Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 25, 2008, 8:22 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I was talking about full buffer write times. That's when it's important. If you aren't shooting sports, you may not care.

If you do, you may care. If you're shooting raw, you may also care (even if you don't shoot sports).

If you've got a 16MB raw file (and I don't know how big they'll be from this model yet), and you can only write at 4MB/Second to the fastest Xd Picture Card around, that translates to a frame rate of only 1 photo every 4 seconds with a full buffer.

Yet, if you have a camera that writes at 16MB/Second (which is what I'm expecting to see from some of the DSLR models like the Sony Alpha 200 that come in at the same price point Fujifilm is targeting with the S100FS), that translates to around 1 frame per second. That's a huge difference (1 frame per second versus 1 frame every 4 seconds with a full buffer).

I wouldn't expect to see a camera at this price point match the 40MB/Second write speeds my new a700 is capable of. But, I'd think they'd want to target write speeds closer to what some of the newer entry level DSLR models are likely to get (and that's going to be faster than xD Picturecard is capable of).

From my perspective, if Fuji wants to lure buyers away from entry level DSLR models with this type of "Prosumer" camera (and it sure likes they are hoping to do that from the feature set I see), they need to make sure it's got similar performance.

You're not going to get that with xD Picturecard (it's going to max out at around 4MB/Second write speed). It's years behind CompactFlash and Secure Digital from a performance perspective, and we're now seeing newer camera models designed to take advantage of faster media.

Hopefully, we'll see great write speeds to SD cards from the new S100FS. We'll have to wait and see.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2008, 10:16 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

Ok, I was wrong. I quoted you as stating the SD card was 5 times faster than the xD. I should have quoted you as saying the CF card was 11 times faster than the xD card. The E510 uses both xD and CF cards, not SD cards. What was I thinking? Again, in the real world test that you chose to highlight, there was no evidence of an 11x speed advantage over xD media...not even 5x.

Once again , you revert back to DSLR performance in a thread (which you started) that deals with 7 new P&S models. Why do you insist on comparing P&S performance with DSLR performance? Why do you assume that every P&S user is concerned with burst modes? Why do you assume that every P&S user will be shooting in RAW? Let's get real here - what percentage of P&S owners do you think shoot burst in RAW mode? 5%? 10%? It's probably more like 3%. Most P&S cameras don't even offer RAW.

You keep on talking about shooting sports in burst mode with a full buffer...what sport do you shoot that requires bursts of more than 25 frames (amount to fill buffer on E510 when using Lexar CF card per dpreview)? Some of our members that shoot sports for a living don't use burst mode, nor do they shoot in RAW...so why should I be concerned about the burst rate of a DSLR using CF media, when I'm considering purchasing a P&S, and maybe never shooting bursts or using RAW or shooting sports?

Your numbers are meaningless, and you offer no objective evidence to support your claims. You say the xD is incapable of writing faster than 4 MB/sec, however...

Again, I'll point out the review you offered as proof - the E510 on dpreview. According to Olympus, the file size of an E510 RAW pic is approximately 11 MB. Applying your maximum xD write speed of 4 MB/sec, it should take 2.75 seconds to write one RAW file, or 0.36 fps. The very review you referred to shows a 0.6 fps speed for the xD card. That would indicate a write speed of approximately 6.6 MB/sec. Applying that write speed to your 16 MB file, it would take 2.4 seconds to write to the xD card. But we can't say that, because the performance would probably differ in another camera. Hopefully, someone will conduct a meaningful test of write speed of both card types in the new Fuji cameras.

So in other words, if I have no intention of buying a DSLR, and if I don't intend to shoot sports in RAW utilizing burst mode, and if I don't intend to shoot RAW of anything, there is no advantage to SD or CF media over xD media in a point and shoot digicam that uses both xD and either SD or CF media, assuming there is no difference in performance between the different media in the same camera. Can I say that without getting an argument?

The Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2008, 11:42 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The only reason I brought it up was because of your response mentioning that faster xD Picturecards are coming, when the discussion was about CF being dropped for SD with the S100FS).

You wouldn't get 25 frames in a burst with an E-510 shooting with xD Picturecard. Phil only got 25 with Compactflash. He got 10 with the slower Type H xD Picturecard format. ;-)

Shooting raw, he only got 7 with xD before the buffer was full. It does look like Phil was getting a bit over 5MB/Second with a 512MB type H xD Picturecard (raw files of 9100KB in size), which is faster than what I've seen one test at before. So, the new, faster type M format may be able to do as well in some devices.

That's still very slow for a model a smaller buffer (and I doubt you're going to get more than 6 or 7 raw files in the S100FS buffer, if that many). I sure wouldn't want to wait seconds between images shooting raw after a handful of rapid shots.

We'll just have to wait and see how it tests. Given that this is a $799 camera, with Fujifilm bragging about it's rapid frame rate, I'd hope they would make sure the camera writes to SD at a reasonable speed, and SD is capable of much faster speeds than I've seen xD Picturecard test at.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2008, 1:28 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

rinniethehun wrote:
Quote:
I can't wait to see the reviews on the S100fs...2/3" 11 MP sensor...ISO 10,000... 28-400mm zoom...manual zoom ring...hot shoe...IS...etc.....

Steve - review this one first!!!

the Hun

Man I agree, that one looks GREAT. They did everything I wished for, stabilization, longer zoom, higher resolution and hopefully good higher iso quality like the 6000. They even added more choices for jpegs instead of just the chrome and standard settings in the 6000. If this has good iso quality like the 6000, I'd consider selling my DSLR and getting one for the convenience of it. Good job Fujifilm, can't wait to see the review.
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 2:19 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 349
Default

am i to understand that fuji shoots pics with low noise at higher isos? i REALLY want the s100fs but only if the noise is better than my panasonic fz30 (which sucks at noise, btw). i haven't found any reviews that specifically compare noise between brands.

ellen fl
ellenfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 3:53 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

We'll have to wait for the reviews on the S100, but many review sites compare and show examples of noise levels. Here is a quick compilation of the S5 IS, the Pan FZ 50 and the Fuji S6000's noise levels.

This is iso 800 for all cams. Note how awesome the Fuji S6000fd is.


Attached Images
 
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 4:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

The above were crops, the harshest of comparisons. Here is an actual photo my wife shot with our S6000fd at ISO 400

If the S100 is this good, it will be a great superzoom. But, should be about 250-300 less, it's still way too expensive.



Attached Images
 
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 8:31 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 349
Default

actually, i'm surprised at how much better the panasonic is compared to the canon! thanks for this comparison. where do you find the noise comparison sites?

that fuji does look good. the other question is whether the camera itself reduces the noise and thus loses some detail. have you seen a site where someone has actually done the work of comparing cameras . . . as opposed to just putting up pics for the viewer to make the determination?

thanks, highway. this is what i am looking for. i am very interested in the s100fs and look forward to the review. i am sure that the price i actually pay will be less than list. i just paid $350 for my panasonic fz30 which is an older model so i would expect the price for the s100fs to be above that.

ellen fl
ellenfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2008, 11:05 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

Hi Ellen,

Yes, the poor Canon is about the noisiest camera out there for these types. It's a great cam otherwise, but it actually has more noise at iso 80 than many DSLR's have at ISO 800. Steve here has some examples at different iso settings and DC Resource review page has common pics like the sample I posted for comparison sake.

The fuji actually 'has' less noise. It's sensor is larger and they seemed to have gotten lucky with the combo of the sensor and processing so all worked together very well.

I'm sure the S100 will go for cheaper than the quoted list, and hopefully drop really fast. The bad thing is, no matter how good it is, one can get an Olympus E510 DSLR with two lenses for a equivalent focal range of 28 to 300, with image stabilization, 10mpx, ect etc for under 700.

Glad I could help,
Ron

ellenfl wrote:
Quote:
actually, i'm surprised at how much better the panasonic is compared to the canon! thanks for this comparison. where do you find the noise comparison sites?

that fuji does look good. the other question is whether the camera itself reduces the noise and thus loses some detail. have you seen a site where someone has actually done the work of comparing cameras . . . as opposed to just putting up pics for the viewer to make the determination?

thanks, highway. this is what i am looking for. i am very interested in the s100fs and look forward to the review. i am sure that the price i actually pay will be less than list. i just paid $350 for my panasonic fz30 which is an older model so i would expect the price for the s100fs to be above that.

ellen fl
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2008, 10:13 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 349
Default

can anyone tell me what fuji's raw format is? will it work in photoshop cs2? i am going to be really disappointed if the s100fs raw files cannot be processed in cs2.

ellen fl
ellenfl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
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 3:33 AM.