does Fuji really have to play catch up?

Huh? The D200, according to specifications can shoot 5 fps. Now granted, I don't know the settings to achieve this... but to my knowledge, it is not possible to shoot the S5 at 5 fps no matter what settings you set.

The S5 may 'have it' in terms of DR and color, but I really doubt it could 'keep up' with the D200 in terms of speed.

This is not to bash the S5, but even though it has the D200 body, they are very different cameras in many respects...

Hey Mark,

You're right, we really have no way of knowing for sure what the total sales figures are, but I would agree with you that the S2 considerably oversold the S3. I remember speaking with Fuji's sales department in NJ just 5-6 months after the S3 had been released, and they told me that sales were very disappointing and, in fact, they had already begun receiving calls from photographers interested in its successor. Commercially speaking, I think the S3 was a disaster for Fuji, in spite of its many improvements over the S2. When the S3 was released several vendors, like B&H, were still selling the S2 at a reduced price, presumably to get rid of their remaining stock, and it was still out selling the newer S3. At one point I recall B&H selling the S3 for $1,600.00 and the S2 for S1,199, and the S2 was sold out! At that point they never returned.

Honestly, even though the S5 has received very good reviews, and rightfully so with its vast improvements, I would be shocked to find out that it is outselling the S2. What made the S2 unique was that sales were strong from beginning to end, not just when it was first released. I can't tell you how many times, even two years after it had been released, I couldn't find that camera available anywhere. For months I tried to find a new S2 and couldn't, I finally got lucky at a small local camera store that had one remaining, but B&H, Adorama, etc, they were sold out. To this day people are still buying that camera, and many even prefer it to the S3 and S5, as we've seen mentioned here on this forum. The camera was way ahead of its time in spite of some of its quirks. In fact, I bet you anything that if Fuji put the exact same S2 sensor into a D200 body and charged $1000 or less for it, they'd sell like HOTCAKES.

Regards,

Mark

Zygh is right.

The D200 is 12 bit. The D300 can be set to either 12 bit or 14 bit. At 14 bit the D300 is only half as fast as the D200.

S5 is fixed at 14 bit and at 100% DR is a hair faster than than D300 at 14 bit.

S5 at 400% DR is slower than D300 at 14 bit and much slower than D300 at 12 bit.

D200 is fastest because of limitations of 12 bit and 100% DR.

Two bits used to not be worth much!
--
Jeff

if Fuji upscales the the sensor it will be a 14-16mp sensor. so if Fuji does what Nikon did.

is that really playing catch up? no its not.

someone talked about speed, the d300 in 14 bit is 2.5fps and the S5 is 3fps.

all that people cry about is the 1.6-1.8fps in wide DR

there are those that know fuji tested a 8 and a 10mp sensor. i also know Fuji and Nikon tested a 12mp ff sensor. it was rumored to some degree of certainty of a 12mp aps-c sensor by Fuji.

no Fuji doesn't need to play catch up. Fuji needed a body that caught up to them.

i can not wait for the replys
--
I'm outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, you're too much

Virtually all of the issues with the S3 Pro and S5 Pro are with Fujifilm design choices and not with the bodies themselves. For example, with the S3 Pro, they could easily have added more memory for a bigger buffer which would help to keep that camera from locking up doing writing at critical moments. Likewise, Fujifilm on the S5 designed the sensor and writing ability so that it can't go faster than 1.5 fps in wide DR. That has nothing to do with the body either. It's isn't the body that has been the limiting factor here.

Now, if Fujifilm "does what Nikon did," and upscales the sensor how is that not playing catchup? Nikon went from 6mp in the D100/D70 to 10mp in the D200/D80. So if Fujifilm increases resolution...isn't that playing catchup?

If Fujifilm and Nikon were testing cameras, that's fine. But stuff in testing isn't stuff in the hands of consumers. So, I still say, yes, Fujifilm has catching up to do, but that's the name of the game when you sell stuff. Someone is always playing catchup to someone else.

Anthony

Bad Pic kev said:

if Fuji upscales the the sensor it will be a 14-16mp sensor. so if
Fuji does what Nikon did.

is that really playing catch up? no its not.

someone talked about speed, the d300 in 14 bit is 2.5fps and the S5
is 3fps.

all that people cry about is the 1.6-1.8fps in wide DR

there are those that know fuji tested a 8 and a 10mp sensor. i also
know Fuji and Nikon tested a 12mp ff sensor. it was rumored to some
degree of certainty of a 12mp aps-c sensor by Fuji.

no Fuji doesn't need to play catch up. Fuji needed a body that caught
up to them.

i can not wait for the replys
--
I'm outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, you're too much

Click to expand...

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

Bad Pic kev said:

if Fuji upscales the the sensor it will be a 14-16mp sensor. so if
Fuji does what Nikon did.

is that really playing catch up? no its not.

someone talked about speed, the d300 in 14 bit is 2.5fps and the S5
is 3fps.

all that people cry about is the 1.6-1.8fps in wide DR

there are those that know fuji tested a 8 and a 10mp sensor. i also
know Fuji and Nikon tested a 12mp ff sensor. it was rumored to some
degree of certainty of a 12mp aps-c sensor by Fuji.

no Fuji doesn't need to play catch up. Fuji needed a body that caught
up to them.

i can not wait for the replys
--
I'm outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, you're too much

Click to expand...

Are we not done with this argument yet?!

Just a quick comment on your post. The whole reason to use the fuji is for its dynamic range. If you set it to wide you can get up to 1.5fps, and that is slow. I've posted all my other comments on this camera.

Lou Costello was asked if he lived in Brooklyn all his life. His answer was "not yet".

Fuji has not sold all they have made....yet. But someday.

Canon and Nikon still need to play catch up to Fuji in the DR arena. The Fuji S5 has more DR than any other 35mm camera. Fuji needs to play catch up to Nikon and Canon in pixel count, sensor size and and shooting speed.

I would rather have one image that captures the DR of a scene with beautiful color. Than have 5 images of a scene with limited DR. When the DR is limited the tonal range of an image is also limited.

Digital photography is still fairly new. Sensors and cameras will continue to get better. Printers and papers will continue to get better.

Is a print that has more DR and a wider tonal range more pleasing to look at?

Greg Governale

zygh said:

word around the block is that the D300 at 14bit is actually 2.5fps,
and that is 100%DR only. heLLo S5!

Click to expand...

Is there an official confirmation anywhere? At the announcment this was floating around (2,5fps@14bit) but noone could find an official hint and maybe it was just a hoax.

Also for action shooting it is not that important to have 14bit, shoot away at 6 or 8fps and be done. Fuji's S3 cannot do more than 3fps, which is entry level class performance by todays standards. Canon's 40d and 1dIII shoot at 14bit with full speed...

Not that I think that speed is the most important thing, but in this respect Fuji is just sub par, period. They have too slow 2-channel sensor readout, no RAW compression and to much data for a file that holds finally not more that lets say 7 or 8 MP of detail...

The problem is if FUJI want to up their resolution they have a problem. The same file structure as in the S5 just with 10+10MP would end up in a 40MB RAW file. This is a nightmare and shows that the current approach has its limitations, it is too heavy handed.

If they up the rez to 10 or even 12MP they need to give up the up. interpolation. This could keep the resolution on the current level. Everything else is unfeathable.

Bernie

Well, nobody going to deny Fuji's capability in imaging, but wqually their body integration of that technology is but so-so ... and keep having a body that is at least 1 generation or 2 older with like body function and an even worst body / electronic integration is not going to help ..

--

• Franka -

You can follow the 35mm model to define the Fuji problem. We know Nikon and Canon made some real whiz bang 35mm professional bodies which were the top of the line. Yet, they sold far larger numbers of cameras to consumers and pros with far fewer bells and whistles, with lower resolution metering, slower film advance and less comples auto focus systems. There were still cameras being sold in medium format, rangefinder 35mm and even field view cameras. Fuji even sold 35mm SLR bodies and lens systems for a time. Point and shoot cameras made up a large segment of the market. Fuji sold a lot of flim for all the above. They became a player, matching the top dog, Kodak at every corner.

So now what does Fuji want to be? Top of the line DSLR going head to head with Nikon and Canon, advanced amateur/niche SLR like they are now, P&S digital ormove farther off into the niche line of bodies? Once they figure that market segment out then they can drive to keep their slot open for their production needs.

They may not be in too bad a spot now selling cameras with high image quality to photographers who know why their sensors are special and can live without state of the art speed, resolution and metering systems. Unfortunately, the pressure on Fuji comes from the bottom where entry level bodies are getting cheaper for the features offerred as well as from the top where the big guys are making top of the line really incredible for the money spent. How does Fuji keep it's core of loyal users and bring in the fresh faces needed to keep their numbers up and growing?
--
Alan, in Montana
Photos are cached here,

http://radphotos.net/index.php?option=com_copperminevis&Itemid=33&place=gallery&cat=10069

That question will need to be answered according to users needs. If like me, you decided you want to shoot FF, then yes, they need to catch up, or you move on.

If you need a larger/faster buffer...yes, they need to catch up. Or...well, you know.

If you need 10 FPS....move on.

If you need the most DR available in a jpeg with one click of the shutter, stay where you are.

I rarely find any shots out of focus now. Before, it was easy to find them...unfortunately.

Colorwise, I think the playing field is very level. Both good and bad from everyone and most of it user inflicted. There's no excuse for bad color no matter what you're shooting right now. The S2 was the first and probably last easy "good-color-every-time" body made.

See? It's easy to answer that question.

Robert

Greg Governale said:

Canon and Nikon still need to play catch up to Fuji in the DR arena.
The Fuji S5 has more DR than any other 35mm camera. Fuji needs to
play catch up to Nikon and Canon in pixel count, sensor size and and
shooting speed.

I would rather have one image that captures the DR of a scene with
beautiful color. Than have 5 images of a scene with limited DR. When
the DR is limited the tonal range of an image is also limited.

Click to expand...

My guess is that most very good pros are not shooting Fuji and they are doing fine as far as DR goes. They know how to handle contrast and often need more detail than 6MP's can resolve. Try selling stock work to the top libraries with a Fuji. This is a needed upgrade and I'm still wondering why Fuji hasn't made the move in that direction after more than 4 years. My son-in-law just picked up the latest D-Rebel which has 10MP, very good color and DR, etc for about 1/3 the cost.

Why is that?

Member said:

Digital photography is still fairly new. Sensors and cameras will
continue to get better. Printers and papers will continue to get
better.

Click to expand...

They are as we speak. Both the new Nikons and Canons are looking very good DR-wise.

Member said:

Is a print that has more DR and a wider tonal range more pleasing to
look at?

Click to expand...

Depends on the subject doesn't it? Even so, most digital brands are more than capable of this. Upon your mention, I visited Thomas Mangleson's gallery while in Galena a couple weeks ago and he has some beautiful prints selling at very high prices, none of them shot with a Fuji. In fact, he's using the D2x which deals with highlights more difficultly than most other models currently being used. As a pro, he manages just fine.

While it's nice, Fuji's DR does not have a major advantage for 99% of the work being sold by pro photographers. It just makes it one-click easier is all, as long as you can live with the rest of what comes with it. That's an observation, not an insult, because many can and are. Just not that many.

Robert

Anthony said:

I am confident that every S1, S2 and S3 Pro made was sold without
having to go through some kind of dumping. I bet the S5 Pro will
sell out too. I remember people being unable to buy an S3 Pro because
they were gone from the stores.

Click to expand...

Well, they had a huge pile of them here at out local Calumet store. They just never sold well. The S2 they couldn't keep in stock and still say it was one of the best sellers ever. I bought their last new one from their Chicago warehouse instead of the S3. It was over the phone and I felt very lucky as no one else had them.

I would be suprised if they sold out the S3.

Robert

Robert,

I have a Fuji S5, Nikon D200 and a Nikon D2x and an S2 When I want to capture the widest tonal range I use the S5. I shot slide film for more than 20 years, I know how to deal with highlights.

The D2x is a wonderful camera. It autofocus is better, you can shoot faster and you have more real MP. I still wish it produced the same tonal range as an S5, and even when shot correctly the D2x does not have the same DR as an S5.

http://www.bythom.com/

Thom Hogan wrote:

"The S5 Pro's marketing claim to fame is in holding dynamic range that other digital cameras can't. So the question is: are those marketing claims true? Yep, and more so than many people may think.

Basically, the expanded dynamic range generated by that extra set of photo diodes is a reliable two stops. Most DSLRs really max out around seven stops of dynamic range, but the Fujifilm easily attains nine. Depending upon how you evaluate noise in shadows, you may find that you can produce images with more than that."

A wider DR produces a wider tonal range.

The first time that National Geographic published a feature article in their magazine using all digital images, it was produced by Jim Brandenburg using a Fuji S1.

The D3 and D300 sound very interesting, I printed the sample Firefighter image at 42X63 It looks very good. (I have shot the same type of image with a D2x, the print looked about the same.) No landscape samples yet.

The sample Landscape image from the 21 MP Canon did not look very good when printed at 16x24 or 20x30. The AA filter seems to prevent the camera from capturing fine details. I wish Canon would offer the AA filter as an option. The D2x seems to do a better job of capturing fine details.

Sure I like the option of shooting at high ISO when needed. I just do not want to loose fine details and DR to get them.

Greg Governale

Fuji's DR does not have a major advantage for 99% of the work being sold by pro photographers.

I would like to see the data to back up such a statement.

Greg

If the Fuji S1 was good enough for the first all digital issue of National Geographic why is the S1 or the S2 or the S3 or the S5 files are no longer good enough? After you reduce the photo to the size of the page, run the files through the screens to make the dot screens for the ink application the images are pretty crude compared to the digital files.
--
Alan, in Montana
Photos are cached here,

http://radphotos.net/index.php?option=com_copperminevis&Itemid=33&place=gallery&cat=10069

Alan,
I wrote:

The first time that National Geographic published a feature article in their magazine using all digital images, it was produced by Jim Brandenburg using a Fuji S1.

Just a typical article, Not the entire Issue.

It does still make a person wonder.

Stock houses make high demands on pixel count to try to limit the number of images they receive. Some of them will allow images from lesser cameras if they know the photographer and/or you produce images that they don't already have.

Stock houses used to do the same in the film days. You had to shoot slides and you had to have 5000 very high quality images to start. Many also required you to add another 200 - 500 per month.

Greg

I don't think it's difficult to understand what Im refering to. Fuji comprises a minority of the equipment used for most photography being done. I think most photographers are doing fine without the extended DR. It's a nice feature when needed, but not everyone feels the same about it as most in this forum do.

Nothing wrong with it and it's a step "above" what others can offer out-of-camera, but it's just not do or die.

99% was just a figure to mean that a small amount of professional work is being done with the SR-CCD when you combine all the other brands/models being employed. Most of the more serious members from this forum when I first joined in 2003 have moved on. This means nothing about the Fuji's strong points. More of a statement concerning it's not-so-strong points.

I guess I'm responding to the sentiment of DR being so vital, when it's really not for "99%" of what's being shot and sold currently. If you have data showing otherwise then hold forth. I'm have no proof of any "numbers" that might be involved here, I just see what's being used in general when I'm out and about or see the activity of the other forums. Kodak is the one forum slower than the Fuji forum. It's just a guess on my part, but I don't think it's terribly far off, but you can pick any number you like if it's important.

On the Kodak forum (I had great interest in the Kodak at one point) there's a very small number and yet they feel it's the best DSLR ever made. Might be, just no one else thinks so. Especially the majority of those who sent them back.

I don't personally feel there is one "BEST" dslr. I could be happy enough with any one of half a dozen or more different models available. Most of the ones you listed previously are on that list.

I just received a very lovely portrait from a friend who shoots with the S5, and she's one of the ones that's getting great skin colors, and did with the S2 also, but the large file shows the typical pixelation in the fine hair details that you see with the honeycomb CCD configuration. I have many such images on file myself. Not a huge problem, but there just the same. As you know, the D2x is great in that regard, but that doesn't make it the "best ever". There are many aspects of imaging that factor in to create a great image with DR and resolution being just two of those aspects.

Didn't want to get into a blow by blow over this. It's too late, I'm tired and not really interested in that.

DR is not everyone's main concern. Most of the time it isn't a big issue. Only for someone trying to make every lighting situation workable regardless of how extreme it is.

Who knows, perhaps in 5 years every brand will offer 15 stops of DR and 24 MP of resolution, and Digital backs will be cheap!

Robert

FlossTycoon said:

If the Fuji S1 was good enough for the first all digital issue of
National Geographic why is the S1 or the S2 or the S3 or the S5 files
are no longer good enough?

Click to expand...

I would guess that at the time it was the best they could produce. Also, it was a novel idea at the time.

I have a book where portrait shooters discuss the "new digital" cameras and one was just thrilled with the S1 and bought 6 of them. Others thought that digital wasn't quite good enough except for the "huge" files from the giant 6 MP digital backs! Look where we are NOW. =)

FlossTycoon said:

After you reduce the photo to the size of
the page, run the files through the screens to make the dot screens
for the ink application the images are pretty crude compared to the
digital files.
--

Click to expand...

Yes, 4-color process printing can make great images....look bad. I suppose you'll have to ask those setting the rules. Also, what is most everyone in the field shooting with these days? That will determine what brand of camera gets published.

Still, the more you begin with the better the final result in print. Our prep guy can see the difference in the various image files that come through our pirnt shop. He's been most impressed so far with files from the Series 1 Canons. He sees something there he really likes that he has to work with.

I "envy" the huge Apple display he gets to work on. ;-)

Robert