Is F300 going to be Fuji's best ever P&S camera to date?

[Raist3d]

I have no problems admitting where I have been wrong, but just below someone at least confirmed for "DR 800%" you need to increase the ISO.

But that said, the SR still has its advantages over the EXR for DR, due to bigger photosites for the shadow areas and not having to deal with the artifacts of the new color grid array.

Making a mistake here doesn't automatically invalidate in any shape or form everything else I have been talking about.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Maxime B]

we all have different needs. The Sigma is not an option for you. Nothing wrong with that. For some who aren't pleased with the image quality of the latest Fuji's the Sigma can be.

Right ... anyone who was initially attracted to the F300EXR for its magnificent focal range, its dynamic range compression, its HD video, its size, its high ISO imagery and its super fast AF is going to drop all that because 100% crops are cleaner on the Sigma.

100 % crop is not all the story. At web size, no differences, agree. At 50% or full screen on a 19inch monitor, you start seeing differences. Clean detail stay this way resized, mushy one need quite a lot downsing before you start to see clean micro contrasts. That's why 12mp bayer is better that 6 all other thing being equals. Except for web size, but then I guess all of use watch our pictures bigger.

They will now be satisfied with a larger cam with no zoom at all, fixed at wide angle so no reach at all, mediocre high ISO, decent dynamic range but not quite EXR dynamic range, no video at all, really slow AF and so on.

Basicly right. In all fairness however, amazing highlight recovry possibility should be mentionned. But then the f200 had some great one as well. Still to be fair, the lens don't even compare (almost no barrel, sharp wide open, great contrasts...)

Once the feature sets are so obviously night and day, every other cam becomes an option ... the whole premise that the Sigma is specifically an alternative to the F300EXR is ridiculous ...

I wouldn't put it that way, but they just don't belong to the same category.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maximebrousse/

 

[Raist3d]

we all have different needs. The Sigma is not an option for you. Nothing wrong with that. For some who aren't pleased with the image quality of the latest Fuji's the Sigma can be.

Right ... anyone who was initially attracted to the F300EXR for its magnificent focal range, its dynamic range compression, its HD video, its size, its high ISO imagery and its super fast AF is going to drop all that because 100% crops are cleaner on the Sigma.

That's not what I said nor do put words in my mouth. Maybe you can't been reading the thread carefully but many were dissatisfied with the image quality of what Fuji was showcasing. Given the quality of the latest cameras it doesn't seem that far fetched. Quesabesde has a preview also with the same issues on different conditions.

For those disatisfied with the image quality apparently yes, it will make them stop from considering the 300EXR. Not all but some. That much seems apparent again if you read the thread carefully. I am not saying the Sigma is a cure all- I merely presented it as an option because in Image Quality it does stand a couple of miles ahead of the Fuji. But it - like every other camera on the market- has its issues too.

It's up to each individual to weight the pros and cons. For those who need utomost image quality- or want it- the cons of the Sigma may very well not be an issue- or if they are simply not buy the Sigma either.

There isn't anything else I have been saying here on that end.

They will now be satisfied with a larger cam with no zoom at all, fixed at wide angle so no reach at all, mediocre high ISO, decent dynamic range but not quite EXR dynamic range, no video at all, really slow AF and so on.

Read above. As for slow focus you have fast manual focus. For some it will be great actually.

Once the feature sets are so obviously night and day, every other cam becomes an option ... the whole premise that the Sigma is specifically an alternative to the F300EXR is ridiculous ...

To you it is, but not to some others. Hey there's a guy in the threads that ordered a DP1s.. apparently at last for him, it wasn't ridiculous.. eh?

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Raist3d]

I am very sure what you said proves your point very well. That's not very far from "lalala can't hear you" logic.

Can't understand your writing is pretty much the same as can't hear you ... I agree.

Too bad for you then. I guess at least we can settle on that.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Grobb]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

"You love to name names by way of insulting me in the 3rd person ... the last few people that got that religion were benched”

That's only your opinion, which is becoming increasingly less and less worthless every day, especially to those of us you constantly insult and try to denigrate

 

[Raist3d]

I frankly find the Sigma coarser than this 18mp crop from a Bayer sensor of the same size ... D300

Barely so.

But the Bayer is sharper, and more than barely.

You aren't even using the same subject. I don't think you can't quite make the statement considering resolution loss you would get with a color like brown.

Still amazing the Sigma starts at 4.7 megapixels.

It is very sharp at 4.7mp and I'm betting it remains pretty sharp at 10mp ... but frankly it is ordinary at 18mp.

Compared to the Fuji at 12, it sure looks much better at 18.

the color of the Sigma is much more vibrant.

Now that comment does not even come close to passing the idiot test ...

We did not shoot the same subject in the same light ... so spare me the hyperbole. Sheesh

Yes, if you know that then why make the statements above? Sheesh.

with other Bayer cameras- my point is the ballpark to some extent.

I would not deny that, although you are equivocating again.

How so? It's very simple- it's in the ballpark of some of the Bayer cameras out there - DSLR's even. So we are comparing now what, vs a Fuji P&S? enough said.

The Fujis under discussion aren't even close.

Pixel for pixel, the Sigma is better. No denying that. And as I said, those who like to spend a lot of time looking at 100% crops should get a really good cam. A dSLR is going to be more flexible and a better value, but the Sigma is pretty good in a compact body (assuming 41mm serve's one's purposes adequately.) Those cams can serve that purpose better than any modern small sensor compact.

Well yeah, and that's all I am pretty much saying - though you still notice at smaller websizes some differences due to the color. And less blooming. Even Quesabesde shots that are reduced for website (before you click on them) you can see some blooming on the whites (look at the white boats in sunlight shots) that the Sigma wouldn't exhibit. That doesn't mean I am not saying it doesn't close the gap by using smaller sizes, but there are still differences.

But when viewed at 8x10 or below ... and especially the web ... the difference is mitigated and all the other features start to really count.

At 8x10 you could easily see the difference. Sorry but know this by experience printing on my epson R2880.

The F300 is 1/3 the price of the DP2 and is much more responsive,

As I already showed, it's not 13rd of the price of the DP2.

has hardware assisted dynamic range compression, has HD video, has very wide and very long reach, has stabilization, shoots quite well at 1600 ISO ... shall I list other things that make the road so difficult for the decision to buy the Sigma?

The hardware assisted DR compression advantage is minimized greatly since we are comparing a P&S size sensor vs a Foveon APS-C. The Sigma vs these Fujis shoots quite well at ISO 1600. You may talk about the image stabilization but the Sigma has a faster lens (F2.8). A lot of the zoom of the Fuji is thrown out with the speed of the lens.

Of course, there are things that are advantages on the Fuji. Remember: this whole sub thread was about people that were disappointed with what seems to be the Fuji image quality on these cameras.

 

[Raist3d]

Again ... if 100% crops is the point, then the Sigma might satisfy. But a Pentax of Canon kit is going to satisfy even more ...

The Pentax and Canons don't fit in a pocket.

We are talking about image quality.

I know. And image quality must have a context ... for a compact cam, that context is not going to be 40" prints except in staggeringly rare circumstances.

The context I am talking about goes all the way to reasonably sized web images like 1024x768 or 1280x1024. And certainly at 8x10 you will see a difference.

So we are really talking about 8x10 and smaller.

Yup, and I point this out, that yes, you will still see a difference at 8x10.

And the Fuji works rather well there.

So yes, the Sigma vastly outclasses some of these latest Fujis here- that much is pretty obvious and clear.

No it isn't ... again because it is a very limited context. It has prettier pixels at 100%. And that's a good thing ... all other things being equal. But they sure are not equal. See above.

Read above.

And please, is so much bombast necessary? Are vast quantities of superlatives necessary to try to convince?

I am not "trying to convince" I am pointing out the truth.

[]

Your research really sucks on that one. The binned output is better than the HR output and retains better detail in all circumstances.

Seems like you haven't done your homework- the detail per pixel of the Sigma is far better than what Fuji has at 6.

[]

I am aware of that. But you want the context fixed at 100% and 383% crops ... and I am saying that (a) despite your hyperbolic language, the victory is not as spectacular as you want us all to believe; and (b) at the sizes that almost everyone uses a compact for, the Fujis are as good and in bad light they are probably better.

I think the images that are being shown speak for themselves.

As an overall cam, the superlatives could easily go in the other direction for most people ... and that's not accounting for the tripled price.

As I already demonstrated, it's not triple price.

[]

Which is that you are saying that the Sigma is a better choice than the F300 ... I have been sticking right there.

No, I am saying for those that are disappointed with the image quality that the F300EXR (and recent Fujis) seem to show, and want a compact camera placing a high priority on image quality- the Sigma can provide a compelling alternative and it's worth checking out. Whether the Sigma with its whole set of pros and cons "works out" for this set of people that are disappointed with the latest Fuji's image quality is going to vary per individual. I am merely presenting an option worth considering, nothing more.

I have posted a lot in this forum before you were even here.

We have about the same number of posts (just under 22,000) and you started in the Canon and Kodak forums around 2002 ... I came on almost exclusively in FTF in 2005 ... and since we are past the middle of 2010 I think those differences have just about zero meaning.

That's in your words, but I went through the whole Fuji SR sensor and discussions. My point is, I don't care - I can post here just like you. And if "being around here" earns the right I more than paid my dues.

I don't quite know why you like to reach like that ... and all in support of making a mountain (US versus Canadian) out of a molehill ...

I didn't - you did. You accused me of presuming and I didn't. And I showed you I didn't. This isn't about US versus Canadian- is about you accusing me of making fast presumptions and assumptions when I didn't. Maybe you should fix and update your profile.

[]

You made an issue of it ... I don't really care since it has nothing to do with cameras.

If you didn't care, maybe you wouldn't have accused me then of making such bad assumptions. You brought this up, not me. you .

[]

Fine then. Americans sell cheap to Americans because Americans buy a sh*tload of toys. Volume can be the only explanation, as no other explanation works.

Ah yes, now let's make it a country issue and do the name calling. That sure makes compelling logic to prove your points

Another miss.

That's juvenile.

LOL.. with what you just said...

[]

All that dancing to wrap the laws of physics in hyperbole. APS-C > 1/2" sensor. But not to the extent you say here.

There's no wrapping laws here- if you have a photo site that is capturing full color data per photo site with no need for antialias filter, that sure has an advantage over a sensor that has to put an AA filter (you lose resolution with that) and has to do guesswork for figuring out colors.

If you count the fact that even at websizes some of this better color still shows up

You keep saying better color like it is a law ... as I pointed out earlier, not everyone agrees that it has amazing color.

You conveniently pointed out one issue of one camera model, not of the others, and hardly the Foveon.

[]

Right ... your cat's eye was beautiful. There, can I be a photographer now

That's not what I referred to, but I wouldn't expect you to be civil about this

The cat club has a second member ....

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are

 

[Maxime B]

Right ... anyone who was initially attracted to the F300EXR for its magnificent focal range, its dynamic range compression, its HD video, its size, its high ISO imagery and its super fast AF is going to drop all that because 100% crops are cleaner on the Sigma.

Well, it made me change my mind. The Sigma DP1s for 300 bucks, cheaper than the F300EXR, well, I can't refuse such an offer.

They will now be satisfied with a larger cam with no zoom at all, fixed at wide angle so no reach at all, mediocre high ISO, decent dynamic range but not quite EXR dynamic range, no video at all, really slow AF and so on.

If I had to have ONE camera, and one camera alone, I'd chose the F300EXR. But having other cameras that cover everything else, I think the DP1s is a better choice. Regarding the better DR of the F300EXR, I am not so sure about it. It might have a better DR in terms of stops, but not in terms of details. The samples seen on that Japanese site looked really bad in the EXR DR mode. There was excessive NR being applied to the image.

Anyway, I can not understand how you can say that the DP1s has "mediocre high ISO" while the F300EXR has "high ISO imagery". I looked at the DP1s ISO 800 samples, and they look very, very good for a compact camera. My 450D doesn't do much better. And I hope that you are aware that with a RAW capable camera, you can get any ISO you want by increasing the exposure in RAW. Even at ISO 800, the DP1s looks much sharper and cleaner than the F300EXR at ISO 100 in the SR mode.

Wait untill your got your DP1. This is somehow true for natural (or full spectrum) light. For anyother kind of light forget it (nasty chroma blotch, color schifts..).

I justed worked some totally under exposed f200 files shoot at 800 iso. I had to overexpose +2 ... that's 3200. Noisy of course, but with carefull PP, colors where intacts and I could got rid of chroma noise.

Once the feature sets are so obviously night and day, every other cam becomes an option ... the whole premise that the Sigma is specifically an alternative to the F300EXR is ridiculous ...

I don't think anyone said that. They are different cameras altogether, for different needs. The only place where they collide is the price.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maximebrousse/

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I have no problems admitting where I have been wrong, but just below someone at least confirmed for "DR 800%" you need to increase the ISO.

DR800 is one stop of the software implementation on top of 2 stops of the hardware implementation.

I used to recommend it, but I don't any more.

But that said, the SR still has its advantages over the EXR for DR, due to bigger photosites for the shadow areas and not having to deal with the artifacts of the new color grid array.

So? You like to compare APS-C against sensors with 5 times less area ... no one was talking about that at all ...

Making a mistake here doesn't automatically invalidate in any shape or form everything else I have been talking about.

Uh huh ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[prime]

your opinion, which is becoming increasingly less and less worthless every day

Erm. "less and less worthless" translates to "more and more worthwhile" . . .

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Well, it made me change my mind. The Sigma DP1s for 300 bucks, cheaper than the F300EXR, well, I can't refuse such an offer.

There was a more subtle point contained in my comments there ...

If you were interested in a camera with 24-360 range and suddenly a camera with a fixed focal 28mm wide angle lens is a replacement, then you really have no clue as to what you want the camera for.

This is perfectly fine, of course, but it signals the fact that you are likely in collector mode ...

They will now be satisfied with a larger cam with no zoom at all, fixed at wide angle so no reach at all, mediocre high ISO, decent dynamic range but not quite EXR dynamic range, no video at all, really slow AF and so on.

If I had to have ONE camera, and one camera alone, I'd chose the F300EXR. But having other cameras that cover everything else, I think the DP1s is a better choice.

Fair enough. I want to get back down to one compact for travel and concerts. I have no time to play with such a limited compact cam ... but obviously others do.

Regarding the better DR of the F300EXR, I am not so sure about it. It might have a better DR in terms of stops, but not in terms of details.

Whatever that means. DR is measured on a scale that takes noise into account. Generally speaking the numbers are comparable if the same site measured them.

The samples seen on that Japanese site looked really bad in the EXR DR mode. There was excessive NR being applied to the image.

Blah blah blah ... none of these guys have a clue to shoot the cam ... even Fuji manage to bungle the task. If you really want to convince yourself the cam sucks before it even ships then that is as good a reason as any ...

Anyway, I can not understand how you can say that the DP1s has "mediocre high ISO" while the F300EXR has "high ISO imagery".

DPReview specifically states that image quality drops sharply after 800 ISO on the DP2. They don't even bother to go above that in jpeg ...

Whereas, for a 1/2" sensor, the F80 does a pretty decent job at 1600 ISO and even at 3200 ISO ...

I looked at the DP1s ISO 800 samples, and they look very, very good for a compact camera. My 450D doesn't do much better.

Same sized sensor ...

And I hope that you are aware that with a RAW capable camera, you can get any ISO you want by increasing the exposure in RAW.

Huh? The DP2 specifically allows 1600 and 3200 ISO settings in RAW. But DPR specifically says that you will still want to shoot at 800 or below. The sensor is simply funky as ISO rises. Always has been by the way ...

Even at ISO 800, the DP1s looks much sharper and cleaner than the F300EXR at ISO 100 in the SR mode.

Yawn ... this accusation made against poor examples is just tiresome ... please consider a new shtick ...

Once the feature sets are so obviously night and day, every other cam becomes an option ... the whole premise that the Sigma is specifically an alternative to the F300EXR is ridiculous ...

I don't think anyone said that. They are different cameras altogether, for different needs. The only place where they collide is the price.

Again, huh?

They don't collide (whatever that means) in the price at all ... the Sigma is much more expensive ... almost triple.

The point was explicitly made that, because the Sigma has cleaner files at 100%, it is suddenly an alternative to the F300EXR.

To which I replied that the feature set is so different that any camera becomes an alternative. You are completely missing the point of that ... to jump from the F300EXR to the Sigma DP2 is to switch from black to white ... it is the equivalent of a brain melt down, since there is no common feature to even bridge between the two ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

we all have different needs. The Sigma is not an option for you. Nothing wrong with that. For some who aren't pleased with the image quality of the latest Fuji's the Sigma can be.

Right ... anyone who was initially attracted to the F300EXR for its magnificent focal range, its dynamic range compression, its HD video, its size, its high ISO imagery and its super fast AF is going to drop all that because 100% crops are cleaner on the Sigma.

That's not what I said nor do put words in my mouth.

I did not say that you said the above. But what you did say implied the above.

Maybe you can't been reading the thread carefully but many were dissatisfied with the image quality of what Fuji was showcasing. Given the quality of the latest cameras it doesn't seem that far fetched. Quesabesde has a preview also with the same issues on different conditions.

And maybe you are a little logic impaired.You certainly write stuff that makes no sense sometimes (like the above paragraph.)

But here's the thing ... you show 100% crops and then declare that they are way better than the Fuji at 100%. The horse has more hair than the woman's face one presumes. But let's agree that they are cleaner. You go on to conclude that the Sigma is therefore an alternative to the F300EXR, despite a massive difference in features.

The gulf between the feature sets is staggering ... it is akin to suggesting a cat as an alternative to a Husky because the Husky sheds too much ...

For those disatisfied with the image quality apparently yes, it will make them stop from considering the 300EXR. Not all but some. That much seems apparent again if you read the thread carefully.

I don't take such people very seriously ... there are always malcontents who ignore the fact that the images on Fuji's site are shot incorrectly and who are willing to whinge even before a camera ships ... the whole scene changes when the camera ships ... for better or for worse ...

I am not saying the Sigma is a cure all-

No kidding ... I'd like to see the problem set for which a 28mm lens is a cure all ...

I merely presented it as an option because in Image Quality it does stand a couple of miles ahead of the Fuji.

I guess if you say that enough with any caveats some will happily buy one and find out about its limitations for themselves ...

But it - like every other camera on the market- has its issues too.

More than most according to DPR ...

It's up to each individual to weight the pros and cons. For those who need utomost image quality- or want it- the cons of the Sigma may very well not be an issue- or if they are simply not buy the Sigma either.

For those who ultimate image quality, a dSLR makes a lot more sense. None of the limitations, much better performance, and yes ... better image quality.

They will now be satisfied with a larger cam with no zoom at all, fixed at wide angle so no reach at all, mediocre high ISO, decent dynamic range but not quite EXR dynamic range, no video at all, really slow AF and so on.

Read above.

No. There was nothing salient above.

As for slow focus you have fast manual focus.

... that's the best one yet. AF sucks so bad that you call MF fast ...

For some it will be great actually.

I'm sure ... chase the kid around and spin that ring ... good luck with that.

Once the feature sets are so obviously night and day, every other cam becomes an option ... the whole premise that the Sigma is specifically an alternative to the F300EXR is ridiculous ...

To you it is, but not to some others.

I'm speaking about logic ... it makes no logical sense to offer a camera like that as an alternative to a camera like the F300EXR for the reasons you gave so far. They are too far apart ...

As I said above ... you don't solve a Husky shedding issue with a cat ...

Hey there's a guy in the threads that ordered a DP1s.. apparently at last for him, it wasn't ridiculous.. eh?

I will be polite and reserve comment ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

your opinion, which is becoming increasingly less and less worthless every day

Erm. "less and less worthless" translates to "more and more worthwhile" . . .

His subconscious obviously knows what he does not ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Radu P]

If you were interested in a camera with 24-360 range and suddenly a camera with a fixed focal 28mm wide angle lens is a replacement, then you really have no clue as to what you want the camera for.

You know, the life is not black and white. Sometimes you want something, but then you find something you like even more, for a cheaper price.

Of course the 24-360mm is very tempting, but finding out that the DP1s dropped to 300 bucks changes the game a bit. I realized that I am more tempted in a higher IQ camera than in a big zoom range (which I can get anyway, with my other cameras).

And I didn't look at the F300EXR for the zoom alone. Samsung and Canon have similar offers. The reason why I was interested in the Fuji was the DR mode, coupled with the big zoom. Then after looking at samples on multiple sites, I realized I will not be very satisfied with the IQ.

Fair enough. I want to get back down to one compact for travel and concerts. I have no time to play with such a limited compact cam ... but obviously others do.

Yes, different people, different needs. If I was interested in low light concert photos, I'd not get thee DP1s either. But for my needs, it's a very good camera.

Regarding the better DR of the F300EXR, I am not so sure about it. It might have a better DR in terms of stops, but not in terms of details.

Whatever that means. DR is measured on a scale that takes noise into account. Generally speaking the numbers are comparable if the same site measured them.

I am not sure how exactly they measure the DR, but the fact is that overall, the DP1s gives better results in harsh light than the F300EXR (or even than the F200EXR) if you play a bit with the RAW mode.

Blah blah blah ... none of these guys have a clue to shoot the cam ... even Fuji manage to bungle the task. If you really want to convince yourself the cam sucks before it even ships then that is as good a reason as any ...

I don't understand your statement. How exactly can you shoot a camera wrong? They just took the camera in a high contrast scene, and used all the modes available, then posted samples. I don't see what mistake they could have done to get such horrible results in the DR mode.

DPReview specifically states that image quality drops sharply after 800 ISO on the DP2. They don't even bother to go above that in jpeg ...

I don't care what DPR says, I care about the samples that I see. Here is a thread from the Sigma forums, with some very good ISO 1600 results: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1027&thread=35991415
Do you honestly believe that at ISO 1600-3200 the F300EXR will do better?

Whereas, for a 1/2" sensor, the F80 does a pretty decent job at 1600 ISO and even at 3200 ISO ...

By decent, do you mean compared with cameras using a similarly sized sensor? Or do you mean compared to the DP1s?

I looked at the DP1s ISO 800 samples, and they look very, very good for a compact camera. My 450D doesn't do much better.

Same sized sensor ...

So? The camera size is what matters here. A full frame camera will take much better pictures, but it is not close to the size of a F300EXR.

Huh? The DP2 specifically allows 1600 and 3200 ISO settings in RAW. But DPR specifically says that you will still want to shoot at 800 or below. The sensor is simply funky as ISO rises. Always has been by the way ...

I didn't know they allow ISOs over 800 in RAW, but then again, it's nothing new since you can always increase the exposure in RAW.

Yawn ... this accusation made against poor examples is just tiresome ... please consider a new shtick ...

It is made against the examples we have. If Fuji didn't bother to provide better samples, why should I be nice with them? But I will be very happy to compare samples once we both get our cameras

They don't collide (whatever that means) in the price at all ... the Sigma is much more expensive ... almost triple.

sigh

Let me reiterate: I paid 300 bucks for the Sigma. On Amazon, the F300EXR is 330 bucks. So the price of the Sigma is 10% CHEAPER. Not 300% more expensive.

The point was explicitly made that, because the Sigma has cleaner files at 100%, it is suddenly an alternative to the F300EXR.

To which I replied that the feature set is so different that any camera becomes an alternative. You are completely missing the point of that ... to jump from the F300EXR to the Sigma DP2 is to switch from black to white ... it is the equivalent of a brain melt down, since there is no common feature to even bridge between the two ...

Not any camera becomes an alternative to those that care about the IQ.

Anyway, both cameras are CURRENTLY in the same price range, and the sizes are pretty close. An alternative doesn't mean matching all the features. You can say than an AK47 is an alternative to an M16, even though the features are very different.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Of course the 24-360mm is very tempting, but finding out that the DP1s dropped to 300 bucks changes the game a bit.

Sure ... but that underscores that you have not really analyzed what you want in a camera. It's basically a toy ... what feature set will interest me today?

Then after looking at samples on multiple sites, I realized I will not be very satisfied with the IQ.

You haven't seen the IQ. I am not sure how many times I need to say it, but until wee see what the cam does in DR mode, there is nothing useful to judge by.

Yes, different people, different needs. If I was interested in low light concert photos, I'd not get thee DP1s either. But for my needs, it's a very good camera.

I have no argument there. If the DP1 matches your needs, then the feature set of the F300 was overkill by a long way ...

I am not sure how exactly they measure the DR, but the fact is that overall, the DP1s gives better results in harsh light than the F300EXR (or even than the F200EXR) if you play a bit with the RAW mode.

That statement has no basis in any reality. No head to head tests have been done to my knowledge.

I don't understand your statement. How exactly can you shoot a camera wrong?

The way every review I have yet seen of an EXR camera has been shot. Once one has seen a comparison of HR mode against DR mode, HR mode is a waste of time. From what I have seen, most of the sites have shot HR mode almost exclusively.

And that's how you shoot these cams wrong.

They just took the camera in a high contrast scene, and used all the modes available, then posted samples. I don't see what mistake they could have done to get such horrible results in the DR mode.

The recent Japanese site was a terrible review. The other review people link to is shot at HR exclusively. I have not yet seen a review done correctly. If you have one, link it.

I don't care what DPR says, I care about the samples that I see. Here is a thread from the Sigma forums, with some very good ISO 1600 results: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1027&thread=35991415
Do you honestly believe that at ISO 1600-3200 the F300EXR will do better?

Hmmm ... good question. There was no low contrast details in any of those shots, so no way to know how it was processing detail. The desk lost some detail though and the tone and color shifts were pretty nasty at 1600 ISO. I think those images confirm what DPR was saying.

Now, if fighting with the sensor for low light shooting is your cup of tea, enjoy the cam. But despite the APS-C sensor, that is no low light cam.

And yes, I don't mind the F series at high ISO ... and yes, I suspect that I can retain as much low contrast detail as the DP2 despite the difference in sensor sizes.

By decent, do you mean compared with cameras using a similarly sized sensor? Or do you mean compared to the DP1s?

I think I could compete with the Sigmas in low light ... fighting the color and tone shifts alone will keep someone quite busy ...

I looked at the DP1s ISO 800 samples, and they look very, very good for a compact camera. My 450D doesn't do much better.

Same sized sensor ...

So? The camera size is what matters here. A full frame camera will take much better pictures, but it is not close to the size of a F300EXR.

But is has the same features as the F300EXR ... to get the size, they tossed all the features.

Huh? The DP2 specifically allows 1600 and 3200 ISO settings in RAW. But DPR specifically says that you will still want to shoot at 800 or below. The sensor is simply funky as ISO rises. Always has been by the way ...

I didn't know they allow ISOs over 800 in RAW, but then again, it's nothing new since you can always increase the exposure in RAW.

You keep saying that ... but you are wrong. Obviously, you can always dial up the exposure in RAW converters, but all you are doing is applying a digital amplification (we sometimes call that multiplication ) ... that is rarely as good as the analog amplification in the sensor ...

Yawn ... this accusation made against poor examples is just tiresome ... please consider a new shtick ...

It is made against the examples we have. If Fuji didn't bother to provide better samples, why should I be nice with them? But I will be very happy to compare samples once we both get our cameras

I hope you manage to control some variables ... the last thing we need is yet another kangaroo court in this forum ...

They don't collide (whatever that means) in the price at all ... the Sigma is much more expensive ... almost triple.

sigh

Let me reiterate: I paid 300 bucks for the Sigma. On Amazon, the F300EXR is 330 bucks. So the price of the Sigma is 10% CHEAPER. Not 300% more expensive.

My comment was on the DP2 ... that cam remains about triple the price of the F300 (despite raist3d's insistence otherwise) ...

The point was explicitly made that, because the Sigma has cleaner files at 100%, it is suddenly an alternative to the F300EXR.

To which I replied that the feature set is so different that any camera becomes an alternative. You are completely missing the point of that ... to jump from the F300EXR to the Sigma DP2 is to switch from black to white ... it is the equivalent of a brain melt down, since there is no common feature to even bridge between the two ...

Not any camera becomes an alternative to those that care about the IQ.

Yawn ...

Anyway, both cameras are CURRENTLY in the same price range,

You keep saying that ... the cam in question was the DP2 ...

and the sizes are pretty close. An alternative doesn't mean matching all the features. You can say than an AK47 is an alternative to an M16, even though the features are very different.

Um ... the differences are a little stronger than that ... more like dog vs cat with 1 leg missing ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Radu P]

Sure ... but that underscores that you have not really analyzed what you want in a camera. It's basically a toy ... what feature set will interest me today?

Exactly, it is a toy. I make no money from photography, and I post most of my pictures under the CC license. It's a hobby.

You haven't seen the IQ. I am not sure how many times I need to say it, but until wee see what the cam does in DR mode, there is nothing useful to judge by.

That Japanese site had DR, SR and HR shots of the same scene.

I have no argument there. If the DP1 matches your needs, then the feature set of the F300 was overkill by a long way ...

Most of my shots are landscapes and macro. Both cameras suck at macro (and I have a DSLR with a nice macro lens for that anyway). At landscapes, the Sigma is clearly superior, except for the lack of 24mm (but compensates through noise, color and resolution). I shoot tele pretty rarely, maybe 5% of my shots. Probably less than 1% of my shots are at any FL except for full wide or full tele. If I went for the F300EXR, I'd get no useful macro, decent landscapes, decent telephoto.
However, with the DP1s I get excellent landscapes, no macro and no telephoto.

So for me, both choices were compromises. But I feel I compromise less with the Dp1s.

Besides, the DP1s will still be a great camera even in a few years, while the F300EXR will probably be made obsolete by other models in a year or two.

I am not sure how exactly they measure the DR, but the fact is that overall, the DP1s gives better results in harsh light than the F300EXR (or even than the F200EXR) if you play a bit with the RAW mode.

That statement has no basis in any reality. No head to head tests have been done to my knowledge.

Look on Flickr for Dp1s samples. You will see some high contrast scenes where everything is exposed nicely, and there is no shadow noise. I am talking abut normal high contrast scenes such as landscapes in the evening or at noon, not special occasions, like tunnels.

The way every review I have yet seen of an EXR camera has been shot. Once one has seen a comparison of HR mode against DR mode, HR mode is a waste of time. From what I have seen, most of the sites have shot HR mode almost exclusively.

And that's how you shoot these cams wrong.

Look again at that Japanese site.

The recent Japanese site was a terrible review.

Why? Because the images took a while to load it means the review is bad?

Now, if fighting with the sensor for low light shooting is your cup of tea, enjoy the cam. But despite the APS-C sensor, that is no low light cam.

Obviously. No F4 camera is a low light camera. And there is no IS.
Nevertheless, I think it will do better than other compacts in low light.

I think I could compete with the Sigmas in low light ... fighting the color and tone shifts alone will keep someone quite busy ...

At least you can convert it to a monochrome picture. But fighting very aggressive NR will be even harder, if not impossible. Keep in mind that unlike a Bayer sensor, a noisy pixel will only affect that pixel, not all the nearby pixels

But is has the same features as the F300EXR ... to get the size, they tossed all the features.

Obviously, some compromises must be made. You can't have a perfect camera.

You keep saying that ... but you are wrong. Obviously, you can always dial up the exposure in RAW converters, but all you are doing is applying a digital amplification (we sometimes call that multiplication ) ... that is rarely as good as the analog amplification in the sensor ...

If the sensor A/D converter does a good job, the results are going to be very similar. You still have the same number of photons hitting those pixels.

I hope you manage to control some variables ... the last thing we need is yet another kangaroo court in this forum ...

I am sure we can manage something.

My comment was on the DP2 ... that cam remains about triple the price of the F300 (despite raist3d's insistence otherwise) ...

Yes, the DP2 is at a different price, but I was talking about the DP1s. Not that it changes things, since most things are the same, except for the FL.

Um ... the differences are a little stronger than that ... more like dog vs cat with 1 leg missing ...

For my needs, the difference is pretty small in terms of compromises for both cameras.

 

[solsang]

I've got the f31fd when it hit the market at 350€ and used it to its limit, eventually getting tired of the mushy images and lack of manual control

Two years later was lucky to get an american sigma dp1 in denmark for 500€
To supplement i used the f70exr which had a great 10x zoom, yet too noisy for me

Next year in germany was the dp1s 250€ ebay event and the dp2 mail-in 400€

I now only have the dp2 and have been very happy though often long for shooting wide and having fast autofocus for situations that change fast

The pen and gf1 with wide or zoom lenses are much bigger and heavier, so for me they belong to another category of cameras, while canon s90 or samsung ex1 lack manual focus

(i used a samsung wb600 for a while, learning their manual focus is useless in real life)

Thus i consider adding the f300exr to go along the dp2, to be able to make social shots and movies, having fun zooming or getting some nice facebook travel photos without bothering about pixel peeping

The dp2 can take care of those situations i want to print or use for special purposes, i have used both the f31fd and the dp2 as supplementary wedding cameras with pleasing results, this all depends on the final use, sigma is much slower to control and benefits from raw editing, so i recommend it only for those who have time to spare

If the f300exr takes iso400 pictures in f31fd iso800 quality then i will be happy, using IS of course should be taken into account when comparing iso; what i find sad is that jpg compression is eating into the cake and battery life seems to be forever sacrificed
--


Advice for all dp1 and dp2 users (including s and x)

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB )

 

[danny_only]

For 40 years, I "got along" with 35mm SLRs on which I used only fixed focal length lenses ....

Several months ago, I took my 135mm Fujinon, 58mm Helios, 35mm Takumar & 28mm, 2 rolls of film and Pentax ME Super with me to a hiking trip. Spent almost 3 hours happily shooting with these gears & occasionally some pics with my F30. I found the limitation great fun and at the same time found out how lucky we are to have the digital cameras, the flexibility of switching iso, marco etc...

I also stopped using sophisticating gears many years ago & turned to use several film compacts before picking up digital cameras again.

My two sons are also interested in photography, they read almost all the photography books I told them to read. The 3 of us once sat together reading the book 'Magnum Landscape' together (thanks Akebono, for recommending this wonderful book). I told them I would give several rolls of fim to each them this summer and asked them to take pictures with all the prime lenses we have. My point is, they have enough usage experience of their DCs, forcing them to use film and prime lenses only will make them think twice before pressing the shutter and most of all, think 3 dimension. For sure, the zoom lenses will be more flexible, but many new photographers only use the zoom to do the walking/thinking before pressing shutter. And some younger photographers like to tilt (rotate) the cameras but may they forget they can take a picture from a lower perspective or climb a little for high perspective. Once they unleashed themselves from 2 dimensional thinking, they can return to using zoom and hopefully, able to get better composition.

For the same reason, for a couple of years in the 1990s I self-imposed a discipline of shooting only with ISO100 black and white ...

I do similar things, once in a while I switched to monochrome mode on my DCs, I found it helps a little in composition when I want to shoot monochrome pictures only.

Different photographers have different opinions about the tools to be used. Hugo once told me "Have fun with your film cameras, but it is not my cup of tea, but then it is nothing wrong or right as long as you found it fun, life is too short, I used the camera which is more flexible and familar with to capture things around me". For me, I like to use different tools for nostalgic reasons and fun of using limited tools, but I also need a tool which let me capture things around me after works, the F30 and F200 are the 2 which satisfied these needs.

A talented photographer I found in Flickr. He used so many cameras, both film (135 and 120 format) and digital cameras, even processing film himself. Still getting great results.

A recent capture I like a lot (the song he recommended is also great). Captured with an Olympus film SLR.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loveducation/4862730883/

Another picture I also like a lot. A difficult shot if he was using a film camera, TLR would be out of question, a 60's rangefinder would also be difficult.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loveducation/4211773475/in/set-72157622848350607/

So I use film cameras, digital cameras, prime and zooms. I might have taken the wrong camera, film and lenses out and missed many opportunities to capture the images I would like to capture, but then life is too short for feeling regret, I will be content when I can enjoy wonderful images captured by others around the world.

--
Best Regards,

Danny

'Close enough is good enough, I just come here for fun'



Film is fun, but ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

My Albums
http://photobucket.com/albums/a44/yeeonly

 

[solsang]

For sure, the zoom lenses will be more flexible, but many new photographers only use the zoom to do the walking/thinking before pressing shutter. Once they unleashed themselves from 2 dimensional thinking, they can return to using zoom and hopefully, able to get better composition.

This is the reason i worked with dp1 one year and dp2 the next, that really taught me to zoom with my feet and think about composing and preparing photos in radically new ways, now after this tour de force of 28mm and 41mm primes i notice that i take photos much faster and more interestingly using other cameras

Advice for all dp1 and dp2 users (including s and x)

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB )