not 10 FPS!!!I believe it is closer to 5FPS in jpg, with a total of @ 10~12 depending on size
I will seriously consider this camera if---IF---it has a built in nd filter and it doesn't have some big 'gottchas'.
for the previous poster...they lack follow through on many fronts. The password thingy might be as simple as they didn't configure their webpage for browsers other than ms explorer.I generally like the output from DXO but I also dislike their lack of transparency.The promo suggests that the latest version handles larger files etc etc that the d800 will create...yes that's true but you must purchase the elite version for d800 support. So...standard can handle the large d800 file sizes but NOT the d800 files. That should be made clear from the get go.
PAUL TILL: FujiFilm: "We did receive some inquiries concerning the so-called ‘white disc’ or ‘blooming’ occurrence".
SOME, come on, pull the other one, if you had only received SOME inquiries you wouldn't be doing what you're doing now !
well I complained to the usa calif fuji service center and the rep told me that he had (in early Jan) 'spoken with several dozen people that were concerned....' and if I wanted to be heard by Fuji JP I would need to contact Fuji NJ and escalate the 'complaint' through their offices until they would confirm to me that they would in fact contact Fuji JP on my behalf. So...they (Fuji) created their own little firewall which requires quite a bit of jumping around and follow through if you want to penetrate it.
robreed: I agree it's a pretty unsatisfying statement. One of the groups most interested in this issue is going to be current owners, and it is not clear what the company intends to do for this group.
For whatever it's worth, I can understand the argument that this is not a defect so much as it is a characteristic of the sensor - a particularly awful one perhaps. Commenters here seem to saying as much when suggesting that 'fixing' the problem might amount to little more than changing the sensor in ways that will affect the overall quality.
This is $600 (usd) camera. That's a lot of money to be sure, but relatively speaking much less than you would expect to pay for anything close to a perfect camera.
> Current sensor in right conditions does a brilliant job in 95% of the time...
That's about what I would be looking for at this price point.
Regardless, the communication from the company has been abysmal. That certainly has been defective.
yes but the major difference for me is that in that other 5% area..the camera is totally unsuitable and within that 5% there is a 20% chance of an nice big fat ORB.of course ymmv
ProfHankD: Well, I've now posted a WWW form version of the free DeOrbIt tool I've been building over the past couple of weeks. It is at:
Obviously, this is not the 'definitive solution' -- it is the immediately useful result of applying some of the techniques from my computational photography research.
this does look promising, thank you!how would you lessen this ex-orb to be less cylindrical?
Barney Britton: Hi everyone, this comment thread will be locked shortly - please head to the Fuj Talk forum to debate this issue further. Thanks!
Well Barney,I think it should be left open so that Fuji can more easily see just how many people are not happy with their 'support' for this X rated camera.
ProfHankD: I don't have one of these cameras, but it looks to me like the primary problem is sensor pixel leakage, which would explain why lower ISOs have it worse. If so, a firmware fix is not going to make the problem go away.
However, computationally recognizing this defect and artificially replacing the orbs with a synthesized structure is definitely feasible. Here's my 30-second try:http://aggregate.org/DIT/FujiOrb/before.pnghttp://aggregate.org/DIT/FujiOrb/after.png
I can probably create a script to automatically do a little better than this. Is this good enough to be worthwhile?
well I sent you a PM this morning with some linkage to my original...and can supply hundreds of others if you like