Reading mode: Light Dark

F50fd or not....look and compare again - for most consumers

Go to last post
While I'll admit the F50 shot is a tad darker I still don't see the G9 shot outdoing it. In fact on my 1920x1200 laptop LCD the G9 looks blurier to me. And with NR done on the G9 shot it would be even worse - losing more detail. Maybe it falls into the 'eye of the beholder' scenario.
booggerg said:
The G9 pic shows much more detail in the brush head.
Click to expand...
 
I applied USM and a bit of levels tweak to both pictures at the same time and here is the result.

The F50 shows blurry brush head and blurry tick marks on the wheel in the background ( look at 20 - 30 ) The tick marks on the G9 is well defined, which indicates less noise smoothing.

I'm not concerned about the lower saturation of the G9 because that can always be adjusted up, and who knows.. maybe the F50 is set to higher saturation in-camera? Also the green brush handle on the F50 is different than the G9 but I'm also sure that's due to the difference in the camera processing but doesn't ready indicate which one is superior..

 
... on the brush head itself I'd have to agree the G9 shows a tad more bristles - but also alot more noise. And with NR done to the G9 shot it would most likely look worse than the F50's OOC result.
booggerg said:
The G9 pic shows much more detail in the brush head.
Click to expand...
 
...and all you are doing by sharpening is sharpening the F50 NR artifacts and sharpening the G9's already present noise. Do NR on the both (as necessary) then USM/levels and see what you have - then 'the plot may thicken' as they say.
booggerg said:
I applied USM and a bit of levels tweak to both pictures at the same
time and here is the result.

The F50 shows blurry brush head and blurry tick marks on the wheel in
the background ( look at 20 - 30 ) The tick marks on the G9 is well
defined, which indicates less noise smoothing.

I'm not concerned about the lower saturation of the G9 because that
can always be adjusted up, and who knows.. maybe the F50 is set to
higher saturation in-camera? Also the green brush handle on the F50
is different than the G9 but I'm also sure that's due to the
difference in the camera processing but doesn't ready indicate which
one is superior..

Click to expand...
 
Is there really more noise?

Look at the shadow of the wheel on the F50.. the noise/grain on in the shadows are huge and very visible.. the noise/grain on the G9 is much finer..
Photofreak7 said:
booggerg said:
I applied USM and a bit of levels tweak to both pictures at the same
time and here is the result.

The F50 shows blurry brush head and blurry tick marks on the wheel in
the background ( look at 20 - 30 ) The tick marks on the G9 is well
defined, which indicates less noise smoothing.

I'm not concerned about the lower saturation of the G9 because that
can always be adjusted up, and who knows.. maybe the F50 is set to
higher saturation in-camera? Also the green brush handle on the F50
is different than the G9 but I'm also sure that's due to the
difference in the camera processing but doesn't ready indicate which
one is superior..

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
booggerg said:
Is there really more noise?

Look at the shadow of the wheel on the F50.. the noise/grain on in
the shadows are huge and very visible.. the noise/grain on the G9 is
much finer..
Click to expand...
You may be right it's a 'different kind' of noise. It always comes down to which approach one likes better: the Canon more 'hands off' approach -or- the Fuji 'handled' approach. The G9 is admittedly better in some ways and especially with the ability to shoot RAW to bypass 'in-cam' processing (like the FZ18) - but both camera's are pushing it with 12MP's - I'd be interested to see what the F51 and G10 have (16MP's? LOL)
booggerg said:
Photofreak7 said:
booggerg said:
I applied USM and a bit of levels tweak to both pictures at the same
time and here is the result.

The F50 shows blurry brush head and blurry tick marks on the wheel in
the background ( look at 20 - 30 ) The tick marks on the G9 is well
defined, which indicates less noise smoothing.

I'm not concerned about the lower saturation of the G9 because that
can always be adjusted up, and who knows.. maybe the F50 is set to
higher saturation in-camera? Also the green brush handle on the F50
is different than the G9 but I'm also sure that's due to the
difference in the camera processing but doesn't ready indicate which
one is superior..

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yeah.. hate it when G9 fans resort to saying that RAW with PP makes the G9 better.

Goes from OOC jpg to jpg comparison...
to OOC jpg vs RAW with advanced processing using a PC

How about Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer, but give Sampras a brand new carbon fiber wizz bang tennis racket, and Federer... maybe a golf club.
 
Chazchop said:
Yeah.. hate it when G9 fans resort to saying that RAW with PP makes
the G9 better.

Goes from OOC jpg to jpg comparison...
to OOC jpg vs RAW with advanced processing using a PC

How about Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer, but give Sampras a brand new
carbon fiber wizz bang tennis racket, and Federer... maybe a golf
club.
Click to expand...
 
booggerg said:
Compared to the G9, at 800 ISO the F50's image has noticeable less
detail due to excessive noise smoothing.
Click to expand...
Actually, the lack of detail is due to the lens diffraction of the F50, not noise reduction. It's impressive how the F50 lens held its own against the supposedly superior G9 lens even past its diffraction limit. Set the aperture of both cameras to f4 and you'll see an even more pronounced advantage in favor of the F50.

With regards to high ISO noise performance, I haven't seen a small-sensor digicam yet that produces an image acuity that I like beyond ISO 400 -- I just dislike my F10/F11/F30/F50 less in comparison to anything out there. YMMV.

--
Best Regards,
Al G.
 
I was one of the early adopters of the F30 (paid $400) and was singing it's praises while everyone else seemed fixated on Canon. I also bought an F50fd from the first batch of cameras to arrive at B&H.

I think if you forget that the F30 existed and just look at the F50fd as a $250 camera, it's not bad. I was bothered by it's bright-light performance because I felt that contrast and apparent sharpness fell off badly in the corners, but now I wonder if that was due to the effects of diffraction--maybe I should've tried shooting the lens at it's max aperture as much as possible! Some of my indoor shots taken in middling light look pretty good.

The F50fd is maybe the only camera in this size class to have a largish sensor: Most others have 1/2.5.

In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have sold off the F50 quite so soon, because with a bit of care to avoid it's weak areas, I might've had one of the better really small cameras.
 
Language Lab said:
Well, yes, the F50 is no slouch compared to other brands at high ISO.
The review at DP Review shows the F50 to have the highest resolving
power of P&S cameras. This, to me at least, is good news as Fuji does
have a good sensor (though not for high ISO compared to the F31).

So, I'm holding back and waiting for the next generation, perhaps an
F51fd with 12MP and a higher quality lens. For low-light conditions,
I would turn to the F31fd.
Click to expand...
1. well you can't compare the 12 mp f50fd and the 6,3 mp f30fd because they had almost the same size ccd (1/1.6 vs 1/1.7) and the result will be obvious

2. well i don't think the lens is the problem, the problem is like those i mention in no.1 they put 12mp in 1/1.7 ccd so it don't have anything to do with the lens.

3. well if you want to wait for the f50fd to have same IQ with the f31/f30 you have to wait until fuji put a double size ccd to the f50fd and you can call it f51fd next generation
 
Lovely - Comparing a $234 F50fd (current lowest price at shopper.com) vs. a $424 G9.

The price difference alone can make up for any minor resolution/lens differences that we see in the comparisons of performance due to a much better lens in the G9 (assumption; not verified).

Clearly, the two are not in the same category of cameras, even though they both have 12MP sensors. The G9 is a semi-pro camera with many lens + flash attachments for expandability - a mini-dSLR substitute so the speak. The F50fd is merely a very good P&S camera for the masses.

--

That said, given that there is a ~$200 price difference between the two, =it is surprising= to note that the Canon G9's image =is not= significantly better than that of the F50fd. You could certainly take a properly exposed image from both under most conditions a consumer would normally encounter and print them up to 11x17" without a problem, IMO, and they'd look the same for the most part.

The fundamental reason?

The 12MP P&S sensor used by all of the P&S cameras today (from Canon to Casio to Kodak to Panasonic to Sony and Fuji) are all 1st generation sensors. In other words, we're back to the 'old' days of earlier P&S cameras where anything above 400 ISO was simply so-so and know-how was limited. That's not suprising given that almost any camera technology requires a few generations to improve to the point where we see big strides.

Even among the P&S 12MP cameras, you can see some of this rapid development and improvement going on. eg. the Panasonic and Sony 12MP were among the first to be released. Well, they most likely squished the poor sensor into a 8MP camera body, and voila! What once was a great lens for a much smaller 1/2.5" 8MP sensor now is a soft-cornered lens for a much bigger 1/1.7" sensor.

So just as we see in dSLR lenses that were designed for the APS format size and used on 35mm full frame cameras (soft-corners, poor edge performance), same with these two models (FX100, W200).

Luckily! Fujifilm waited to update the lens for the 12MP sensor instead of rushing it out the door, and we do see crisp, sharp performance up to the edges -- and with minimal fringing. (eg. Canon 950 vs. F50 resolution charts clearly show the poorer fringing performance around the letters in the 950 photos at the corners.)

No the F50 isn't the best low-light camera in Fuji's existence, but it certainly is the sharpest, highest resolving, minimally fringing 12MP P&S on the market today, IMO, after looking at the available tests. Quite good for a 1st generation attempt by any camera manufacturer.

What is suprising?

Larger camera makers with more money to spend on R&D and bigger market shares (Canon, Sony) have failed to release a 12MP camera that can outperform the Fuji. Odd, right?

Well, those companies are obviously focused on one thing -- expanding their market share & profit. ==Not on giving the consumer, you, a better 12MP camera.==

For example, in Sony's 2007 annual report, they've expanded their sales to over 70 million P&S cameras. Not only that, their camera profits are a significant source of profits to balance out their severely negative (in the billions) game division (can't think of one great PS3 game on the market yet).
 
As a result, Sony has reduced features in their latest cameras (eg. taken out the InfoLithium battery feature in most of their recent cameras whereas prior model have had them; released 12MP top-of-their-line P&S camera, the W200, with a super-low-resolution LCD screen (less than 200,000 pixels?!? that's so 20th century!)) in order to boost their bottom line to prevent bankruptcy (cheaper to make camera due to fewer features = bigger profit margin for them to pay for their PS3 mess.)

Even makers such as Panasonic, a company known to release sharp corner-to-corner lenses on their prior P&S cameras, went off the deep end with their FX100 in order to 'rush to the market' rather than take care of the consumer. (eg. very soft corners on the FX100.)

Okay, back up for a moment and let's see - Canon 950 (soft corners), Sony W200 (soft corners), Panasonic FX100 (soft corners)....etc. Fuji F50fd (sharp corners).

It makes one wonder - consumers who trust a big brand-name (eg. Canon/Sony), buying based on that, getting a bad lens on P&S 12MP cameras that cost up to and more than $400 (depending on make & model) if they don't buy a Fuji.

(I wonder how many camera buffs here would shell out a solid $400 on a single SLR lens that had soft corners.......)

Now, that's not to say that all lenses have to be 'razor sharp'. Casio perhaps understands this well. They're not a big player in the digicam market, and they have to spend their R&D and manufacturing money where it counts and where they can. So sure, the lens is a bit soft all across the image, but at least they aren't ripping the consumer off with a $400 model. They add a few features that make it 'fun' to use - 30+ photo modes, MPEG-4 recording, one button access to record/play, among the brightest LCD panel on the market, huge JPEG sizes (larger than some other 12MP P&S images to compensate for their softer lens), manual modes, YouTube setting, etc.

As a result, Casio manages to put a few of their cameras on the top 10 ranking most of the time in Japan.

But, lenses on $300-400 P&S cameras from not long ago (eg. Sony P150/200, Fuji F30/40) did take images that were sharper corner-to-corner than most of the current non-Fuji 12MP P&S.

----------------

Now, that all said, you know that Fuji had to release a 12MP before the huge Black Friday (day after Thanksgiving, see blackfday.com or bfads.net if you're clueless) sales, and they did with the F50fd. Can't blame them for feeding their families and not taking time to release a F31 replacement.

Will we see a F31 replacement? Maybe, maybe not. They're not the biggest company, but certainly small ones can release nitch market cameras (eg. Ricoh GRII, GX100) with high-MP and sharp lenses. But the question is - will people pay $400-500+ for a Fujifilm nitch? (Well, based on current used/old F31 prices on ebay.com, yes......)

So why not take the time to write and tell Fujifilm that you =will= buy a P&S that costs $400-500 if they released a F31 followup with the features you'd love to see?

They've certainly got the technology (eg. S5 dSLR).
 
Chazchop said:
How about Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer, but give Sampras a brand new
carbon fiber wizz bang tennis racket, and Federer... maybe a golf
club.
Click to expand...
I think by now, Pete would certainly need one, esp. after saying that he considered Federer the best tennis play out there today and possibly of all time. Federer's athletic abilities are certainly the best among the tennis players, too. I think it would certainly be a tough match between the two, but Pete does have one advantage that has kept him out of 2nd place numerous times -- his killer, repeatable 1st serve ace. Don't believe even Federer would be able to pull out so many aces in a game like Pete does....
 
Yeah, me too.

I remember when the G7 first came out. The Canon board was at first delirious that the G series was continued, and then livid when they saw what had happened to it. Up until the F50 came out and I watched the reaction on this board, I thought that the G7 was the most reviled camera in the history of this website. One poster after another went on and on as to what the G7 wasn't, and what it was missing in comparison to its predecessor, the G6.

However, after a few months, a funny thing happened. Some "brave" posters started praising the G7 for what it was, and over time, the G7 became a fairly popular camera on the Canon forum. Was it a true G6 successor? No, it wasn't. But it turned out to be a pretty good camera on its own merit, and people started to recognize that fact.

Is the F50 a true successor to the F31? Absolutely not. The F50 actually has a harder job than the G7 had, as the F31 is a legendary camera (at least on these forums). However, does that make the F50 a junk camera? I don't think so. When put in perspective, it seems to be doing pretty well against other 12MP cameras. It takes SD cards, has a (rudimentary) image stabilizer, and by all accounts takes very nice pictures at low ISO.

Mourn for what is lost. Heck, I'm right there with you. I'd have loved to see the F31 sensor put into a G7/9 type body. That would have been a huge winner in my book, and one I'd shell out some bucks for. But I don't know that the lumps the F50 is taking here is completely justified.
 
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