High Iso article

macshark said:

Good article. This article pretty much confirms that there is a
gaping hole in the digicam market: A compact digicam with a sensor
size around the 1/4 of the area of an APS-C sensor, e.g., 12mmx8mm
or 10.6mmx6mm. Such a sensor size would result in the best
compromise between compact size and noise performance, especially
given what Fuji is able to achieve with a 1/1.7" sensor.
Four-thirds was probably a step in this direction, however, it did
not go far enough to achieve form factor compaction necessary to
compete directly against digicams.

It looks like most camera vendors are currently ignoring this space
to push image-quality conscious consumers toward the SLR format.
Maybe it is a good opportunity for a vendor who does not have a
strong presence to create and capture a new market segment.

Click to expand...

I agree on this being a good article, and on your point above that there is a marketing and functional product availability hole between the 1/1.8" and the APS-C! With more companies operating on DSLR-priority, it gets harder to have something in this segment... But if someone is brave enough to try it and succeed, then because of competitions others will have to join, or risk letting them have an unopposed breakaway hit!

--
New blog: http://1001noisycameras.blogspot.com
Current blog: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

Erik37 said:

Canon G7, okay, but what you perhaps fail to realise is that the
TZ3 only manages to achieve its very useful zoom range in a
compact body by using a sensor that is less than half the area of
the Fuji! So its lens would not supply all of the Fuji with light.

Click to expand...

I'm not failing to realize anything.

I'm very aware of all this. What I want is a FULL FEATURED camera from Fuji. The f30/31 are incredibly boring models with nothing interesting or all that useful aside from the good IQ. I use the G7 and TZ3 as examples because I consider them to have some of the most interesting and useful feature sets among compacts these days. The Panasonic LX2 is another example of nice features. But none of them match the Fuji IQ.

If Fuji made a G7 equivalent (but I would hope and pray for a wider angle than 35mm) with the f30/31 IQ - I think it would become a cult classic. And when I say G7 equivalent, I'm talking features and controls, not MP. 6MP would be fine.

Robert Deutsch said:

don't need it, we have high ISO), he said "stay tuned." If Fuji
had the nerve to stay with the 6MP sensor (which I don't think they
will, but perhaps the higher-MP version won't be that much worse),
it would be great to have camera from them that uses this sensor
and a 6x zoom like the Canon G7, or perhaps even a zoom with wide
angle extending to 28mm like some of the Panasonics, and including
optical IS in the lens.

Click to expand...

THAT is exactly what I want to see happen.

I think the field is wide open for Fuji to make a killing in the "prosumer" compact market, but only if they have the guts to go against the marketing grain a little.

Fast lens, APS-C size, and RAW mode - something the G series is lacking now.

I want to see more posh P&S.

pauljustpaul said:

Robert Deutsch said:

don't need it, we have high ISO), he said "stay tuned." If Fuji
had the nerve to stay with the 6MP sensor (which I don't think they
will, but perhaps the higher-MP version won't be that much worse),
it would be great to have camera from them that uses this sensor
and a 6x zoom like the Canon G7, or perhaps even a zoom with wide
angle extending to 28mm like some of the Panasonics, and including
optical IS in the lens.

Click to expand...

THAT is exactly what I want to see happen.

I think the field is wide open for Fuji to make a killing in the
"prosumer" compact market, but only if they have the guts to go
against the marketing grain a little.

Click to expand...

--

pauljustpaul said:

I'm not failing to realize anything.

Click to expand...

Well...

pauljustpaul said:

I'm very aware of all this. What I want is a FULL FEATURED camera
from Fuji. The f30/31 are incredibly boring models with nothing
interesting or all that useful aside from the good IQ. I use the G7
and TZ3 as examples because I consider them to have some of the
most interesting and useful feature sets among compacts these days.

Click to expand...

The most noteworthy feature of the TZ3 is its zoom range, 28-280mm.
If you want that with a sensor more than twice as big, you will get a
considerably bigger camera. If you don't want that zoom range, I don't
see why you bring the TZ3 up.

The G7 is be no means light, but some would consider it jacket-pocketable,
but I believe the 35mm widest setting helps keeping the size down.
Add your wide angle and it will lose any pretentions on being compact.

pauljustpaul said:

If Fuji made a G7 equivalent (but I would hope and pray for a wider
angle than 35mm) with the f30/31 IQ - I think it would become a
cult classic.

Click to expand...

It's already there, it's the S6000fd/6500fd!

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden, main tool: F Z 5

Most consumers won't even care about high ISO noise/lack of detail, since I would guess that a good percentage of compact digicam users probably never print out their photos, and only view their photos on their computers at sizes no larger than 900x1200 pixels or so.

There's also the issue of subject matter. Simple scenes or subjects without a lot of fine detail will enlarge just fine with heavy noise reduction.

But this article just goes to prove how that megapixel marketing is nothing more than a scam.

The only digital cameras I have are dSLRs. If I were to get a compact digicam, I wouldn't bother getting one with more than 4 or 5MP.

Erik37 said:

It's already there, it's the S6000fd/6500fd!

Click to expand...

Well, that one misses:

• IS
• decent viewfinder
• SD support
• Hotshoe

The first two keep it from being the best camera in it's category.

But I think he is referring to a (semi-)pocketable model with 28 to 140-180mm. Such a camera, with F31 sensor, IS, RAW and lots of manual control would be an instant buy for me.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/56983515@N00/
Current cam: TZ1
Wish cams: LX2 with Fuji F30 sensor and Pentax K100D or successor.
Wish lens: Tamron 24-135, wish it went to 170mm though.

Simon Joinson said:

rander3127 said:

Lack of it plagues ALL P&S cameras and it manifests at EVERY ISO
speed.
Once you tire of blowing out whites and dark areas, the DSLR is the
only refuge. Fuji seems to be the only company capable of
addressing this, much as with DSLRs.
--
-Rich



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

Click to expand...

This is something we'll cover in a future article, but it is
essentially the same issue, just a different manifestation.
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--Ah, but Fuji, rather than just make pixels with deeper wells (and in the scientific community there are CCDs with 200,000+ electron well capacities!) made two different kinds of pixels. Who knows? In the future, we might see "film like" sensors with random pixel sizes and distributions!
-Rich



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

CSPronken said:

But I think he is referring to a (semi-)pocketable model with 28 to
140-180mm. Such a camera, with F31 sensor, IS, RAW and lots of
manual control would be an instant buy for me.

Click to expand...

Exactly! !00% what I want to see. That is precisely what I'm after. It would be an instant classic, and a cult favorite amongst enthusiasts.

Phil Askey said:

chuxter said:

Unfortunately, you do too. I also thought the article was good and
overdue. But I noted with concern that all the pix taken with
different cameras and different settings were all labeled with the
camera brand and model...AND megapixels. To minimize the impact of
megapixels, stop using it (or at least reduce the prominence).
Instead, list the size of the photosites!

Click to expand...

Because everyone will understand that.

We HAVE to list megapixels otherwise people wouldn't get the message.

Click to expand...

I agree that they get A message when you ONLY list megapixels, but it's not the message I believe you should be sending. You are reinforcing the idea that megapixels is highly important. However, high megapixels is the cause of low IQ. If you would also list photosite size, you might imply that something OTHER than megapixels is important. How hard is it to list BOTH?

The article by Simon was good, but as others have noted, it will soon be hidden deep within the site. Sure...a few will read it, but not the ones who need it the most. Conversely, by shifting your focus EVERYWHERE from megapixels to the things that really affect IQ positively, you will reach more of those people.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'

I agree with both of you.

Sony had a start with the R1, but it apparently got shunted to the side when the KM deal and the resulting A100 bloomed. No camera is perfect for everyone. The R1 was quirky. However, in spite of Sony's efforts to kill it, examine the huge market for the R1. Many on-line vendors are selling it at 2X the MRP. Even used R1's in good condition sell for the new price.

Why? Because it has great IQ. Some manufacturer needs to follow that example and start giving us high IQ cameras with live preview as a 1st language.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'

chuxter said:

Phil Askey said:

chuxter said:

Unfortunately, you do too. I also thought the article was good and
overdue. But I noted with concern that all the pix taken with
different cameras and different settings were all labeled with the
camera brand and model...AND megapixels. To minimize the impact of
megapixels, stop using it (or at least reduce the prominence).
Instead, list the size of the photosites!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You still can't do a feature search by sensor size!! Yet you can by type.

Brian

I liked the article and think it will do a lot of good for many users, especially those who have no real interest in post-processing. I dunno but that may be the majority of users?

However, it would be interesting to see how well each of the sample images fare under 3rd party noise reduction tools... Neat Image comes to mind (mostly because I use it a lot and partly because a functional version is available free of charge).

I know it adds a dimension that is not relevant to many but I think it would factor in to an advanced users decision... possibly.

--
pog



http://gallery.gopog.net/

brianj said:

chuxter said:

Phil Askey said:

chuxter said:

Unfortunately, you do too. I also thought the article was good and
overdue. But I noted with concern that all the pix taken with
different cameras and different settings were all labeled with the
camera brand and model...AND megapixels. To minimize the impact of
megapixels, stop using it (or at least reduce the prominence).
Instead, list the size of the photosites!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You still can't do a feature search by sensor size!! Yet you can
by type.

Click to expand...

You can search by sensor type, but only within limits which don't
include subtypes.

• While you can search on a sensor type of "CCD", you can't

search on "SuperCCD", let alone on "SuperCCD HR" for Fujifilm's
Finepix F31fd, or "SuperCCD SR" for their Finepix S3 Pro--which
they seem to have renamed to "SR Pro" for their Finepix S5.

• Similarly, while you can search for CMOS, you can't search on

the Foveon X3, which is considered a CMOS sensor.

• You also have to know to use JFET to mean what Nikon calls

LBCAST, although if you do, this does get you both the Nikon
D2H and D2Hs.

• Using NMOS gets you the Olympus E-330, E-410, and E-510, the

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1, and the Leica Digilux 3.

Sometimes you can coax Google into helping you with searches. For
example, try googling for

site:www.dpreview.com/reviews µm pixel pitch
site:www.dpreview.com/reviews 1/1.7" CCD
site:www.dpreview.com/reviews 2/3" CCD
site:www.dpreview.com/reviews super CCD

and you can weed out stuff you don't want, too:

site:www.dpreview.com/reviews super CCD -site:www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinion_t
ext.asp -site:www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp

Still, it's not the same as being able to specify particular
pixel pitches, etc. However, I'm not sure that that would
be as useful as one might wish: eg, how do you measure it
for the SuperCCD SR sensor or the Foveon X3, and what
do those answers mean?

--tom

100% agree as well!!

come on Fuji!!! show me u can make a new amazing dc like the first day of F10's annoncement!! We all want a true optical IS!!

pauljustpaul said:

CSPronken said:

But I think he is referring to a (semi-)pocketable model with 28 to
140-180mm. Such a camera, with F31 sensor, IS, RAW and lots of
manual control would be an instant buy for me.

Click to expand...

Exactly! !00% what I want to see. That is precisely what I'm after.
It would be an instant classic, and a cult favorite amongst
enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

chuxter said:

I agree that they get A message when you ONLY list megapixels, but
it's not the message I believe you should be sending. You are
reinforcing the idea that megapixels is highly important. However,
high megapixels is the cause of low IQ. If you would also list
photosite size, you might imply that something OTHER than
megapixels is important. How hard is it to list BOTH?

Click to expand...

What would you list for the Sigma SD10 or Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro?

For fixed-lens cameras, it might also be useful to search by that
lens's maximum aperture at wide or long end. For example, the
Canon SD800's f/5.8 at its long end (which is 105mm in 35mm-equiv)
is pretty darned slow, and its IS won't help you there.

The min and max ISO-equivalent sensitivities would be good, too,
even though now manufacturers are letting you do things that
are too noise-reduced for usability (eg, ISO 5000). A camera whose
base ISO is only 50 is going to behave rather differently than one
whose base ISO is 200. I'm not talking about noise, since we assume
that base ISO is noise-free (even though this is a bad assumption);
I'm talking about shutter speeds. That's why the Nikon D40, an ISO 200
camera, is for some people preferred over the D40x, which is an
ISO-100 camera.

You wouldn't list H1 or H2 or whatnot. These aren't calibrated, and really
aren't the same as ISO 3200 (or whatever) in all situations.

As another poster pointed out, though, you'd have the problem of "real"
ISO equivalence and what they say they are. Canon is known to claim
to be less sensitive than they are, which means you'll get a faster shutter
for the same aperture, lens, and ISO setting on the Canon compared
to the Nikon.

Some stuff is just too complicated to put in searches; this may be
one of those.

--tom

Phil Askey said:

That's our hope and something we mention every time we meet up with
the decision makers from the various camps, sadly many merchants
still sell by megapixel.

Click to expand...

Phil, there's a bug where you say:

"The rectangles above show the relative sizes of three typical
sensors (shown at approximately their actual size)."

but then you show not three rectangles as you claim, but four.

There's a worse bug than just the number being off. You claim
that they're shown at approximately their actual size. That's
incorrect: you can't know how big they will display. On my
monitor, which is at 1200x1600 resolution, the supposedly
24x36mm rectangle is 66mm long, and 36 is nothing like 66!
I typically use an 150% zoom, but even at a mere 100% zoom
(which is virtually unreadable) it's measuring about 44mm, not 36mm.
At 200%, which I sometimes use when I'm tired, it's about 88mm
long, not 36mm. The lesson is you can't know how the user's
browser will really display something of a particular size, even when
you think you've specified that in pixels! (Opera's zoom also zooms
bitmaps, you see, which is a big part of why I use it.)

--tom

ptodd said:

I think this can almost be viewed as a statement about the kind of
content that we can expect after the Amazon deal - useful
information for consumers wishing to inform themselves.

Click to expand...

I can't see what Amazon could possibly have to do with this
at all. What are you thinking? As I read it, Simon saw the need
for the article and hacked it out in a jiffy. I don't see any Amazonian
influence, pro or con, entering the picture at all.

--tom

pidera said:

By constantly looking at iso tables one is forgetting the fact
that for many many people (those who don't need very shallow DOF)
noise will not depend on sensor size.

Click to expand...

Eh? On just what will noise depend on if not the difference between
your noise floor and your full well depth? It all comes down to the
number of photons that get counted--or miscounted.

In http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter2/ Roger
Clark shows that there's just about as much noise at ISO 1600 in a Canon 1D
Mark II (pixel pitch of 8.2 microns) as there is in a Canon S70 (pixel
pitch of 2.3 microns) at ISO 100 -- and this when the exposure time on the
smaller camera was 15 times longer than on the larger one! It's all about
how many photons you gather.

He further writes in
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/#The_f_ratio_Myth

A good example is the Canon 20D with 6.4 micron pixels and a
maximum signal at ISO 100 of 50,000 electrons, compared to the
Canon S60 with 2.8 micron pixels with a maximum signal of about
11,000 electrons at ISO 100. The pixel size is (6.42 6.42) /
(2.82 * 2.82) = 5.2x scaling, similar to the 50000/11000 = 4.5
scaling of maximum recorded signal.

Then, for photon noise limited systems, signal-to-noise ratio
achievable in an image is the square root of the number of photons
collected, so signal-to-noise ratio scales linearly with the camera
pixel size. That concept is illustrated in Figure 5, above: the
small sensor camera produced a noisier image than the larger sensor
camera even though the f/ratio, exposure and ISO are the same for
the two cameras.

So it's not true that all ISO xxx cameras are equally noisy at their
base ISO. If you have smaller pixels, you gather fewer photons even at
the same ISO.

--tom

Great article - and one I'll suggest to otential buyers in the future. As a salesperson in a retail camera store, I'll always suggest dpreview as a source for info (esp over non-photo sites like cnet).

Too often I get goofy looks when I tell them that higher MP DO NOT always lead to better pics, smaller cameras/sensors CAN'T give as good a result as a SLR, anti-shake ISN'T magic, so on and so on. Another "must read" for those looking to make a buying decision