This is my opinion, too, Thomas.
Mike
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
dcresource 602 review now online......
- Thread starter Azrifel
- Start date
Mike
kad
Well-known member
How accurate were the early comparisons of the 6900 and other cameras when it first came out?
I've printed some photos on my epson 1200 but wish that I could print out a lot more for comparison.
I'm looking at the far field shots of the house from the imaging resource samples. The D7 and 707 seem to have the edge in quality but not amazingly so...(except for maybe the shingles. on the 602 they're a blurry mess - on the other two cameras you can almost count them!)
Any idea why the difference in quality is so great with the shingles but not with the bricks of the house?
And I heard about the amazing quality of the G2, so I printed out the house in iso 400 to see how it did and it is sooo noisy. I would like to see someone clean that up to get a better print than the iso 400 on the 602.
(If I can clean up the 602's iso 800 shot of the church interior a tiny bit I think it would make an adequate 4X5.)
I've printed some photos on my epson 1200 but wish that I could print out a lot more for comparison.
I'm looking at the far field shots of the house from the imaging resource samples. The D7 and 707 seem to have the edge in quality but not amazingly so...(except for maybe the shingles. on the 602 they're a blurry mess - on the other two cameras you can almost count them!)
Any idea why the difference in quality is so great with the shingles but not with the bricks of the house?
And I heard about the amazing quality of the G2, so I printed out the house in iso 400 to see how it did and it is sooo noisy. I would like to see someone clean that up to get a better print than the iso 400 on the 602.
(If I can clean up the 602's iso 800 shot of the church interior a tiny bit I think it would make an adequate 4X5.)
tony gilmour
Veteran Member
Well for me it wasn't the reviews helped me decide and there was very little negativity about the 6900z and the images were great.
Peter Marina
Leading Member
Aparently Canon is miss-identifying the ISO seting on it's cameras. If you look at the Minolta S404 review, you see Phil comparing it to the G2. One of his remarks was that canon tends to almost double it's ISO ratings. Canon 100 = Standard 200
Canon 200 = Standard 400
Canon 400 = Standard 800
So if you want to compare Fuji's 400ISO, you shold do it with a 200ISO from the G2.
Cheers
Canon 200 = Standard 400
Canon 400 = Standard 800
So if you want to compare Fuji's 400ISO, you shold do it with a 200ISO from the G2.
Cheers
tony gilmour
Veteran Member
Its a commom thing because it is only an estimate of how many stops you can push by increasing the sensitivity of the ccd.....................remember ISO 100 =1 stop ISO 200=2 stops ISO400=3 stops ISO 800=4 stops ISO 1600=5 stops.
tony gilmour
Veteran Member
Peter, you mentioned the G2.apart from the minor crack here and there 
it is rated as producing one of the best images available in the prosumer market..............I just wish they had designed a camera with this capabilities along the line of the Pro 90.
it is rated as producing one of the best images available in the prosumer market..............I just wish they had designed a camera with this capabilities along the line of the Pro 90.
That's what I meant to say. But could the barrel distortion be corrected with production models..... That's what I meant to say as I don't directly relate this distortion to camera operation or photo quality. I could be wrong though.
slipstream
Veteran Member
Barrel distortion will stay like this as its entirely dependent on the lens. But if needed its easily corrected. It is also not the case through the whole zoomrange. And all cameras have some barrel distortion. If you especially want an excellent camera concerning barrel distortion check the D7 as its the best concerning barrel distortion and has a good zoomrange.
slipstream
Veteran Member
Yeah me 2 I would have loved a camera with a 10x zoom and at least 4MP.
They are great. About the sound.... Have you ever been on the beach shooting or in a big city? With the wind, the waves and the city traffic it is pretty normal. We'll need a new movie with someone singing e.g.
Nancy81188
Well-known member
Without a cartoid or shotgun microphone, you're sure to get a lot of background noise. Unfortunately, subject volume (compared to background noise) falls off sharply with distance using the low-end microphones found in most digital still cameras. Personally, I'm thrilled just to not have to deal with the recorded motor-whine that I get from my Mini-DV palmcorder.
Video lovers would no doubt like a jack for an external microphone to get the best audio quality but even many camcorders lack this feature becuase, in the end, few people buy external mics. The last still camera I can think of that had an external mic jack was the Oly C-2100UZ. Where there any others?
One solution I've considered is using something like an Olympus digital voice recorder for remote audio (it's very compact). I haven't tried this but it seems likely that A/V sync shouldn't be too difficult to acheive, especially given the short length of the clips involved and the fact that the audio is also digital. For well under US$100, you could have an audio solution comparabable in quality to an expensive wireless mic (or without the hassle of tethering your camera to 5-meter long mic cable). Another bonus of this approach is the ability to MIX the onboard and external audio tracks together during editing for a more natural, combined sound. Mix in some background music on yet a third audio track and you're getting some pretty nice movie sound.
The Olympus DW-90 is only $80 and I'm sure there are other compact digital voice recorder options. Just a thought.
Video lovers would no doubt like a jack for an external microphone to get the best audio quality but even many camcorders lack this feature becuase, in the end, few people buy external mics. The last still camera I can think of that had an external mic jack was the Oly C-2100UZ. Where there any others?
One solution I've considered is using something like an Olympus digital voice recorder for remote audio (it's very compact). I haven't tried this but it seems likely that A/V sync shouldn't be too difficult to acheive, especially given the short length of the clips involved and the fact that the audio is also digital. For well under US$100, you could have an audio solution comparabable in quality to an expensive wireless mic (or without the hassle of tethering your camera to 5-meter long mic cable). Another bonus of this approach is the ability to MIX the onboard and external audio tracks together during editing for a more natural, combined sound. Mix in some background music on yet a third audio track and you're getting some pretty nice movie sound.
The Olympus DW-90 is only $80 and I'm sure there are other compact digital voice recorder options. Just a thought.
Eric,
So the 6900 photos were great from the start? No major issues like what people are mentioning now about the S602? The 6900 pics I've seen (only on my monitor) are good quality and some even great - which is why I thought I found my dream camera (at least for about 3 yrs until a foveon or something similiar is ready for me). Image quality is primary.
If anyone else would like to throw in their 2 cents, please do. I'm in love with the Fuji s602 features, but I want great pictures right out of the camera. I don't want to be forced to 'fix' them in software.
-Elizabeth.
So the 6900 photos were great from the start? No major issues like what people are mentioning now about the S602? The 6900 pics I've seen (only on my monitor) are good quality and some even great - which is why I thought I found my dream camera (at least for about 3 yrs until a foveon or something similiar is ready for me). Image quality is primary.
If anyone else would like to throw in their 2 cents, please do. I'm in love with the Fuji s602 features, but I want great pictures right out of the camera. I don't want to be forced to 'fix' them in software.
-Elizabeth.
Richard Dunn
Veteran Member
Kad, like you I jave a copy of all of the far field shots of most of the cameras that I am interested in and I also have optimised these images in photoshop to get the best I can from them. I went back and had a lok after your post and I don't get to the same conclusions as you.
Firstly the 602 images are as good as the 6900 image in spite of less light. The detail in the plant leaves in the left lower corner are as good as the 6900. IMO the 6900 optimised shot is as good as the D1 and better than the G2 which is very good. I don't feel the F707 is better and I dont have a D7.
The shingle on all the 4m + cameras including the 6900 and 602 are very much the same, grainy and poorly defined. They all sharpen up nicely however and print adequately. I think this is the poor contrast of the shingle not the cameras.
I've said this before but it's worth repeating the images from the 601 that I have taken are superb when printed and look better on screen than the 6800, 6900 or 4700. I can crop out a 600X600 section of a 3m image and after processing and resising produce a sharp clear well coloured and detailed, low noise image at 5"x5" at 240 dpi. That is the equivalent of printing at A2 (that is 4X the area of A4).
If the 601 can do that and that is a production model ready for any of us to try surely the 60 with its better lens will be a lot better.
Desperate Sam
Well-known member
Sony Minidisc is a good standard audio recorder - used by many radio journalists. It's not just a 'walkman' player.
Yes, but when it affects you, it means you've no camera for four weeks here and that is at Sony Europe HQ! I've been fortunate to have the P1 repaired 3 times, in two weeks because I use it for work too. But normally it takes 4 weeks or more.
Concerning Sony: I really hate Infolithium. When the Info-thingie of the battery is damaged (mostly all by itself), a full battery reports to the camera it is empty. The camere shuts down with a full battery. No big deal if it does not happe to you, but I am on my fourth warranty replaced battery by now. The camera has been back several times and much has been done to it. I have no faith in any Infolithoum Sony stuff whatsoever because of that. Call it Paranoid, but when your in my situation it is really frustrating.
And I don't like the memorysticks. They are small (MB) and expensive. That Sony hasn't released a 256Mb version already, worries me. I feel they have huge problems with making it work. CF is now wey beyond the 500mb....... So when 256 comes it is already dated....... (I own a 8mb, 32mb and 64mb as the P1 does 40+ on the 64). IBM is expected to present 2 Gig Microdrives, dropping prices of the 340 and 1gig as you can see at the moment (like 99 dollar for a 340mb....). When I have a camera capable of a resolution and output of a 707, I really would want more than 128 or 256 memory.
I agree. If only it wasn't a Sony. :-(
Apart from that I don't like how you need to operate it. But the output is great.
tony gilmour
Veteran Member
The images coming out of the 6900z weren't perfect but after you settle on your settings and get a feel for what it can do and can't do you will get consistent high quality results.........the only thing I ever did with my pics coming out of the 6900z was to slightly sharpen and apply colour correction, which was related to the use of the correct white balance.
We shot over 1500 shots in Paris all set on the incorrect white balance.
The only other issue is the auto focus .....I stopped using it because like so many other digital cameras it kept picking up the background and focusing on that when there was more background than main subject.....this has to do with the cameras focus area and some cameras have a narrower focus area than others, to me the camera gave me no problems and produced results superior to any 35mm camera that i may have owned and got me to be more intensely involved in photography again.
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
We shot over 1500 shots in Paris all set on the incorrect white balance.
The only other issue is the auto focus .....I stopped using it because like so many other digital cameras it kept picking up the background and focusing on that when there was more background than main subject.....this has to do with the cameras focus area and some cameras have a narrower focus area than others, to me the camera gave me no problems and produced results superior to any 35mm camera that i may have owned and got me to be more intensely involved in photography again.
--
You only live once ,and always suck the lemon.
Isabel Cutler
Veteran Member
AMEN! (Well maybe just a little unsharp masking when I make them smaller???)
Isabel
I'm
Isabel
I'm
kad
Well-known member
Hi Richard.
I don't have my printouts infront of me so I'm going on memory here but:
The differences between the cameras are not huge .I've read
earlier comments about the way it handles tree branches and think there might be something to that. Looking at the brickwork, the door and the green mouldings in the shadows made me give the edge
to the 707 and D7 as well I think. It just defines details a little better.(Which it should for the extra 400.00 -can.)
When I compared the roof shingles I was suprised. (I will print the 602 out again to make sure it isn't some screwup of mine) The 602 roof is visibly blurrier in comparison to the 707 and D7. I would like to think that different lighting is somehow responsible but then all I can go on are images.
I don't have my printouts infront of me so I'm going on memory here but:
I didn't print out a 6900 to compare it to yet.Maybe on the weekend.
The differences between the cameras are not huge .I've read
earlier comments about the way it handles tree branches and think there might be something to that. Looking at the brickwork, the door and the green mouldings in the shadows made me give the edge
to the 707 and D7 as well I think. It just defines details a little better.(Which it should for the extra 400.00 -can.)
Now, I have not tinkered with any of the photos. I don't want to have to decide whether an image is good because of the camera or some photoshop wizard. (Or if it looks crappy because of the internal software instead of someone adjusting for their personal taste )
When I compared the roof shingles I was suprised. (I will print the 602 out again to make sure it isn't some screwup of mine) The 602 roof is visibly blurrier in comparison to the 707 and D7. I would like to think that different lighting is somehow responsible but then all I can go on are images.
Well, I have not compared images of other Fujis- I'll take your word for it.I'm expecting the 602 to be a good camera- but there have to be some reasons other cameras are selling well and for more money than the fuji line.
Peter Marina
Leading Member
I know what you mean. Anythink better then that 3x zoom would have been nice. Perhaps a 7x from 28 to 200mm??? Oh well that is the stuff that dreams are made of!
Cheers
Peter Marina
Cheers
--
Peter Marina
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum