is not true. Diagnol resolution appears to be of lesser importance IMO.

"I thought we were talking about 7i/Hi vs. 602."

This is in reference to controlled comparison of an equal count chip tht is optimized for v/h and one that is optimzed for diagnol.


"7Hi: 1440, 1390, 1420 (horizontal, vertical and diagonal resolution)
F717: 1460, 1500, 1410
602: 1220, 1200, 1180 "

Those are absolute measurements. Not as in 'absolute' correct. Absolute as defined by nyquist theorem, coungint only the data with a contrast of 2:1 ratio or greater. However, ths is not an accurate quoted measure by any means of quantifying an image's resolution in these ISO charts because this situation is not diretly analogous, to say the theorem applied to digital sampling points where their is no useful/true data beyond the 2:1 ratio. The extinction resolution is very important, it is effected by sharpening/contrast adjustement that easily make this a dominant factor in the data observed in an image. This is why I pay little respect to 'absolute' ISO chart quotes, as they are certainly not absolutely defining. How do you ignore the clearly resolved data past the quoted absolute resolution quotes? You can't. It should also be noted that Popphotot does not publish their charts, only their quoted results.

I have taken obsevation of all of these factors, and attempted to asses the priorities. In my conclusions, I must agree with Fuji's claims/theories of V/H being primarily important. The controlled applied tests(available) indeed support this contention.

Where is their evidence to suggest any signficant differnce between a 7i/7hi and s602 as far as resolving power?

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 5:48 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

I don't want to get into this technical pissing match folks, but I did want to mention that almost any flaw in an OLY C series image can be corrected or nearly minimized in PhotoShop with a few minor filter tweaks. It's also really easy to adjust DOF to out-of-focus with the Gaussian filter, just to mention one method. I take great photos, both macro and zoom with my C-730 (sold some art prints....). The OY C series does have a few limitations (purple fringing with strong back lighting using the zoom and during general low light shots being the most common), but for the money, I think it's an extraordinary value with all of its manual features, 10x zoom and small size. I recommend you use ONLY Olympus batteries and charger, for some reason you get longer battery life (which is very good). I also notice that I get better battery life using the XD card as opposed to a smart media card. You techies knock yourself out, I'm going to take some more photos. :P
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2003, 8:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 386
Default A follow up for the Fuji S602?

While some are fighting over hairlines, Fuji finally made a pre announced of a new S serie camera. End next week we shall know if this is dream follow up of the S 602. (I was temped to buy the F602 but stalled it to wait if it would be replaced with an improved version for dark light)

Now the news is final I personally don't know if this a reason to open bottles of champagnes or go into a nervous breakdown here and now. If this is the follow up of the S602 it could mean another 1/2 year or more waiting with upgrading my ol' Canon Elph/Ixus. I already came to my senses and noted the F700 would not be a major deal for me to wait for. With a new S model things would be different. As mentioned before in this line; Would waiting be efficient, or just 'Scottish money roulette' with a hint of personal tormenting.

Are there always this many interesting camera's models and technical improvements at the horizon?

If any of you follow the camera news closly last years; Could you please help me out and tell if digital cameras have come to an evolution spur?
Mathilde uP is offline   Reply With Quote
0
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:14 AM.




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2