This is getting altogether a rather wee bit too heated don't you think? My own personal view for what it is worth is that Peter is right, Fuji is a 3 million pixel camera...no more ...no less. It is a very, very good 3MP camera, with a very clever interpolation (or if you have been brainwashed by Fuji, a very clever image extrapolation). SO WHAT...... lets take some pictures and chillout, or watch you two have a fight and bite each others ears and legs....
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
602 questions
- Thread starter Bob Israelian
- Start date
U
Ulysses
Guest
You know what I've learned from this thread?
-- Ulysses
That Canadians are a LOT feistier than I would have thought.I sincerely doubt it (It deep winter here in Canada and I don't like cold
-- Ulysses
Hi Ulysses,
I have seen no 602 shots either.
But the sample shots from the 601 seemed to be improved wrt the 6800. Just extrapolating on that. I thought somewhere in the press release Fuji was claiming better sensitivity. That and wishful thinking maybe. I am very interested in this camera.
Time and testing will tell.
You're not thinking of replacing your DA?
Peter
I have seen no 602 shots either.
But the sample shots from the 601 seemed to be improved wrt the 6800. Just extrapolating on that. I thought somewhere in the press release Fuji was claiming better sensitivity. That and wishful thinking maybe. I am very interested in this camera.
Time and testing will tell.
You're not thinking of replacing your DA?
Peter
U
Ulysses
Guest
Replacing? No. Not replacing.... ;o)-- Ulysses
Hahahaha!
Yes I did get a bit carried away. But what I find quite amusing is that I really like this camera and have put it on my short list. Can you imagine the mess if I didn't like it. ;-)
Its sort of like DAs little brother. If the pricing matches the old model it would be about $500 less than the 707 which puts it in my price range.
Well back to Robot Wars.
Peter
Yes I did get a bit carried away. But what I find quite amusing is that I really like this camera and have put it on my short list. Can you imagine the mess if I didn't like it. ;-)
Its sort of like DAs little brother. If the pricing matches the old model it would be about $500 less than the 707 which puts it in my price range.
Well back to Robot Wars.
Peter
That Canadians are a LOT feistier than I would have thought.I sincerely doubt it (It deep winter here in Canada and I don't like cold
--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Heheheh....
Well... whethere you did or not, I didn't find anything offensive personally. You made some solid points: 3=3. I like good interpolation as well as the next guy (remember the old F505V interpolation mode?) Useful for when you didn't have any other convenient way to achieve it. Other than that....
Ooooooh boy.... ;-)
Like yourself, I think this is more than just a respectable camera. It could be a solid 2Mp camera for all I care. I'm watching it for its color.
They do have a lot in common.
Solid entertainment. Surprising usage of technology. And a great source of colorful metaphor.
-- UlyssesJim Gilliland
Leading Member
Actually, I own a Nikon Coolpix 900. I'm now shopping for a new digicam to replace it.
I've never said anything remotely resembling that.
I've never said that either.
That's certainly not my intent.
If that has happened, I'd be very surprised. I've praised the Fuji camera highly. Of all the digicams on the market, it is one of the two that remain in consideration for my next purchase.
I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read any of my posts.
And I sincerely hope that I have succeeded in educating readers here about the real benefits of Fuji's SuperCCD vs the fictional ones.
Jerry Hazard
Forum Enthusiast
Thank you, yes you (and all others involved) have taught me quite a lot here. Some (a lot) of the techno speak went over my head, but I've manged to comprehend more than I thought. So yes, thank you all for the discussions and info - I'd be surprised as well, if someone were swayed from the super ccd cameras from this discussion.
Regards,
Jerry
Regards,
Jerry
-- http://www.angelfire.com/film/jhazard/http://www.pbase.com/jhazard
Thomas,
Thank you for the info. Just out of interest, I also downloaded the same images from the same site. I resampled the 3 mp file to 6mp in PS6 using Bicubic. The differences between the resampled 3 mp and the native 6 mp are not as distinct as the images you posted (How did you do yours?). I am more incline to say that they are very similar. (Sorry, I do not know how to embed images stored on my hard drive. Cut & Paste didn't work.) When both files are resampled to 12 mp for further comparison, then I can tell that the native 6 mp file is better. However, I cannot say that the difference is enough to justify the claim by Fuji. One other consideration is that the resampling was done from a compressed JPG file. The differences could be even less if I had an uncompressed file for resampling. I would think this is the case, because the native 6 mp file was "resampled" in the camera using original data. Further resampling is unfair to the 3 mp file.
In any case, I still think the Super CCD is a very interesting design. The 3 mp image is in the top 10% of the 3 mp prosumer digicam league and the 6 mp file is the resampling result of a very clever hardware/firmware combination. I look forward to the 602.
Shii
Thank you for the info. Just out of interest, I also downloaded the same images from the same site. I resampled the 3 mp file to 6mp in PS6 using Bicubic. The differences between the resampled 3 mp and the native 6 mp are not as distinct as the images you posted (How did you do yours?). I am more incline to say that they are very similar. (Sorry, I do not know how to embed images stored on my hard drive. Cut & Paste didn't work.) When both files are resampled to 12 mp for further comparison, then I can tell that the native 6 mp file is better. However, I cannot say that the difference is enough to justify the claim by Fuji. One other consideration is that the resampling was done from a compressed JPG file. The differences could be even less if I had an uncompressed file for resampling. I would think this is the case, because the native 6 mp file was "resampled" in the camera using original data. Further resampling is unfair to the 3 mp file.
In any case, I still think the Super CCD is a very interesting design. The 3 mp image is in the top 10% of the 3 mp prosumer digicam league and the 6 mp file is the resampling result of a very clever hardware/firmware combination. I look forward to the 602.
Shii
Jim Gilliland
Leading Member
Actually, the megapixel rating turns out to be a pretty good predictor of the resolution capabilities of a digital camera. The Fuji is no exception to this - it uses a good design that puts it at the top of its class, but it doesn't go beyond its class. Yes, there may be a few 4mp cameras that are fairly comparable to the Fuji, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
"A hell of a lot"? Hmmm. It does a great job in many ways, but I don't know that I'd call its resolution "a hell of a lot" better.
Actually, I don't remember seeing anyone make that claim. There have been some vague implications of higher resolution, but nothing nearly as strong as you're putting it.
I consider it one as well.
Yes, please. Why are we?
Argue. Debate. Whatever you want to call it. Actually, that's not what I want to do here at all.
What I want to do is to give the Fuji enthusiasts a framework for understanding the SuperCCD so that they can sing its praises without causing their readers to cringe. When I see someone making a statement that I know to contradict basic Information Science, I cringe. And believe me, Peter and I are not the only ones who have this reaction. We're just the most vocal of the bunch.
It's as if you had told me that 2+2=5 and expected me to accept it. I can't do that.
My main point here is a mathematical one. I've looked at the images, and to me they seem to agree pretty well with what theory predicts. You may see them differently, and if so I'll accept that. But I won't accept any statement that contradicts proven mathematics.
And again, for those who are coming into this late and haven't read all the threads: I think the Fuji is a GREAT camera, and I also think that we pay far too much attention to resolution rather than looking at the camera as a whole. But the design of the Fuji seems to lead us to this discussion, so I'm trying to help everyone separate the fact from the exaggeration.
dave clark28980
Leading Member
BaHahahahahheheheheh!
...and noise and dynamic range and low light focusing ability.
David Clark (former Sony F505V owner and w/o a camera for the past 5 months)
I am not a scientist or an electornics engineer (actually I'm an industrial engineer), but don't you think that using a different design in CCD makes a lot of difference here. This is just like the current debate on what kind of processor to use in your computer, AMD or Intel. AMD has a lower speed in terms of instruction but it accomplishes more because it increased the amount of work that it can process per amount of time. The same thing with Super CCD. Since it has a different design, it may be capturing more details than a regular CCD even if they have the same amount of megapixel.
Just my two cents!!
togsky
Just my two cents!!
togsky
Aaron_6900
Member
Are you sure it does not have something to do with a need for you and others to justify spending 1000 USD on a camera (insert brand-name here)that is still only a consumer/prosumer piece at best and that you feel the need to justify to yourself (and/or spouse that you really did need to spend 1000 bucks?
Or maybe you just like trolling...............
How accurate and fair are these comparisons? See my point just made on the above paragraph.
Jack G Heckler
Senior Member
An IE from New Jersey...now that has to be some logical thinking!! I also was an Industial Engineer during the early years of my career and worked for 5 yearss in S. Jersey and am in complete agreement with togsky's two cents! The naysayers should take their argument to another forum where they will find some sympathy for their rantings! Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Jack
Aaron_6900
Member
Has anybody fairly and accurately actually done this? NO!
All conditions must be exact. The only way this can be done is at the same time.
Lighting can be different. Settings incorrect. Tripod used? Flash? Sharpening?
U
Ulysses
Guest
Why not just stick to the debates on CCD rather than the psychoanalysis.
Peter is no troll, as you'll be able to see from his long history of posts. That's a rather unfounded accusation and detracts from the points you tried to make.-- Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Well... we'll see on the noise. Fuji makes no really serious claims about that, but it seems to be expected by potential customers to be improved over conventional CCD's.
Dynamic range? I've already got plenty of that.
But Fuji does talk about low-light capabilities. Not sure yet if that is due to the ISO 800/1600, or if the camera is truly better in low-light situations in terms of distinguishing with little contrast to work with. We'll have to see.
The color has always been a known factor with Fuji, and I'd like to see how this one does in that area. -- Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Are you having any better success in choosing a scope?
Oh, wait... it's ME that's looking for a scope, isn't it?
)-- UlyssesianR
Veteran Member
As far as the SuperCCD itself is concerned it won the top scientific award for achievement in advances in CCD technology. We aren't just talking about still cameras here we're talking video too.
Maybe they aren't winning marketing awards, and maybe they don't get the public recognition, but in scientific terms they do.
Why do people use Sony? Perhaps they're just cheaper? Sony have deep pockets and their marketing/sales people are much stronger than Fuji's. For a start, they write decent English.
regards
Ian
Richard Dunn
Senior Member
I agree with Ian here regarding both prints and monitor output. Fufi's 6m prints with the existing 6900 are superb. However a little automatic sharpening and downsizing in Irfan view produces monitor images which I prefer to say a Nikon CP5000 as well.
I have just finished a 3 week session with the 5m Nikon and the 6900 outperforms it for print clarity, definition, enlargability (ie abiltiy to crop tightly), colour. The Nikon is only superior in monitor images straight from the camera. In shadow areas the Nikon smear then resharpens which looks good on the monitor but awful when printed. Oddly the 6900 prints shadow areas much much better than they appear on screen.
Lastly never underestimate the creative potential of a great 6X zoom lens. Yes the 6900 totally outperforms the Nikon lens too.
One last thing the 6900 and I assume te 602 is a dream to use ergonomically. The Nikon is a nightmare and I didn't enjoy using it all.--Best Wishes,Richard DunnWarwick UK http://www.pbase.com/rmwd/galleries
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum