Reading mode: Light Dark

Fujifilm's new Cameras... WOW!

Go to last post
P

Paul W. Walters

Senior Member
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
0
Location
US
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2 Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
 
I want one :-)
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
 
I just read that they won't be available until the second 1/2 of 2002. That probably means November or December!
Haricot said:
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Are you confused with Nikon??? I heard Fuji was better making release dates. Anyway, I'll decide when I see one, though they do look good. PMA is still a month away, too, there might be something else....
SRHookEm said:
I just read that they won't be available until the second 1/2 of
2002. That probably means November or December!
Click to expand...
 
I have no idea how good it is, but looking at the pictures I wonder why they couldn't even use the same plastics for the Fuji add-on parts as Nikon did for the rest of the camera.

I hope that's not an indication for the innerts of the camera, because if it's any good and the price is half of what was said I for sure want one....
 
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
The expectation that the 12meg image will look as good > > > per-pixel

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
 
I agree, Peter. The 12 Megapixel from a 6 megapixel CCD won't look as good as from a 12 Megapixel CCD. But keep in mind, Nikon's D1x actually has a 4028x1324 CCD and outputs images as 3008x1960. It's hard to compare that to the Fujifilm, but... I did. :) And I know, it's not a good comparison.

I'm also interested to see how Fuji's new CCD's increase Dynamic Range. In fact, right now, I'm more concerned with an increase in Dynamic Range than I am in Resolution. There is such a huge difference between film and 24bit digital right now. I'd like to see that change as we get to 36bit and 48bit digital!

But for now, I'll sit back and enjoy the show!
Paul
Peter iNova said:
Peter iNova56624 said:
Peter iNova56624 said:
Peter iNova56624 said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
Can someone enlighten me why we need 36bit or 48bit digital?

I thought human eye can not detect more than couple hundred shades of grey so 8-bit gives 256 shades of grey is more than enough. 24-bit RGB gives total of 16,777,216 colors to be exact and I recall one time we refer that as "True Color" mode. Can we really able to see the difference between 24bits and 32bits? I can see CMYK to be 32-bit system, but 48bits? It sounds like to me someone wants a 5Hz to 40KHz speaker system just to listen classical music.

Thanks,
John
Paul W. Walters said:
I'm also interested to see how Fuji's new CCD's increase Dynamic
Range. In fact, right now, I'm more concerned with an increase in
Dynamic Range than I am in Resolution. There is such a huge
difference between film and 24bit digital right now. I'd like to
see that change as we get to 36bit and 48bit digital!

But for now, I'll sit back and enjoy the show!
Paul
Peter iNova said:
Paul W. Walters said:
Paul W. Walters said:
Paul W. Walters said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
From what I can understand, the more bits you have the more detail you can record about the original image. With insufficient bits you will find that either the highlights are captured well and the shadows become to dense or vice versa. The idea with a 48bit system would be to capture as much detail as possible and then translate this down to an 8 bit system taking the best 'bits'. This is basically what scanners are doing.

48bits will record more colour than we can see but the biggest benefit is the increase in detail. This is partly why digital cameras have moved on from 8bit to 10bit and not 12bit. The only problem with this is that the cameras internal cpu has to work that much harder to handle all the extra data.

With regards to colour, I double there will be much improvement unless the camera can shoot in other than sRGB colour space.

Emmanuel
John Chan said:
I thought human eye can not detect more than couple hundred shades
of grey so 8-bit gives 256 shades of grey is more than enough.
24-bit RGB gives total of 16,777,216 colors to be exact and I
recall one time we refer that as "True Color" mode. Can we really
able to see the difference between 24bits and 32bits? I can see
CMYK to be 32-bit system, but 48bits? It sounds like to me someone
wants a 5Hz to 40KHz speaker system just to listen classical music.

Thanks,
John
Paul W. Walters said:
I'm also interested to see how Fuji's new CCD's increase Dynamic
Range. In fact, right now, I'm more concerned with an increase in
Dynamic Range than I am in Resolution. There is such a huge
difference between film and 24bit digital right now. I'd like to
see that change as we get to 36bit and 48bit digital!

But for now, I'll sit back and enjoy the show!
Paul
Peter iNova said:
John Chan said:
John Chan said:
John Chan said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Huh? F601 - April, S602 - June, S2 - July

That's hardly November or December. Fujifilm have always met their targets (unlike a certain manufacturer I could mention...)
SRHookEm said:
Haricot said:
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Why are pro cameras so expensive? Is it only because pro users will pay the price, or are the costs indeed that much higher to make one of these cameras?

I noticed Ritz selling an entry-level EOS (non-digital) w/ Quanterray lens for about $400 in the paper today. It would seem to me that they could have made a digital version of same (with interchangable lenses) for not much more than the price of a Nikon 5k or Sony 707.

Does anyone know what the Sony 5MP CCD found in the Nikon 5k and Sony 707 is sold for in quantity? Just curious.
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
--Thanks!Phil Thien ([email protected])Computer Gallery ( http://www.cgallery.com )
 
John,

I'm not sure our eyes can only sense 256 shades of grey, but let's say they can. That would mean that when you are taking the picture you have to get everything RIGHT ON to make the highest level of white at 254, and the darkest black at 1 (excluding 255 and 0 which have no information). THAT'S where the problem comes in. With 12 bit per color (4096 shades of grey) or 16 bits per color (65536 shades of grey) your original accuracy becomes much less important. Just like film. AFTER taking the picture, you can adjust the hell out of it to get it to the 256 shades of grey that are PERFECT for your eye.

THAT'S where the dynamic range becomes important. :)

Paul
John Chan said:
Can someone enlighten me why we need 36bit or 48bit digital?
Click to expand...
 
I'd like to be surprised with the movies take. I know I'm not like everyone else here concerning the need for quicktimes in a digital camera... but I'd like to carry around ONE that does it all and I'd rather see the pictures qualities superior to the quicktimes no matter what. For me the movie option is going to be THE factor to get this camera.

BTW Peter iNova, thanks for sharing your tips with digital takes, it has been very helpful.
Peter iNova56624 said:
The expectation that the 12meg image will look as good
Peter iNova56624 said:
Peter iNova56624 said:
Peter iNova56624 said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
Do you have one of those printers that is a Fax machine, Copy machine, Scanner, Modem, and Color Ink Jet Printer? :)

Keep in mind, the least expensive digital video cameras will outperform any of these digital cameras in video mode. You can get a very small digital video camera now. Just pack one of those in one of your pockets, and a little digital camera in the other. Whenever they spend too much effort combining features, they tend to do each of the individual features worse (I think).

Perhaps you might be happier with one of those digital video cameras that can take pictures also. Are you in to really high quality digital photography?

Good luck with what you hope for! I'm sure cameras will continue to come out that have a combination of features! And to be honest, I would enjoy it also IF they gave me digital as good as 35mm film, and video as good as the Canon GL1 (with 60 minutes of video).
Paul
Haricot said:
BTW Peter iNova, thanks for sharing your tips with digital takes,
it has been very helpful.
haricot said:
The expectation that the 12meg image will look as good
haricot said:
haricot said:
haricot said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
No. As the bit depth increases the dynamic range increase. I own a CP990 and the pictures, like many 8 bit cameras tend to be very contrasty. The reason is the 8 bit dynamic range can't stretch to give shadow and highlight detail. A 12 or 16 bit deep pixel would give that detail.

The human eye has more dynamic range because you look at different parts of a scene (shadows and highlights) at different times. The eye scans and the brain integrates. A camera doesn't have that capability and has to "see" the entire image at one shot.

So my impression of existing hi end DSLRs Canon, Nikon, or Fuji is that they are less contrasty. The image is smoother and shadow detail is always there. The idea is information is captured, possibly beyond what the CRT or print process can handle, but post processing in PS allows you to compress or slide up and down the dynamics of the available information in the image file that has more info......
Emmanuel said:
48bits will record more colour than we can see but the biggest
benefit is the increase in detail. This is partly why digital
cameras have moved on from 8bit to 10bit and not 12bit. The only
problem with this is that the cameras internal cpu has to work that
much harder to handle all the extra data.

With regards to colour, I double there will be much improvement
unless the camera can shoot in other than sRGB colour space.

Emmanuel
John Chan said:
I thought human eye can not detect more than couple hundred shades
of grey so 8-bit gives 256 shades of grey is more than enough.
24-bit RGB gives total of 16,777,216 colors to be exact and I
recall one time we refer that as "True Color" mode. Can we really
able to see the difference between 24bits and 32bits? I can see
CMYK to be 32-bit system, but 48bits? It sounds like to me someone
wants a 5Hz to 40KHz speaker system just to listen classical music.

Thanks,
John
Paul W. Walters said:
I'm also interested to see how Fuji's new CCD's increase Dynamic
Range. In fact, right now, I'm more concerned with an increase in
Dynamic Range than I am in Resolution. There is such a huge
difference between film and 24bit digital right now. I'd like to
see that change as we get to 36bit and 48bit digital!

But for now, I'll sit back and enjoy the show!
Paul
Peter iNova said:
Emmanuel54656 said:
Emmanuel54656 said:
Emmanuel54656 said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is what I'm saying. More 'bit' means more detail captured which equates to improved dynamic range.

Emmanuel
KenEis said:
So my impression of existing hi end DSLRs Canon, Nikon, or Fuji is
that they are less contrasty. The image is smoother and shadow
detail is always there. The idea is information is captured,
possibly beyond what the CRT or print process can handle, but post
processing in PS allows you to compress or slide up and down the
dynamics of the available information in the image file that has
more info......
Emmanuel said:
48bits will record more colour than we can see but the biggest
benefit is the increase in detail. This is partly why digital
cameras have moved on from 8bit to 10bit and not 12bit. The only
problem with this is that the cameras internal cpu has to work that
much harder to handle all the extra data.

With regards to colour, I double there will be much improvement
unless the camera can shoot in other than sRGB colour space.

Emmanuel
John Chan said:
I thought human eye can not detect more than couple hundred shades
of grey so 8-bit gives 256 shades of grey is more than enough.
24-bit RGB gives total of 16,777,216 colors to be exact and I
recall one time we refer that as "True Color" mode. Can we really
able to see the difference between 24bits and 32bits? I can see
CMYK to be 32-bit system, but 48bits? It sounds like to me someone
wants a 5Hz to 40KHz speaker system just to listen classical music.

Thanks,
John
Paul W. Walters said:
I'm also interested to see how Fuji's new CCD's increase Dynamic
Range. In fact, right now, I'm more concerned with an increase in
Dynamic Range than I am in Resolution. There is such a huge
difference between film and 24bit digital right now. I'd like to
see that change as we get to 36bit and 48bit digital!

But for now, I'll sit back and enjoy the show!
Paul
Peter iNova said:
KenEis said:
KenEis said:
KenEis said:
per-pixel
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
would be nice to be surprised here, but their chips are essentially
pixels made for eventual interpolation, not direct to screen
interpretation.

When they have said "X-pixel image" in the past, but "X/2-pixel
image actual", it usually has meant that the image in question
pretty much looked similar in detail to other cameras with
X/2-pixels, natively. The interpolation didn't seem to result in
greater detail, equivalently, it would seem.

So let's see the shots...

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
here 'tis....
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0201/02013003fujifilms2pro.asp
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Huh... how much is 3000 pounds? In U.S. dollars, that is.
Paul W. Walters said:
What do you think of the two new Fujifilm cameras? The FinePix S2
Pro (Looks AWSOME) and the FinePix s602 Zoom (Also looks pretty
darned good!) I have planned to retire my 35mm F100 when I get my
Tax Return back for 2002 (Early 2003). I figured the Digital
technology would be able to replace 35mm film by then. The way
things are looking, I think I'll be able to keep to my schedule!

I'm anxious to see the dynamic range of the 16bit TIFF RGB that the
S2 Pro has. That's the main thing keeping digital from passing up
the 35mm film (the latitude you get with film, that is so lacking
with 24 bit color).

What do you all think? Hey, the S2 Pro IS a Fujifilm camera, but
it's got a Nikon N80 Body, so, it seems okay to post it here in the
Nikon Forum! :)

Paul
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top