new fuji camera

[Etienne R. Werner]

I just talk to a fuji tech here in the netherlands. He was sure about two things:

1- the new camera will not be ff. This because " the amount of CCD chips that are discarded because of faults is to high" This means with a ff the chances of faulty chips would be even higher. He mentioned (I was very surprised) that they needed to construct dozens of chips in order to have a good one.....

2- Contrary to Cannon (D300) and Nikon (d70 , i believe), they will have a metal body and no longer a cheap body made from plastic. In otherwords they will be producing a camera for the prof market.

When asked for a date, he said; 3-4 months.

I realise that this again is only one persons views and can not be attributed to fuji directly, though he seemed to be sure of him self.

 

[Rita Viegas]

Thas what I really nead. a non ff ccd in a better body.

but 3 or 4 months is a LONG LONG time

I just talk to a fuji tech here in the netherlands. He was sure
about two things:
1- the new camera will not be ff. This because " the amount of CCD
chips that are discarded because of faults is to high" This means
with a ff the chances of faulty chips would be even higher. He
mentioned (I was very surprised) that they needed to construct
dozens of chips in order to have a good one.....
2- Contrary to Cannon (D300) and Nikon (d70 , i believe), they will
have a metal body and no longer a cheap body made from plastic. In
otherwords they will be producing a camera for the prof market.

When asked for a date, he said; 3-4 months.

I realise that this again is only one persons views and can not be
attributed to fuji directly, though he seemed to be sure of him
self.

 

[Bernie Ess]

Thas what I really nead. a non ff ccd in a better body.

Well, but a 1,5x CCD with more pixels? I would be surprised if this is it. Maybe 1,3x? But should 1ds and 14n stay - for 2 years or more - the only FF cameras? Strange...

Well, noone knows anyting, funny - there are just too many "rumours" from so-called reliable souces.

ok Patience.

 

[Matt Difanis]

With the advent of DX lenses, I'm personally thrilled to stick with the smaller sensors. The one DX lens I own thus far, the 12-24, seems to be light as a feather compared to some of the best FF ultra-wide zooms of decent quality. I rarely HAVE to use super telephoto focal lenghts, but I sure do enjoy having my 70-200 2.8 VR behave as a 300mm at the long end. I'd miss that and spend a fortune on more telephoto lenses if I ended up with a FF D-SLR.

Matt

Thas what I really nead. a non ff ccd in a better body.

Well, but a 1,5x CCD with more pixels? I would be surprised if this
is it. Maybe 1,3x? But should 1ds and 14n stay - for 2 years or
more - the only FF cameras? Strange...

Well, noone knows anyting, funny - there are just too many
"rumours" from so-called reliable souces.

ok Patience.

 

[Marty Megapixel]

One of my clients is a New York camera store that is a Fuji dealer. Their Fuji rep told them that it should be out in February. Obviously, this could just be rep talk which is meaningless. Let's hope he is correct.
M.

Matt

Thas what I really nead. a non ff ccd in a better body.

Well, but a 1,5x CCD with more pixels? I would be surprised if this
is it. Maybe 1,3x? But should 1ds and 14n stay - for 2 years or
more - the only FF cameras? Strange...

Well, noone knows anyting, funny - there are just too many
"rumours" from so-called reliable souces.

ok Patience.

 

[Bernie Ess]

Ok, I am a bit nervous about upcoming announcements by Fuji because this will make me probably decide if I stay with the Nikon platform or switch over to Canon. The new 1d seems so much promising, very fast and responsive (specially the AF, and I dont mind 8MP either), that Fuji will have to offer something very interesting to keep me in the camp.

If it will not be going to be FF, my guess would be:

• better body, maybe even a genuine Fuji body, better AF and a bit faster than 2fps (3-4 would be fine for me)
• Super CCD IV, maybe not really more resolution but clearly better dynamic range.

If they manage to come out with a camera that has almost the dynamic range of negative film, and the same low noise as S2, that might convince me if its not too expensive. Minor upgrades will make me switch. I might BTW keep the S2 and my Tamron 28-75.

Regards, Bernie

 

[Igor Fradlis]

If new Fuji DSLR is not FF F-mount I will be very, very, VERY dissapointed. I already have 3 grand set aside for the new camera.. it just has to be FF and F-mount (and not Kodak 14n.. )

Igor

I just talk to a fuji tech here in the netherlands. He was sure
about two things:
1- the new camera will not be ff. This because " the amount of CCD
chips that are discarded because of faults is to high" This means
with a ff the chances of faulty chips would be even higher. He
mentioned (I was very surprised) that they needed to construct
dozens of chips in order to have a good one.....
2- Contrary to Cannon (D300) and Nikon (d70 , i believe), they will
have a metal body and no longer a cheap body made from plastic. In
otherwords they will be producing a camera for the prof market.

When asked for a date, he said; 3-4 months.

I realise that this again is only one persons views and can not be
attributed to fuji directly, though he seemed to be sure of him
self.

 

[hmac]

If new Fuji DSLR is not FF F-mount I will be very, very, VERY
dissapointed. I already have 3 grand set aside for the new
camera.. it just has to be FF and F-mount (and not Kodak 14n.. )

And less than $3000, right?

I wonder how likely that is...

--
H McCollister

 

[S_Leeper]

If new Fuji DSLR is not FF F-mount I will be very, very, VERY
dissapointed. I already have 3 grand set aside for the new
camera.. it just has to be FF and F-mount (and not Kodak 14n.. )

And less than $3000, right?

I wonder how likely that is...

--
H McCollister

Doesn't really matter to me. When I got the S2 I figured I was getting a camera that would hold me for at least two upgrades, the S4 or S5.

I hope that Fuji is making a camera with enough extral to convice the non-fuji users that it is time to change.

Well I guess it does matter, because I would really like an S4 that is modular & lets me select my sensor, viewfinder, body, etc. Like the way many of us buy our computers, customized to our preferences.

 

[Robert Scultz]

the new trend is going to be the super CCD IV SR,....
since the existing area is going to be split between S+R ,....
I'd hope to see, the S remain, or grow, to retain the high ISO ,....
as a minimum , would be a 6MP.... 6 S + 6R = 12MP in fuji terms,...
saved as 22MP raw,... a 1.3x ,.... now if they could make a FF,....
and not makeing the pixels smaller,...
since the new chip means new production,.... could be late may 2004,...
FF hope so, but since nikon has not, and fuji is close,....
well canon is on the heels,...
for my taste, I'd like FF, period.
but don't forget, a 1.5 to 1.3x is still 50% more area,...
cheers, Robert

 

[Paulo Abreu]

for my taste, I'd like FF, period.
but don't forget, a 1.5 to 1.3x is still 50% more area,...
cheers, Robert

Agree. FF and 12Mp = smaller pixels = more noise - not that Fuji wouldn´t be capable of making it with even less noise than S2, it would only make it harder...

Although I also woulfd like it full frame, a 1.3x crop 12mp super CCD SR chip would be very, very nice ...

Regards,

--
Paulo Abreu,

'Buy a FujiFilm S2 Pro TODAY because ONE DAY you will be dead !'
http://www.mcscenter.net/~psergio/index.php

 

[Bernie Ess]

Agree. FF and 12Mp = smaller pixels = more noise -

Sorry? Did you mix up something? FF and 12MP would not be smaller pixel, because FF is a bit more than double the suface of the S2 sensor.

Although I also woulfd like it full frame, a 1.3x crop 12mp super
CCD SR chip would be very, very nice ...

But then pixels would indeed be smaller than on the S2.

Bernhard

 

[Igor Fradlis]

The reason why i wrote "and not Kodak 14n" is because there are places that sell brand new 14n's (256 mb) for $2700(US)..

I would not mind trowing in a couple hundred more for a FF Fuji..

Igor

If new Fuji DSLR is not FF F-mount I will be very, very, VERY
dissapointed. I already have 3 grand set aside for the new
camera.. it just has to be FF and F-mount (and not Kodak 14n.. )

And less than $3000, right?

I wonder how likely that is...

--
H McCollister

 

[James Jones]

Bernie,

Remember that the S2 has 6 million sensors natively. So to get 12 million sensors in a FF chip, they would have to fit 6 million more sensors in 50% (difference between FF and current sensor) of the space. Something has got to give and it usually means the pixels will get smaller.

-James

Agree. FF and 12Mp = smaller pixels = more noise -

Sorry? Did you mix up something? FF and 12MP would not be smaller
pixel, because FF is a bit more than double the suface of the S2
sensor.

Although I also woulfd like it full frame, a 1.3x crop 12mp super
CCD SR chip would be very, very nice ...

But then pixels would indeed be smaller than on the S2.

Bernhard

 

[Craig Jones]

It's 100% more pixels in 125% more space, not 50%. Equal pixel size would yield 13.5 MP in FF.

Remember that the S2 has 6 million sensors natively. So to get 12
million sensors in a FF chip, they would have to fit 6 million more
sensors in 50% (difference between FF and current sensor) of the
space. Something has got to give and it usually means the pixels
will get smaller.

-James

Agree. FF and 12Mp = smaller pixels = more noise -

Sorry? Did you mix up something? FF and 12MP would not be smaller
pixel, because FF is a bit more than double the suface of the S2
sensor.

Although I also woulfd like it full frame, a 1.3x crop 12mp super
CCD SR chip would be very, very nice ...

But then pixels would indeed be smaller than on the S2.

Bernhard

 

[James Jones]

S2 sensor is 23mm x 15.5mm
Full frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm

increase 50% = x 1.5 (that looks like our crop factor)
increase 125% = x 2.25

Increase the S2 sensor by 50% = 34.5mm x 23.25mm
Increase the S2 sensor by 125% = 51.75mm x 34.875mm

We can prove it another way....

Take 50% of each side of the S2 sensor then add to side...

50% of 23mm = 11.5mm + 23mm = 34.5mm
50% of 15.5mm = 7.75mm + 15.5mm = 23.25mm

Take 125% of each side of the S2 sensor then add that to each side...

125% of 23mm = 28.75mm + 23mm = 51.75mm
125% of 15.5mm = 19.375mm + 15.5mm = 34.875mm

50% is much closer to full frame than 125%.

So to clearify: it is 100% more pixels in 50% of the space. That is of course going on the previous stated rumor of 12mp at full frame.

-James

Bernie,

Remember that the S2 has 6 million sensors natively. So to get 12
million sensors in a FF chip, they would have to fit 6 million more
sensors in 50% (difference between FF and current sensor) of the
space. Something has got to give and it usually means the pixels
will get smaller.

-James

 

[Markay]

James,

You need to think in 2 dimensions (area=LxW), not 1.
Craig has it right.

Just FYI ;-)

Mark

increase 50% = x 1.5 (that looks like our crop factor)
increase 125% = x 2.25

Increase the S2 sensor by 50% = 34.5mm x 23.25mm
Increase the S2 sensor by 125% = 51.75mm x 34.875mm

We can prove it another way....

Take 50% of each side of the S2 sensor then add to side...

50% of 23mm = 11.5mm + 23mm = 34.5mm
50% of 15.5mm = 7.75mm + 15.5mm = 23.25mm

Take 125% of each side of the S2 sensor then add that to each side...

125% of 23mm = 28.75mm + 23mm = 51.75mm
125% of 15.5mm = 19.375mm + 15.5mm = 34.875mm

50% is much closer to full frame than 125%.

So to clearify: it is 100% more pixels in 50% of the space. That
is of course going on the previous stated rumor of 12mp at full
frame.

-James

Bernie,

Remember that the S2 has 6 million sensors natively. So to get 12
million sensors in a FF chip, they would have to fit 6 million more
sensors in 50% (difference between FF and current sensor) of the
space. Something has got to give and it usually means the pixels
will get smaller.

-James

 

[Igor Fradlis]

Welcome to the 3rd grade Math lesson

Surface Area (SA) of the rectangle is (a x b).... therefore

SA of 23mm x 15.5mm sensor is 356.5mm square (APS)
SA of 36mm x 24mm sensor is 864mm square (FF)

to find out how much bigger (in %) the area of FF sensor is in comparison to APS sized sensor we assume the APS size sensor to be 100%. So the difference between the % of the FF sensor (in APS units) and APS size sensor is the additional surface area.

% of FF sensor = (864 x 100) 356.5
Which gives us 245.69%.

So this result shows us that we can fit a suface area of 2.5 APS sized sensors in the suface ares of a FF sensor.

The difference in % between the two sensors is: 245.69-100=145.69%

so both of you are wrong; the actual differense in surface area between FF sensor and APS sized sensor if 145.69%

Igor

increase 50% = x 1.5 (that looks like our crop factor)
increase 125% = x 2.25

Increase the S2 sensor by 50% = 34.5mm x 23.25mm
Increase the S2 sensor by 125% = 51.75mm x 34.875mm

We can prove it another way....

Take 50% of each side of the S2 sensor then add to side...

50% of 23mm = 11.5mm + 23mm = 34.5mm
50% of 15.5mm = 7.75mm + 15.5mm = 23.25mm

Take 125% of each side of the S2 sensor then add that to each side...

125% of 23mm = 28.75mm + 23mm = 51.75mm
125% of 15.5mm = 19.375mm + 15.5mm = 34.875mm

50% is much closer to full frame than 125%.

So to clearify: it is 100% more pixels in 50% of the space. That
is of course going on the previous stated rumor of 12mp at full
frame.

-James

Bernie,

Remember that the S2 has 6 million sensors natively. So to get 12
million sensors in a FF chip, they would have to fit 6 million more
sensors in 50% (difference between FF and current sensor) of the
space. Something has got to give and it usually means the pixels
will get smaller.

-James

 

[Steve Bingham]

He he he. I love this. (As a math teacher of a zillion years ago.)
You gotta just love this forum!

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

 

[James Jones]

Igor,

I asked my 3rd grade math teacher before I posted...he said 50%. Therein lies my problem. :^)

I have a public school education...it's not my fault!

-James

Welcome to the 3rd grade Math lesson

Surface Area (SA) of the rectangle is (a x b).... therefore

SA of 23mm x 15.5mm sensor is 356.5mm square (APS)
SA of 36mm x 24mm sensor is 864mm square (FF)

to find out how much bigger (in %) the area of FF sensor is in
comparison to APS sized sensor we assume the APS size sensor to be
100%. So the difference between the % of the FF sensor (in APS
units) and APS size sensor is the additional surface area.

% of FF sensor = (864 x 100) 356.5
Which gives us 245.69%.

So this result shows us that we can fit a suface area of 2.5 APS
sized sensors in the suface ares of a FF sensor.

The difference in % between the two sensors is: 245.69-100=145.69%

so both of you are wrong; the actual differense in surface area
between FF sensor and APS sized sensor if 145.69%

Igor