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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 25, 2004, 5:54 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Chris,

More good info. The test picture of the excavator looks fine when resized to fit on the screen. Not quite the usual clear blue sky and vibrant greenery that are used by others for examples though! ;-)

I assume it is the res charts on the last link that are showing the softening as you move away from the middle of the lens....where the "600" looks softer than the "1950".

To be honest this doesn't look terrible to me.

As a comparison how do you think my old P52 would stand up to the kind of tests we are discussing....general opinion fine if you have no direct results.

And what about an overall opinion of well regarded cameras like the Canon A75/80?

Is it that they are perhaps better in overall quality than the F700 but lacking the speed and options?

I'll leave you alone after that!!

Thanks.

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 12:53 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
I assume it is the res charts on the last link that are showing the softening as you move away from the middle of the lens....where the "600" looks softer than the "1950".
Yes. As you can see, at tele or smaller aperatures, the lens is sharper as move from middle. I do wish I could exactly quantify the degree of effect, instead of giving relative rating like 'more' or 'less', etc.. I had designed a new chart, that measured at different areas of the field, to give a precise, weighted score, but I have not got aroiund to fabricating the new chart yet. I'll get around to it yet!

Quote:
To be honest this doesn't look terrible to me.
It all depends on your end use(s). The exacavator sample was at a wdie angle setting, and with an aperature of F5. Moving from wideangle would of course imporove the sharpness away from center.

Quote:
As a comparison how do you think my old P52 would stand up to the kind of tests we are discussing....general opinion fine if you have no direct results.
No comment.

Quote:
And what about an overall opinion of well regarded cameras like the Canon A75/80?
No comment.

Quote:
Is it that they are perhaps better in overall quality than the F700 but lacking the speed and options?
Quality? I don't know what you mean. Build quality is very good with the F700, at least comparable to the better quality Canon pocekt cameras. Image quality? That's something you must be very specific about. Their is resolution, contrast, color, noise, etc.. to consider. Which combination is of primary importance to you? The Fuji certainly has better practical use resolution then other 3MP pocket cameras. It also has the best high ISO performance, by a high degree. ISO 200 from other cameras is almost as noisy as ISO800 on the Fuji F700. Is high ISO important to you?

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 2:28 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Chris,

Do remember I am not experienced in the technical detail of cameras and images as you are. I know I like a "quality" , "sharp"and "pleasing" image but what the technical assessment of images that met my non-technical judgement might be...I just don't know!

When I used the word "quality" at the end of the previous post I did mean image quality, and judged in the non-specific way as mentioned above.

I'm not sure about high ISO. With my Sony P52 I leave it at Auto by default but you can set it manually (100/200/400 I think). I did alter it a while ago to try and capture an image of an eclipse at night...but I can't remember why I might have changed the ISO for this.

I do know I dislike the image noise levels when the Sony is used without flash in low light, also in the portions of an indoor flash image where the room is too large for the flash to fill it and the dark corners are very noisy. This was one reason why the more powerful flash on the F700 might suit me.

I wasn't trying to catch you out with an opinion of the Sony P52. Just that I know what I do and don't like about it after almost 2000 images so it could be used as a benchmark if you had any experience of the model.

Would a good high ISO ability help in situations with average to low light where the subject is moving. I have found the P52 pretty hopeless in this respect. The children often have half left the frame by the time the shutter fires, and in anything other than perfect conditions the motion is smeared.

I suppose to sum up what I'm trying to find out.....

If the F700 image was as pleasing to me (in the way I judge them) as my 3.2MP P52, or perhaps even better, then all the F700 advantages of manual control, LCD size/quality, flash range, shooting modes would make it a certain buy.

If the F700 image quality was even a fraction below the P52 then the operational advantages would not persuade me to buy it.

And that is why I wondered about a "safer" choice like the Canon A70/75/80 range where the image quality seems to be highly rated by everyone.

Thanks again,

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 12:11 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Do remember I am not experienced in the technical detail of cameras and images as you are. I know I like a "quality" , "sharp"and "pleasing" image but what the technical assessment of images that met my non-technical judgement might be...I just don't know!
Let's assume we have a comparable image taken with two different cameras. Assume that the cameras are different file size outputs. Assume the images are post processed properly. Resize the smaller image(s) up to the same size as the largest image in a photo editor. This will simulate, roughly, what happens when you print at 8x10 or larger print sizes. This is the only way I know to tell you how to compare(if you have comparable images) on the computer monitor. As for knowing how different types of artifacts in images effect actual images, this takes experience observing these artifacts and printing in order to correlate.

Quote:
I do know I dislike the image noise levels when the Sony is used without flash in low light, also in the portions of an indoor flash image where the room is too large for the flash to fill it and the dark corners are very noisy. This was one reason why the more powerful flash on the F700 might suit me.
If the only problem you have is the flash, I recommend a slave flash bracket, such as this:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/phoenix66s.html

Quote:
Would a good high ISO ability help in situations with average to low light where the subject is moving. I have found the P52 pretty hopeless in this respect. The children often have half left the frame by the time the shutter fires, and in anything other than perfect conditions the motion is smeared.
High ISO helps when you don't want or can't use a flash. IN that case, then ISO 800 can allow for much more flexibility in non-flash situations.

Quote:
If the F700 image was as pleasing to me (in the way I judge them) as my 3.2MP P52, or perhaps even better, then all the F700 advantages of manual control, LCD size/quality, flash range, shooting modes would make it a certain buy.

If the F700 image quality was even a fraction below the P52 then the operational advantages would not persuade me to buy it.
I can not comment specifically on the P52. However, it isl ikely to use the same processing system and sensor as other current Sony 3.2MP units. If so, then I will say that the F700 will have better enlarability potential(higher usable resolution) and will have better high ISO performance.

Quote:
And that is why I wondered about a "safer" choice like the Canon A70/75/80 range where the image quality seems to be highly rated by everyone.
The Canon's seem to ahve the lowest noise at low ISO settings. If you plan to use flash or take pictures in only sunlight, then the Canons would be a good choice. The F700 is certainly a good deal faster(AF, etc.) then the Canons, of course.

A unique feature, is the ability to take images in RAW on the F700 and later post prcess the S and R data from the sensor. The full data from both sensor sets of the SR SCCD are stored. You can later post process with software such as S7RAW, and have an immense dynamic range available for some special shots, like sunsets, etc. where a wide light range is present that would normally be impossible to capture. Realize that file size for RAW images is large, and has slow cycle times. Practicaly only for special occasions.

-Chris

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 3:21 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Chris,

OK. I'm about sorted!

I'm going to keep the F700 in my short list of 3/4 digicams and look finally very carefully at their specs, physical sizes* and operational abilities.

*Like will they pass the Wrangler jacket top pocket test?

I'll get whichever seems best at the end of the week and cross my fingers a bit until I've seen a few images.

As a matter of interest, had I kept the Sony, I was going to think about their slave flash made to fit any P-series. They look a very neat unit.

Also you have mentioned post-processing a lot. I do want to keep this to a minimum. When we came back from last years holiday and loaded 200 images from the Sony to our PC I was able to upload all the best ones to the Sony online print website without any processing and the results were just what I wanted.

I usually use post processing for my technical shots which are often taken in adverse conditions and need some work.

Thanks again, I'll post on here eventually and say what I bought in the end!

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 4:43 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Also you have mentioned post-processing a lot. I do want to keep this to a minimum. When we came back from last years holiday and loaded 200 images from the Sony to our PC I was able to upload all the best ones to the Sony online print website without any processing and the results were just what I wanted.
Adequate results are had with Normal/default settings for 5"x7" or smaller prints. I should have been more specific earlier: my many comments about post processing are only relevant for larger prints(8x10" and larger), where upon close examination, problems can start to show up from using default modes.

Quote:
Thanks again, I'll post on here eventually and say what I bought in the end!
Thanks. Will be interesting to see which unit you select.

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2004, 12:08 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Chris (WmAx),

I said I'd let you know what I bought in the end. You might be surprised.

Over the past 4wks I've researched just about every digital camera available between £200 and £400. I was a little critical of ultimate image quality at the start but in the end essential features played a huge part in the decision as well.

I had a Canon A75, Sony V1 and Sony P93 for extended home trial. None of those was just right.

Rightly or not I discounted the Fuji F700 withouttestingdue to the perceived image oddities. Likewise the Canon S50 was a very hot prospect that didn't make it home due tocomments of slightly slow operation and purple fringing in some circumstances.

Finally I ended up with a Sony P12 outfit which is the 5mpP10 in dark bluewith an additional battery and leather case. This was bought at a savage discount, in the UK they have justdropped about £160compared tothe start of the year. This seems to be due to the new Sony P93/P100/W1 cameras undermining the older designs.

I have used up part of this saving by ordering a slave flash, third Infolithiumbattery and a stand-alone charger to get away from using the camera to recharge batteries.

Thanks for the previous ideas on image quality. As a matter of interest if that was the sole criteria I think I'd have kept the Sony V1.

David






Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2004, 10:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Cybershot455 wrote:
Quote:
Chris (WmAx),

I said I'd let you know what I bought in the end. You might be surprised.

Over the past 4wks I've researched just about every digital camera available between £200 and £400. I was a little critical of ultimate image quality at the start but in the end essential features played a huge part in the decision as well.

Rightly or not I discounted the Fuji F700 withouttestingdue to the perceived image oddities.

Finally I ended up with a Sony P12 outfit which is the 5mpP10 in dark bluewith an additional battery and leather case.

I am not suprised. I am glad you found a camera that you can enjoy. That is the only important issue at hand. :-)

-Chris
WmAx 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 1:14 AM.