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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2004, 12:10 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11
Default Fuji F700 poor image quality

I'm an amateur. I've just bought the Fuji F700. The reason I bought it was because it was FAST. There's no "next shot delay" hardlly at all.

So, I wanted "fast", and I got "fast" okay...

BUT, I don't like the image quality very much. I am dissapointed.
I wish I could get better image quality with this VERY FAST camera.

I must be doing something wrong. I use the AUTO settings with 6 megapixel setting, and still get poor image quality.

Today, I started messing with "MANUAL" mode setting, and am still experimenting with the same poor results.

I'd appreciate any constructive suggestions on how I can IMPROVE the image quality of the F700.

Please feel free to email me.

Thanks...
grumpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 12, 2004, 8:54 PM   #2
hst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default How are you viewing the images

When you view the images are you looking at them at 100% 6MP. And what compression setting are you using (Fine/normal).
When you print the pictures are they still bad? What is wrong with the images?

If you can provide some more details, it might help to get some answers. If you could even post a few images that would help.
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2004, 5:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

I am guilty of two things that give me poor shots with my S7000.

Number one: Not using a tripod.

Number two: Not depressing the shutter 1/2 way to let the camera focus.

If neither of these solutions work, try seeking answers in the manual. I've found simple answers to problems in the booklet.
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2004, 11:50 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Fuji F700 poor image quality

If you posted a few example shots(straight from camera) for people to see, they could possiblygive you tips to improve your errors(if you are at error), or just confirm the image quality is lousy due to the camera(if that's the problem).

-Chris

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
I'm an amateur. I've just bought the Fuji F700. The reason I bought it was because it was FAST. There's no "next shot delay" hardlly at all.

So, I wanted "fast", and I got "fast" okay...

BUT, I don't like the image quality very much. I am dissapointed.
I wish I could get better image quality with this VERY FAST camera.

I must be doing something wrong. I use the AUTO settings with 6 megapixel setting, and still get poor image quality.

Today, I started messing with "MANUAL" mode setting, and am still experimenting with the same poor results.

I'd appreciate any constructive suggestions on how I can IMPROVE the image quality of the F700.

Please feel free to email me.

Thanks...
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 1:55 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

I'm interested by the F700 image quality.

For a year now I've been happy with 95% of aspects of my first digital camera, a Sony P52.

Now I have a chance to upgrade the F700 seems to have the improvements that I would like....fast operation/minimal lag, long flash range, loads of custom/manual type modes, better LCD.

But...there seems to be a huge question over image quality appearing once folks test/use the camera. I've downloaded the F700 images from this site and compared them to those from Canon A70/75/80, Sony P72/P8, Fuji 3000.

The F700 image seems poor besides all these cameras when the detail is examined.

Yet loads of camera magazines voted the F700 as camera of the year (or whatever) when it came out and praised its sharp images.

What is going on, surely Fuji can't have got it so badly wrong?

Any F700 owners/users out there who can comment?

Thanks,

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:28 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 322
Default

Keep in mind that a lot of folks will look at an image that's 3MP or larger in full size on their computer screen, and when you do that, ANY camera's pictures will come up short, because you will see every tiny little flaw/imperfection that's there (just as when you blow up a film picture from an inexpensive camera too big). However, if you will resize them to a size you'd more likely use, they will appear a lot more sharp and detailed than smaller resolution pictures, simply because there's a lot more information there to start with. Same thing goes with printing. An 8X10 taken from a 1MP camera will look fuzzy and pixelated out, but an 8X10 print from a 3MP or larger will look nice when printed.

In most cases the intent isn't to look at the pictures in absolutely full size, although it's possible to do that, but rather to have more information so as to be able to make a larger print and still have sharp detail. Have you resized the downloaded sample pictures and looked at them in a more suitable size? Also, remember that picture quality through a computer screen varies a lot, and most screens don't really show a photo's details all that well, so there are a good handful of variables that will affect the way a digital photo looks, especially when viewing them onscreen.
Guitarman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 10:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Guitarman,

Fair points. When I bought my Sony P52 I downloaded and resized all the images from this website of cameras in my budget......to make a fair comparison.

I will do that with the ones from the F700/A75/P8 etc to judge them as you mention.

However I do have a technical use for the digital camera (vehicle faults/repairs) as well as normal family use. Sometimes the very best quality at full "actual" display mode on the monitor can make the difference between clearly seeing a crack or similar and missing it. I use the images either to display on the home monitor or to crop off sections at original display size and e-mail to folks or upload to the web.

On the test images from this site I noticed the F700 seemed actually to corrupt writing on a sign (the Marina Bar) that was far clearer on a standard 3mp camera. In fact the ability to read the sign was worse with the F700 that with all the other cameras...Canon A70, A75, A80, Fuji 2800, Sony P72/92, P8/10 and Nikon 3700.

If there was a leap forward in performance of the new chip surely it should be better....or am I still missing something?

Thanks.

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 12:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
On the test images from this site I noticed the F700 seemed actually to corrupt writing on a sign (the Marina Bar) that was far clearer on a standard 3mp camera. In fact the ability to read the sign was worse with the F700 that with all the other cameras...Canon A70, A75, A80, Fuji 2800, Sony P72/92, P8/10 and Nikon 3700.
Of course, you realize, the images on this site are not directly comparable between cameras, right? Different FOV, different day(diffierent lighting), etc.

Phil Askey on dpreview has done some controlled comparisions in his F700 review using precise FOV and lighitng between three cameras(A70, F700 and S50). Here are some crops from his test series(I upsized all imags to 6MP for easy size reference).:



Remember noise is irrelevant in these test crops. Heavy sharpening was added in equal amounts to all cameras in order make all resolved detail observable in the files.

Note that this is a single test sample and may not be represenative of all cameras. I have heard compliaints of signficantly deviarting lens sharpness away from center of the lens on dpreview fuji forum. The validity of these claims? I don't know, but I tested a F700 a while back and it had a mild prolbem such as this, but not to the extent I have seen samples demonstrating this effect in some of the complaint threads.

The F700, measurably(numerically) and in application(Phil's test) has demonstrated it is clearly superior to converntional 3MP cameras in resolution. I would go as far as to say, based on the evidence I have seen so far, is is equal, actually, to some 5MP cameras. The S50(as all Canon cameras seem to do) resolves measured resolution a little bit higher then the average 5MP camera. However, realize that post processing technique is important. I applied a simple heavy unsharp mask at small radius in the crops to make all resolved data obvious. Various post processing techniques will extract this data more or less succesffully then others. Ideally, performing a carefully profiled noise reduction(Neat Image or Noise Ninja, for example) on the original file, then applying multiple levels of unsharp mask to bring out the detail in the files. Camera setting have a great bearing, aslo. The examples here have rather high contrast areas of detail. In imagery with low contrast areas of detail, the noise reduction system built into the F700 may wipe out this detail permanently. IN order to correct this, it would be wise to shoot in RAW mode or at least 6MP-Soft sharpen setting. Sharpen system has been correlated to affect noise reduction amounts on past Fuji cameras. With SOFT setting usually setting noise reduction to lowest level.

See my S602 analysis for an example of past correlation to the Sharpen setting:

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

-Chris
WmAx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 3:25 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 180
Default

Chris,

Fantastic info thanks! Obviously you are far more into the technical aspects of digital systems than myself but I think I understand how your views relate to the "average" photographer.

It is true we can look too far into the detail and forget the overall photograph!

For info I set the P52 to 1.2MP size and Fine compression for all normal family shots that may get reduced for e-mail or printed out at 6"x4". For prints I've used the Sony online service and left the images completly as the came off the camera. These results have been brilliant, better overall than my old Pentax SLR outfit that I traded for the pocket digital.

I use the 2MP or 3.2MP settings mainly for the technical stuff I might want to examine closely or family event shots that may need printing to 8x10

Interestingly I was looking at your last post sample images right in front of the monitor....and the good lady was sitting across the room some 3m away. I was saying to her how your examples appeared to confirm my view that any extra detail in the F700 images looked "artificial"...... she just didn't agree.

Effectively the extra viewing distance "smoothed" out the effects I seem to see in the images.

But I still think when I look right into an image for my technical work that I would be irritated by this "strange" way the detail is represented by the F700.

Also you haven't mentioned the aspect many others do...that the F700 compreses the JPEG image too much at each resolution to produce file sizes that are well below average. This must have an effect??

How did you find the camera otherwise? Every other aspect seems exactly what I want so I'm keen to come to terms with the image issues if they are just based on over-picky examination of magnified images.

Thanks for bearing with me on this one!

David
Cybershot455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 9:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Interestingly I was looking at your last post sample images right in front of the monitor....and the good lady was sitting across the room some 3m away. I was saying to her how your examples appeared to confirm my view that any extra detail in the F700 images looked "artificial"...... she just didn't agree.
Again, these were not for quality, just to demonstrate maximum extractable image quality.

If you would like to see a couple of examples of images that I specifically post processed, to extract maximum image quality, I will provide these below. These samples are reprenative of easily achievable results, with post processing.

6MP, multi-stage sharpened, noise-pattern filtered:

http://www.linaeum.com/craigtestphot...0_filtered.jpg

6MP source image(direct from camera - JPEG 6M, SOFT Sharpen) for above:

http://www.linaeum.com/craigtestphotos/DSCF0080.jpg

Here is an example of the ISO800 from the camera. Superb performance for a small-sensor digicam. Cehck out the source image. 3MP, processed same step as last image:

http://www.linaeum.com/craigtestphot..._processed.jpg

3MP source image(direct from camera - JPEG 3M, Soft Sharpen, ISO800):

http://www.linaeum.com/craigtestphotos/DSCF0118.JPG

If you want to know how resolutin is effected by various aperatures and focal lengths for this camera, refer to my measurements:

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

Quote:
But I still think when I look right into an image for my technical work that I would be irritated by this "strange" way the detail is represented by the F700.
Perhaps. If you concerned with the best looking images direct from camera(perceptually, not actually) when viwed at 100 percent on-screen, I recommend a Foveon sensor based camera such as the SD9 Sigma or SD10 Sigma.


Quote:
Also you haven't mentioned the aspect many others do...that the F700 compreses the JPEG image too much at each resolution to produce file sizes that are well below average. This must have an effect??
JPEG artifacts are there, but the just are not signicant IMO when you consider this is a cmopact digital. The lens problems are more of an issue IMO. In a camera with a better lens I would probably be very annoyed with the JPEG level used.

Quote:
How did you find the camera otherwise? Every other aspect seems exactly what I want so I'm keen to come to terms with the image issues if they are just based on over-picky examination of magnified images.
This is asking me to be very subjective. But if it's what you want: I personally love the cameras for a pocket cam. The ability to have pefectly usable ISO 800 images for low ambient light in a pocket cam, and fast AF(for the class) is what draws me to this device. The main distractor too me is the lens, which seems to be of questionable quality. At telephoto, or small aperatures, the lens quality is OK. At lower tele ranges and in wider aperatures, the lens does not perform well. This is based on total sharpness, not just center. See res charts I provided, how wide aperature, wide angle is very unsharp as you move from center of image.

-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 5:15 PM.