S3 - 6 or 12mp?

Bernie Ess said:

Hahaha - you are one funny person. You confirm the old thing: The

Click to expand...

Thank you

Bernie Ess said:

smaller (or non- existant) the difference is, the bigger the
arguments.

Click to expand...

sorry old chap, you are twisting my arguments : I clearly said : image on monitor is one thing, printed is a different story.

S2/3 images on monitor, have significance LESS detail and can be seen than a 8mp camera.
S2/3 images are almost identical ( when printed ) vs 8mp camera.

Images are ( for me ) to be printed, so the resolution gain from 6mp -> 8mp is not worth it. But the "extras" that come with the 2mp increase may be well worth the upgrade ( better AF, better viewfinder, better body, fps, flash system, etc )

Bernie Ess said:

Even a conventional 6MP image compared to a 8MP image is very
little more - Imagine one detail in the image like a leaf on a
tree: In a 8MP camera, instead of being rendered by 6 pixels, it is
rendered by 8 pixels. Big deal!! The Fuji S2 however renders it
with 12 pixels which are interpolated by the honycomb chip. With

Click to expand...

You can render it with how many pixels you want, but you are forgetting one detail : it doesnt render with 12 pixels. Because that's upsizing with interpolation. It doenst create detail. it just copy neighborhood pixels and passes an algoritim to create a new pixel. So, there isnt new information compared to a plain 6mp.

However in the S2/3 honeycomb you have a bit more information due to the honeycomb design. But clearly not 2mp more.

Bernie Ess said:

the best lenses it can be amazingly sharp. BTW, the S2 had a bit

Click to expand...

I owned the 17-35 AFS, 80-200 AFS, 70-200 AFS, 35-70 AFD , Tamron 90mm macro, Nikkor 200 Macro. I belive these are the sharpest nikkors . And yes, the S2 produced amazing sharp pictures. But a 8mp DOES have 2mp EXTRA in detail.

Bernie Ess said:

more detail than the S3. However the final image of the S3 is more
natural, and has this phenomenal DR which is better than the Canon
of course. The Canon has more resolution than the S3 (but not more
than the S2).

Click to expand...

A Canon 20D or 1D MKII DOES have more resolution than both S2 and S3.

And for art : I'm not naive. I just dont go into marketing BS. I tried the S3. Heck, I'm a long time Fuji S2 ( well, was ) and had a fine colletion of Nikkor best. It wasnt a easy move to ditch all and change to Canon. so I tried the S3. Yes, the extra DR is there. but not thatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt impressive. not that "heck, its really without a doubt". It's like comparing a Fuji picture with a 8mp :there something there but not that eye catcher. I've seen some impressive DR things shoot with the S3 : tree logs with detail shoot in a backlight image. but I have yet to seen a image with a properly lit subject and with good framing that clearly shows the improved DR in the S3. Taken to the extremes, yes its there. But in a normal shot, I didnt noticed it .And the other improvements in the S3 are marginal, not enought ( to me at least, every person is different ) for me to continue in Fuji land.

Bernie Ess said:

11 or 12MP is visibly more resolution, but even there its not
"worlds apart". In the Fuji image you will see the same details,
just not as sharp as with the Canon or Nikon D2x.

Click to expand...

Ehehehehe, that only proves my theory that you NEVER hold a D2x or 1DS. Or even a 14n/SLRn . I compared the SLRn and 1DS to my S2 where it counts ( to me ) : printed A3+ . And yes, it's WORLDS apart. A uneducated person can easily spot the difference between a S3/s2 ( even your 12mp in camera ) to a 1DS/D2x/SLRn. You dont have to own one of this, go to Steve digicam's and print the sample images 8 they have similiar to the S2 review ) You can spot a difference right away.

Of course in a 8x10 the difference its subtle or non existant. But n a 13x19 its THERE. you can EASILY see it.

Well, Bernie and Art, dont take it personally as an offense . I was a 3 year old Fuji S2 shoot which I sold ( which much grief ) and I was a very happy shoot with my ( well, former ) S2. and I admire you both as a photogs. But I think there's a bit of confusion and misinformation here.
--
Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
=====================================
+ - Canon EOS 1DS ( MKI )
+ - Canon 24-70 L USM 2,8
+ - Canon 50mm 2.5 MACRO
=====================================

I appreciate the time and insight put into your evualation of the S3/D2x. I am an S3 owner (coming from the D-100 & D70). I am strictly a jpeg shooter and have been so pleased with the quality I get from the jpegs. The DR of the S3 is outstanding.

I need a second body and was set to go with the D2x. Comments you make are extremely useful to me and I am sure to many others. Since I shoot full time stock photography I don't expect ever to have go much larger than a magazine or textbook cover.

I am on the fence on which body to buy (price not the issure) but am increasingly leaning towards a second S3.

I just wonder if it is remotely possible that Fuji will come with an upgrade to the S3 in the foreseeable future that addresses some of the shortcomings that continue to keep me on the fence.

GoncaloProenca said:

I've seen some impressive DR things shoot with the S3 :
tree logs with detail shoot in a backlight image. but I have yet to
seen a image with a properly lit subject and with good framing that
clearly shows the improved DR in the S3. Taken to the extremes, yes
its there. But in a normal shot, I didnt noticed it .

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Goncalo, what improvement did you expect to see, in a "normal contrast" image, when using an enhanced DR camera?

If we all shot the same images we could all use the same camera. As mad as I am at Fuji for screwing this camera so bad -- which is what led me to buy the D2X even though I had decided, just a couple of months earlier, that for me DR was more important than resolution -- the S3 is my "swiss army knife" of cameras, the one I take unless I have a specific need for one of the others.

--
Regards,
Roger

Gabriele Sartori said:

The mythology of the Fuji superior resolution is due to the bad
resolution of the Nikon D100 and Canon D60 cameras that came in the
market when the S2 came out. These cameras had a AA filter that is
too aggressive and it cripples the resolution. If you consider the
D100 6MP the S2/S3 are indeed equivalent to 8 but is a relative
assessment not real resolution.

Click to expand...

This is neat to know. I do disagree and agree with you. Here is my take. The S3 is a 12mp camera. It has 2 sets of 6.1mp photosites. These are set to take a 6mp pic. So its a 12mp camera that gives 6mp pics. I find it amazing that some people keep asking this question.

--
If you gotta go.... Go Postal.

Bad Pic kev said:

This is neat to know. I do disagree and agree with you. Here is my
take. The S3 is a 12mp camera. It has 2 sets of 6.1mp photosites.
These are set to take a 6mp pic. So its a 12mp camera that gives
6mp pics.

Click to expand...

The S3 is not a 12MP camera because people use this information as equivalent of resolution. The S3 has 12M photosites. Each large photosite is coupled with a small photosite in order to give extra DR information. Unfortunately you can't have it both way you either use the extra information coming from the two photosites for DR or you use it for resolution. In the second case the pixels should have identical size like in the D2X. I believe that Fuji did a very expensive CCD. In my opinion the yield of such CCD is very low although it all depends on their internal quality rules and the number of acceptable dead, hot, photosites that FUji set for themselves. COnsidering the history of the S2 CCD it doesn't seem that FUji has very stringent quality rules.

All and all the S3 deliveries better DR than Nikon and Canon. In my opinion though the Fuji dual pixels CCD is more of a marketing game than anything else. Since they implemented a special mode for extra DR, anybody could imlement a special mode as well and take two sequential photos with either different sensitivity or different exposure time. The two photo combined would give better DR. Somebody could say "why they don't do that?" my opinion is that most of the people don't care. 99% of the photos don't need this extra DR. If this feature was so important there would be a line of people buying the S3 now but it is not happening. The Kodak slr/n has about the same DR of the S3, go in the Kodak forum, nobody is raving about this DR thing. I worked in marketing many years. At one point I was the Director of technology evangelism of one of the biggest semiconductors company in the world. I've to say that Fuji did a good job among a certain type of customers convincing them that this DR trick is better than the cure for cancer. I understand them, it is the only decent feature they have in a camera that entered the market in 2005 and it is really obsolete on everything else.

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera. The highlight pixels are NOT sensitive to low-light levels--they can NOT "see" anything except very bright light,which is what makes them useful. Now, in a scene that has a lot of very bright light values, the highlight pixels will help capture the very-brightest tones. Those same highlight picels however, are NOT sensitive to lower levels of light,like the main body of six million pixels are. So.....there's probably not a scene in the world where all six million of the highlight pixels will be recorded with. Perhaps 9 million pixels are used on a typical scene....I'm not sure, but the fact is that the highlight pixels are simply NOT sensitive to low-light values. And hence, the argument that's been put forth that 6 + 6 million equates to a 12 megapixel camera is a fallacious argument.

I'd agree with Goncalo....the 8.2 MP EOS 20D and Canon 100mm 2,8 EF Macro is an excellent lens for resolving power,and with that lens and my 20D,I resolve fine detail on trees and plant matter that is a shade better than what my S3 ever did. Pure and simply, the 20D shot in RAW mode delivers a higher-resolution potential than the S2 or Niukon D70 can do. It's really that simple....the almost noise-less ISO 100 of the 20D and the 100mm macro lens...every single pore on a portrait show up at f/9.5 with studio lights. There's very little moire tendency on the 20D's sensor on cloth,at least that I have seen so far. I love the S2's color and file qualities, but the 20D can out-resolve it, by a bit. I'm not overly fond of the 20D, but you know what? I'm keeping it. It offers a good balance between image QUALITY,in all aspects, and file SIZE and SPEED. 8 megapixels is a nice,sweet spot for me,having come from the 2.7MP D1 and D1h camp for speed, and the 6MP Fuji shot at 12MP JPEG or 12.5 megabyte-12 MP RAW for quality. The 20D's 8.2 MP sensor is a nice compromise...files are smaller than S2 RAW's are....it has RAW+JPEG which helps in sorting,editing,archiving.

The D2x I've run to about 7,500 frames since early May shooting one or two sports assignments a week. It's got a lot more crop-ability in 12MP mode,and it shoots a 4288x pixel 10.9 megabyte compressed NEF that's very hard to beat in terms of the information in there for a 5 frames per second camera with good response and superb autofocus. The HSC or high speed crop image the D2x makes is a lot LESS resolution, around maybe 1500 lines' worth of detail, or around what a D70 does in JPEG mode. I think the D70 shot in RW mode actually out-resolves the D2x in High Speed Crop mode, but the HSC mode is very,very fast and is pretty economical on file space for events where you want to shoot a lot of images. But there's a quality loss that brings the D2x down to about D70-class quality,which is to say,very high image quality, but not superb like it is in 12.2 MP mode at 4288x.

The real issue with the D2x is GLASS. Glass,glass,glass. It cannot show its stuff in 12.2 MP mode with average glass. With the D70 and the S2, I believe very strongly that we are sensor-limited,and that the BEST lenses can OUT-resolve what a S2 or D70's sensor can record. With the D2x in 12.2 MP modes, the very-best lenses look better than the lolwer-quality lenses. And the lower-quality lesnes record images that do NOT look "all that hot", even though they have been shot on a D2x. I shot the D70 versus the D2x w/Sigma 180 3.5 Macro,and the lens isn't quite good enough to show the D2x's better sensor, at least at f/10. But if I shoot with my 300/2.8-II or 70-200, the D2x images make me say "wow!" The 70-200 with 2.0 HSC or 1.5x is awesome. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 on the D1h is a super lens/camera combo,same on D70...it's a semi-pro-grade lens, and the 1500-1700 line sensors look "fine" across its range. Used on the D2x, the same 100-300 EX turns in "average" to "good" image quality,and when I look thru events shot on the 100-300 on the D2x,I am left wanting more Image Quality,like I get with the best lenses.THe 100-300 is absolutely SPANKED by the 300/2.8 when shot on a true 12 mp sensor. And the 85 1.4 is now yielding images with an almost true 3-D feeling which I never really got with the S2 or D70. Simply put, the S2 is not a 12MP camera,and I don't see how the S3 can be either,despite Fuji's claims. I think 6 megapixels is the area where almost any "good" lens will look very good. The S2 and S3 and D70 and D100 did quite FINE with 6MP and MOST lenses.

There are only a handful of true 12MP or better cameras. And I now own a handful of good lenses. And some which are suddenly not worth shooting at 12 MP size any longer.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera. The
highlight pixels are NOT sensitive to low-light levels--they can
NOT "see" anything except very bright light,which is what makes
them useful.

Click to expand...

Derrel I agree 1000% but you replied to my post. I think you understand that we are saying the same thing.

Derrel87035 said:

The real issue with the D2x is GLASS. Glass,glass,glass. It cannot
show its stuff in 12.2 MP mode with average glass. With the D70 and
the S2, I believe very strongly that we are sensor-limited, and that
the BEST lenses can OUT-resolve what a S2 or D70's sensor can
record.

Click to expand...

I agree also here and indeed since I don't care about speed but I care about resolution and image quality this is the most significant reason that put me on the Kodak bandwagon. It is a much inferior body with inferior features but the pixels size is about the same like the S2-D70 and it doesn't stress the lenses so much as the D2X. Concern about diffraction was the other factor.

With good lenses though the D2X is an incredible camera and I don't know why there is people in this forum making idiotic statements about the S3 "very close in resolution" to the D2X. The S3 religion is arriving at levels of pure fanaticism.

Derrel87035 said:

D70. Simply put, the S2 is not a 12MP camera, and I don't see how
the S3 can be either, despite Fuji's claims. I think 6 megapixels is
the area where almost any "good" lens will look very good.

Click to expand...

Fuji always used sneaky marketing techniques. At the beginning they were implying that you get 6MP from the S1. A lot of people thought that it was a real 6MP, initially the S2 advertisements were calling it a 12MP output camera. With full dishonesty in my humble opinion they called the S3 a 12 MP camera probably thinking that we are all stupid (some are but they are a minority). The camera has 12MP but they are not there for resolution. The small sensor of each pixel combo is so small that at F13 and higher will be fuzzy due to diffraction. As you said, it is there just for the highlights. It doesn't serve any purpose for resolution and it could not serve any purpose for resolution.

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera.

Click to expand...

So I ask just how many photosites does it have? Every technical publication says 12.34. Whiy is that because there are 12.34 million photosites. I am only talking about the camera. So are you telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?

Now having said that, the 12.34 photosites are divided into 2 layers of 6.17m. These layers take the same picture. Thus it can only take a 6.17mp pic. So its either a dual 6.17mp camera or a 1/2 12.34mp camera. Camera mp's are based of the photosites and the S3 has 12.34 of them.

Derrel87035 said:

There are only a handful of true 12MP or better cameras. And I now
own a handful of good lenses. And some which are suddenly not worth
shooting at 12 MP size any longer.

Click to expand...

My statement never made any claims as to what it resolved or anything else. It just said that technically it had 12.34mp's and took a 6.17mp pic. To me this is simple math. Now if I really want to get all messed up, I'll try to figure out the Foven.
--
If you gotta go.... Go Postal.

Gabriele Sartori said:

The camera has
12MP but they are not there for resolution.
It doesn't serve any purpose for resolution and it
could not serve any purpose for resolution.

Click to expand...

thats what i tried to say, i used a lot more words
--
If you gotta go.... Go Postal.

Gabriele Sartori said:

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera. The
highlight pixels are NOT sensitive to low-light levels--they can
NOT "see" anything except very bright light,which is what makes
them useful.

Click to expand...

Derrel I agree 1000% but you replied to my post. I think you
understand that we are saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

Hi Gabriele,

I didn't mean to specifically reply to your post, but my post did come after your post. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying.
SNIPPED passage>

Gabriele said:

With good lenses though the D2X is an incredible camera and I don't
know why there is people in this forum making idiotic statements
about the S3 "very close in resolution" to the D2X. The S3 religion
is arriving at levels of pure fanaticism.

Click to expand...

Okay, see Gabriele, that is what I am trying to say. With GOOD lenses, the D2x is incredible. But it does NOT look all that hot with average lenses.The idea that the 6 MP imager cameras are "close" to the D2x's resolution abilities is flat-out wrong.

I own an S2 and a D70 .The two 6MP cameras "equalize" a number of lenses that I currently use....with the S2 or the D70 or the D1h cameras, the 100-300 Sigma is a perfectly fine lens.....the LENS can "fill up" the 6 megapixel sensors with all of the data that the sensor can show me. In other words, the 6 megapixel sensors look about the same with a wide number of lenses,and there's no realy need for the absolute-BEST optics,since the 6MP sensor cannot really SHOW you ALL that a fine,fine lens is capable of recording. The degree of resolution ability that a merely "very good" lens has is about ALL that a 6MP imager can show me.

For those who shoot the S2 in 6MP JPEG mode, they're getting around 1700 lines of rez,more or less and when the S2 is shot in RAW mode it adds 150 lines,tops, or 1850 which is the BEST of the roughly-6MP cameras from any of the D-SLR makers Nikon,Pentax,K-M, and Olympus. With the D70, that sensor delivers maybe 1550 to 1600 or so in JPEG and maybe 1750 in RAW mode. The D2x is around 2100 to 2200 lines' worth of information under good circumstances,as reported by experts who routinely test such things.

Steve's Digicams,Phil's reviews, the Pop Photo Lab..they are all pretty doggone close on their results as far as resolution goes...but Phil says he thinks "some" of the S3's resolution performance boils down not to the sensor, but rather to Fuji's image processing routines, which is interesting.The Fuji SuperCCD philosophy was award-winning; the S3's SR-II sensor is also award-winning, but it clearly lags way behind what the Full-Frame Canon EOS or the FF Kodak and Canon mounts and the D2x is tested out as in terms of resolution ability. The thing is--with a 6 MP camera, almost any decent lens will be fine. At 12.2 MP, a number of the lenses I have show no measurable increase in pictorial quality when shot at 12.2 MP size over what I could get when using the SAME lenses on the D70 or the S2.

When somebody says they have "seen" only a "modest" increase in the resolving abilities going from a 6MP sensor camera to a 12 MP sensor D2x, I say, "Well, what lenses have you SHOT with?" Back to the 100-300 Sigma EX zoom, one of my favorite outdoor sports lenses for range and light weight....it is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH to waste card space on by shooting the D2x in 12.2 RAW mode on the D2x....the lens.my lens, the one I've shot sports with for a year, simply cannot deliver enough resolution at the long end to make it worth the card storage space. But, if I cut the D2x down to 6.7 MP mode and HSC I am back at 1550 lines or so,and the image quality looks a little under what a D70 can do. And there is a BIG difference between the D2x's 6.7 MP HighSpeedCrop captures and its 5 FPS 12.2 MP captures.

Unlike almost all other D-SLR', the D2x's FULL resolution abilities can NOT be demonstrated by average lenses. What the D2x's sensor is capable simply cannot be demonstrated by consumer-grade lenses. With a consumer grade lens, the D70 and the D2x are,effectively, EQUALS.And so,yeah,there are a lot of D2x shots out there that are not all that high-resolution. But if one cannot see the difference that 1550 or 1650 lines' worth od detail rez and that of 2100 to 2200 lines' worth,well. it could be becuase there's a lot of glass out there that can't cut the mustard now at the leading edge of sesnor technology. 6-8 MP is a sweet spot in terms of sensor/optics and where we are right now in 2005.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D

Bad Pic kev said:

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera.

Click to expand...

So I ask just how many photosites does it have? Every technical
publication says 12.34. Whiy is that because there are 12.34
million photosites. I am only talking about the camera. So are you
telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?

Click to expand...

NO Kevin....I am not saying that. This type of B.S. is enough from you. YOU wrote, "So are you

Bad Pic kev said:

telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?"

Click to expand...

No I'm not. You're the one introducing the term idiot. YOU Kevin are simply missing the point that the highlight pixels can NOT REGISTER low EV Values.The recording of the lower EV values is the responsibility of the first set of roughly six million sensors. The remaining roughly six million sensors are simply NOT used until there is a NEED for them, and that need is to record the very,very brightest EV values. As you know, when AUTO DR selection is enabled, the S3 does NOT engage the highlight sensors until they are NEEDED. Jeeze Kevin, let's get with the basics of how this sensor works. It's been said, by a booster, that the S3 uses 6 + 6 million pixels and is therefore a 12MP camera, and that is NOT, is NOT the way the sensor works.

Is this becoming clearer Kevin? And for the record, I don't appreciate overarching misrepresentations such as this one you made Kev....
"So are you

Bad Pic kev said:

telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?""

Click to expand...

That is precisely the kind of off-the-cuff nonsense that's getting so many cheerleaders riled up by my every word.Don;t put words in my mouth. What is your problem with my statement? Let's keep the idiot out of the discussion,okay? You're the one bringing this discusion into the toilet and I'd appreciate you,and everybody else, keeping inflammatory remarks and deliberate MIS-characterizationsof my written comments down toa minimum. Did I use the word, idiot? Answer-NO. You did. Apparently, you're not even aware of how the SR-II sensor works.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D

Derrel said:

Bad Pic kev said:

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera.

Click to expand...

So I ask just how many photosites does it have? Every technical
publication says 12.34. Whiy is that because there are 12.34
million photosites. I am only talking about the camera. So are you
telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?

Click to expand...

NO Kevin....I am not saying that. This type of B.S. is enough from
you. YOU wrote, "So are you

Derrel87035 said:

telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?"

Click to expand...

No I'm not. You're the one introducing the term idiot. YOU Kevin
are simply missing the point that the highlight pixels can NOT
REGISTER low EV Values.The recording of the lower EV values is the
responsibility of the first set of roughly six million sensors. The
remaining roughly six million sensors are simply NOT used until
there is a NEED for them, and that need is to record the very,very
brightest EV values. As you know, when AUTO DR selection is
enabled, the S3 does NOT engage the highlight sensors until they
are NEEDED. Jeeze Kevin, let's get with the basics of how this
sensor works. It's been said, by a booster, that the S3 uses 6 + 6
million pixels and is therefore a 12MP camera, and that is NOT, is
NOT the way the sensor works.

Is this becoming clearer Kevin? And for the record, I don't
appreciate overarching misrepresentations such as this one you made
Kev....
"So are you

Derrel87035 said:

telling me that every publication is wrong and written by idiots?""

Click to expand...

That is precisely the kind of off-the-cuff nonsense that's getting
so many cheerleaders riled up by my every word.Don;t put words in
my mouth. What is your problem with my statement? Let's keep the
idiot out of the discussion,okay? You're the one bringing this
discusion into the toilet and I'd appreciate you,and everybody
else, keeping inflammatory remarks and deliberate
MIS-characterizationsof my written comments down toa minimum. Did I
use the word, idiot? Answer-NO. You did. Apparently, you're not
even aware of how the SR-II sensor works.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Fu-ji EssWun(on extended loan),EssTu,Nik-On
DeeSvnD,DWun,DTuEx. And a E-Ohs TwunT-D

Click to expand...

Derrel, just how many are on the sensor. everyone agrees on that.
--
If you gotta go.... Go Postal.

OK, with the risk of getting a lot of criticism, I am going to make a bold statement here.

First some facts (at least I believe they are):

12 milion photosites at 12 milion different positions, leading to 12 milion different information elements.

These are split in 2 series of 6 milion, 6 milion highly sensitive and 6 milion low sensitive.

So, at the dark end, we only have 6 miliion pixels with useful information, same at the high end. Where the range is overlapping, we have 2 pixels with information.

This is all very much hardware related, but what about software?
What does the software (in or out of camera) do with that information?

It superimposes the low sensitivity and the high sensitivity pixel AS IF they were in the same position. As such, we can "recover" highlights, but we actually reduce the resolution information since both pixels DO NOT come from the same location.

I also believe that some of the artifacts in the S3 images come exactly from the fact that the images of the R pixels are superimposed in the wrong position.

My point: if someone would write a RAW converter using algoritms recognising the fact that these R & S pixels are not in the same position and treating them like that, I believe this camera would yield in the mid tones resolutions similar to a 12 milion pixel camera.

Another fact though is that this software currently doesn't exist and probably would be very slow due to the complexity of the algoritm required. Still, I would say, the camera from a hardware point of view is a 12 milion pixel camera, but it doesn't deliver the images of one due to software limitations(unfortunately). In fact, I believe that most problems of Fuji are software related, also affecting the responsiveness of the camera.

On the other hand, it would probably take studio or tripod conditions with the very best lenses to really make the resolution difference clearly visible - as some other people have already pointed out here. On the other hand, color and DR benefits show also in less perfect conditions.

OK, now who declares me an idiot???

PS, I don't have and S3 and don't plan to buy one, so don't accuse me of trying to defend my purchase of an S3.

Oh, one more thing, in the high EV end, the S3 has 6 milion pixel more resolution than traditional cameras that have 0 there....

OK, now shoot.
Not likely that I will react though....
--
http://www.jos-echelpoels.smugmug.com
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=269430

It is the same old thing since months and months.

And the more I read on all those boards, the clearer one thing gets: 70% of all posts is about justifying people's buying decisions or decisions against buying camera model X.

Listen to a guy who has a EOS MkII, he will prove to everyone that its worlds above the 20d, those who have D2x know for sure that it has the same quality than the 1ds for substantially less money. And that of course it is leagues above the S2/S3. It MUST be.

The name of the game is "mine is better".

If you try to find out what they actually shoot, its very revealing, most of the time. The really skilled photographers dont blame cameras for being too bad. They make good stuff with almost everything.

Those who eternally argue about camera models are most of the time the amateurs who desperatly hope that the next best thing will make them better photographers. Hey, we dont talk about more in- focus shots of flying birds, do we?

My own stuff gets better through my personal effort, and normally the biggest limitation is my lack of discipline while shooting (wanting to shoot to quick, not carefully looking first etc.). I like and dislike certain things about the S3, but in 95% of the cases I dont have to blame the camera.
I dont think of it so much anymore.

Next week I will borrow a D2x, but its just for fun, the S3 is not the reason why my pics are not better.

So, I suggest to enjoy whatever camera you have, and to do something more amusing than to argue with the equipment nerds.

regards, Bernie

Igoforit said:

OK, with the risk of getting a lot of criticism, I am going to make
a bold statement here.

First some facts (at least I believe they are):
12 milion photosites at 12 milion different positions, leading to
12 milion different information elements.
These are split in 2 series of 6 milion, 6 milion highly sensitive
and 6 milion low sensitive.
So, at the dark end, we only have 6 miliion pixels with useful
information, same at the high end. Where the range is overlapping,
we have 2 pixels with information.

Click to expand...

pretty close. now this may be over simplifacation but here goes, using your own words.

single plane sensors, or everyone but fuji and foven

12 milion photosites at 12 milion different positions, leading to 12 milion different information elements.

Fuji S3

12 milion photosites at 12 milion different positions, leading to 6 milion different information elements.

Fuji S2

12 milion photosites at 6 milion different positions, leading to 6 milion different information elements.

if you need a diagram, on the left is the S2 notice the 2 photosites at same location. the right is the S3, notice the seperate locations.



having said that, or proven it, the question is how many mp is the camera. the camera hardware wise is 12.34. the sensor is hardware. software wise its a 6.17, the pic is software. what we all do is mis-state this, because we either like or dislike the camera. now rereading the question, which is not well written, asks if its a 6 or 12mp. he does not ask 6 or 12mp what.

What I think greg was asking is will it take a 12mp pic, that answer is no.
--
If you gotta go.... Go Postal.

Bad Pic kev said:

What I think greg was asking is will it take a 12mp pic, that
answer is no.

Click to expand...

IMO it is yes. The native resolution of the S2/ S3 IS 12MP. The 6MP version of files is downsampled. The 12MP just doesn't offer the same amount of detail resolution than the lets say the D2x.

However it offers more tonal resolution and better DR.

Bernie

I learn so much from reading discussion on this forum. I've been using the S3 Pro for six months now. No matter what, if and when I decide to upgrade to a D2X or S4 Pro, it will be an easy transition since I already own the outstanding Nikon optics, Nikon flash, and Nikon extras. Keep up the informative stuffs. Everybody wins when reading this forum.
Thank you,
Kevin P.
--
Kevin P.

Hi kev-

I think both of the images you posted are ccd designs for the S3. There was the original design that was dumped in favor for the one that actually went into the S3.



The S2 only had the single Octacon shaped photosite not the extra one shown in the two images posted. Fuji moved the S3's extra photosite to the other position in a last minute redesign of the sensor if I remember correctly.

Best regards-

Karbo
--
Passing the torch of knowledge is something done out of genetic responsibility

karbo said:

karbo wrote:
The S2 only had the single Octacon shaped photosite not the extra
one shown in the two images posted. Fuji moved the S3's extra
photosite to the other position in a last minute redesign of the
sensor if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

This is correct and the main reason why there was such a long delay from announcing the S3 to the actual release.
--
John W
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well....!!!

Derrel said:

JUST for the record: the Fuji S3 is NOT a true 12MP camera.

Click to expand...

just for the record, no one ever made such a claim here, Derrel & you know it ...the S3 uses an SCCD sensor with 12.3 million photosites evenly distributed between high and low light sensitivity, the highlight sensors being smaller than the low light sensors

Derrel87035 said:

NOT "see" anything except very bright light,which is what makes
them useful. Now, in a scene that has a lot of very bright light
values, the highlight pixels will help capture the very-brightest
tones. Those same highlight picels however, are NOT sensitive to
lower levels of light,like the main body of six million pixels are.
So.....there's probably not a scene in the world where all six
million of the highlight pixels will be recorded with. Perhaps 9
million pixels are used on a typical scene....I'm not sure, but the
fact is that the highlight pixels are simply NOT sensitive to
low-light values. And hence, the argument that's been put forth
that 6 + 6 million equates to a 12 megapixel camera is a fallacious
argument.

Click to expand...

I think Fuji has kept this secret ...I don't know that anyone really knows how they process their files & I suspect they aren't telling anyone soon, so this is conjecture on your part

Derrel87035 said:

I'd agree with Goncalo....the 8.2 MP EOS 20D and Canon 100mm 2,8 EF
Macro is an excellent lens for resolving power,and with that lens
and my 20D,I resolve fine detail on trees and plant matter that is
a shade better than what my S3 ever did.

Click to expand...

you owned an S3!
wow
this is news!
this is the first time you ever mentioned this on FSLRT, I believe
I am genuinely sorry to learn it did not please you

Derrel87035 said:

SNIP
There are only a handful of true 12MP or better cameras. And I now
own a handful of good lenses. And some which are suddenly not worth
shooting at 12 MP size any longer.

Click to expand...

I remember a lot of posts from the days following the S2's introduction stating how it liked good glass

I have read a lot of posts on the D2 forum noting that the D2X is, for want of a better word, unforgiving ...I suspect that its superior resolution shows up flaws in technique and lenses

its too bad you did not give the S3 more of a chance (hopefully you got a good price for it on the used market)
the S3 makes getting outstanding image quality easier

shoot jpgs unless you are printing at poster size for folks looking at their photographs with a loupe

the S3 is much, much more forgiving of difficult lighting, having unquestionably superior DR & lower noise at high ISO than the D2X ...when shot properly the S3 is very free of annoying artifacts, btw ...I have extensive shots demonstrating this in my techniques gallery should you be interested
the S3 sensor has low artifact from corner to corner and very little bloom
not to mention no need for curves and the wonder of 14 bit AD conversion
my strategy was different from yours, Derrel
both are valid, I think, based on our needs
if I was doing 2 sports gigs a week I would certainly go with one of the D2s

(I am not so much in love with my camera body as Gabriele has been shouting, though I am head over heels in love with my F mount glass collection ...I am truly married to the F mount)

I chose to hold off on the resolution for now ...I don't really need it for anything I do (Genuine Fractals did wonders with my S2 uprezes ...I know it could do even better with the S3 if I ever need to go poster) ...when a larger sensor comes along in a better body, I will get it in a NY minute & use the outstanding glass I purchased with the money I had dedicated for the D2X with it joyously ...when I do get another body, I want it to at least match the overall IQ I get from the S3 & I am afraid that I have been spoiled, so it better be able to produce them with the same quality as the S3 as well

Nikon demonstrated that it isn't the number of pixels, but their quality that counts with their gutsy D2H bodies ...it all depends on what you want from your camera ...resolution as measured by a test chart just isn't all that important for IQ once you get beyond 4 or 5 MP ...from what I have seen, the S3 more than makes up for its resolution disadvantage with the numerous other virtues of its sensor design ...I don't care all that much about CAM 2000 or fps ...I used MF for the better part of my life and don't have the worry about missing the header for the winning goal for the morning edition ...sure it would be nice to have, but my priorities remain IQ & this is where the Fuji DSLRs deliver big time
that said, the S3's body really is a big improvement on the S2

the increased DR has been a bigger advantage than I would have anticipated ...it really comes into play much more often and allows for easily capturing in jpg that which other cameras would struggle to get in RAW

I have been very impressed with the resilience of the S3's org org off Auto 12 MB files ...14 bit AD capture remains a big advantage & I love having truly useable high ISO
each to their own, Derrel

from the number of photos you have taken with the D2X, it seems as if you are making good use of its large buffer and high fps!
;-)
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke