-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
F50fd - Highly Recommended [2]
- Thread starter 4nonymous
- Start date
Avatar553950
New member
I had the F50fd for a few days and was just unhappy with the IQ in indoor light. It was grainy. The IS did not work as well as I would have liked.
So I returned it for a Canon SD870 (8MP). Overall I'm happier, but the thing I'd miss most about the F50fd is its detail.
Tom, my main complaint with regards to the cannonSD950IS was it was slow compared to my f31. I mean when I went to take a picture in low light it seemed like the camera was taking much longer than the f31., to record the image. To me the picture quality was fine. I like the way the camera looked and felt. It was just to slow. I am in a hurry to catch the moment.
Fred
Fred
igilligantoo
Veteran Member
My guess is a marketing person...
Gail thank you. The evidence suggests there are at least two suspected fuji employees who have joined the forum since the F50 was released...
They have been so obvious. One came on when the F50 came out and the other joined right as the review hit the forum.
Has fuji really resorted to this level of deception?
There is a marketing person on the grassy knoll... If I only had a 12mp camera to take the picture.... The new and improved detail resolution and Dual IS would solve this mystery once and for all...
Lee Harvey was shot by Jack Fuji.
--
gus
Get what makes you happy...
Anything less makes you less happy!
Russ Yost
Senior Member
It has 12MPFine and 12MPNormal. with image data file sizes 4.7 and 3.0 MB, respectively.
--
Russell
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/russ
VeijoM
Leading Member
Yes, I knew that. But, to me taking images with "normal" is no real choice. My view is that this kind of resolution should be possible with even less compression, and that is what is missing. I am not asking RAW output, but when I bought this camera I acknowledged that the main competitor for me at that time, namely Nikon S500 had less compression. Fuji loses some advantage of better resolution with this higher compression. Anyway, as this takes its toll in performance, I would want it as an option, not default.
-Veijo-
--
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time... Eccl. 3:11
Good point Fred - I never feel like I have to wait for the cam to adjust while using my F31 - very fast cam. It truly is one sweet little camera. I am so glad I decided to keep mine. To think, I paid $239 and got a $50 rebate = 189. Now they sell as high as $400 on ebay. Let's see, if I bought 25,000 units for 189 and sold them for 339 that would have been $150 profit per unit or $3,750,000. That could have been my retirement - on the F31 ! Even if they only gave me the rebate on one of the 25,000 units, it would still make a good retirement.
--
My best, Tom S.
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
This is a ridiculous statement. Jpeg was designed such that 1:10 is considered excellent image quality. The jpeg artifacts in these files are considered invisible to sharpening algorithms, and they are certainly invisible to the human eye at this low compression.
1:6 is Fuji's traditional fine quality, as it is Nikon's for most of their dSLRs. Normal is 1:12 traditionally. Many people have inspected their files carefully at 400% to look for changes in the artifacts from F to N, and no one has yet posted a clear example of an issue. I.e. NORM provides files that are still of excellent quality (makes sense when you think about it, since 1:10 and 1:12 is hardly different.)
50:1 is still considered good by the way ...
So ... 1:7 is a tiny, invisible compromise Fuji makes to be able to reduce the ridiculous file sizes at 12mp ... ridiculous because a compact hardly needs that kind of data. There is no way with those tiny lenses that 12mp is being resolved. I quote from the DPReview:
"Looking closely it looks like Fuji has hit the limits of what you can get out of this lens, meaning at least some of those extra pixels are effectively redundant."
As ISO climbs, the extra pixels are increasingly irrelevant. I quote again regarding 1600ISO:
"These are 12 megapixel images but they offer nothing like 12 megapixels' worth of information."
Shoot NORM ... it won't make any serious difference from this cam.
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
No, what you are missing is a basic understanding of how much compression is too much. 7:1 and 12:1 are not a problem for 99.999% of images. These cams are just not good enough to make it worth shooting RAW or super-fine ... neither was the F31fd by the way. These are compacts ....
No it doesn't ... a dSLR with BASIC jpegs (24:1 I think) still smokes an F31fd at FINE. It's not the compression level that's the problem ...
What makes RAW interesting is that lack of in camera processing. That can be done in your PC with much better results. Once you are going jpeg in cam, the differences between 1:7 and 1:4 are invisible. The actual conversion to jpeg overwhelms these tiny differences.
The fact that they choose to not offer such an easy option should tell you how useful it would be on a compact.
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
VeijoM
Leading Member
Hi Kim!
I visited your gallery and saw you have done a lot of research on the subject. I haven't done so much, but still see this thing from a bit different angle.
I see F50fd "half manual" camera. To have aperture and shutter priority means you are accessing a camera that is meant also for some more serious shooting than what usual P&S is. I have a dslr and shoot mainly RAW but cannot be unhappy with its JPEG in cases where it is enough.
What I think, is that the starting file should be better if you want to post process the images. What comes to seeing the artefacts, I do see in my simple tests when converting RAW to JPEG. They are of minor and probably wouln't show up when printed, but I want to have best to start with so RAW is the choice.
Megapixel net tested F50fd. They also made the "ridiculous" statement you are despising in my post. So I am not alone.
And I agree, for most of the shots this kind of camera will be taking, the lower compression ratios are very much enough.
-Veijo-
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time... Eccl. 3:11
I visited your gallery and saw you have done a lot of research on the subject. I haven't done so much, but still see this thing from a bit different angle.
I see F50fd "half manual" camera. To have aperture and shutter priority means you are accessing a camera that is meant also for some more serious shooting than what usual P&S is. I have a dslr and shoot mainly RAW but cannot be unhappy with its JPEG in cases where it is enough.
What I think, is that the starting file should be better if you want to post process the images. What comes to seeing the artefacts, I do see in my simple tests when converting RAW to JPEG. They are of minor and probably wouln't show up when printed, but I want to have best to start with so RAW is the choice.
Megapixel net tested F50fd. They also made the "ridiculous" statement you are despising in my post. So I am not alone.
And I agree, for most of the shots this kind of camera will be taking, the lower compression ratios are very much enough.
-Veijo-
--
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time... Eccl. 3:11
Kim Letkeman
Forum Pro
Agreed that RAW is the best. And also agreed that, should you plan on really hammering the image, you need as few artifacts as possible in the image.
But ... jpeg conversion does most of its damage right up front through the de-mosiacing process, gamma correction (application of the tone curve) and initial compression. A wee bit more or less compression is not likely to make a huge difference. I really don't see FINE versus NORM as much of an issue. But if RAW were available, that's a different story, because you can do a lot of work on the image in linear space before you apply the tone curve and spread all the values out.
Sorry ... but there are two issues with what they wrote and with your interpretation of it. I quote from them, each statement in triple asterisks ( ):
Set to the 12M Fine image quality, the camera applies a compression that has an average compression ratio of 7.5:1, which is relatively strong and, with complex subjects, the compression seems to cause a decrease in detail, something that is visible when the image is seen at 100% on a monitor.
This comment is utter cr@p. 1:7.5 is not strong at all ... it is actually very close to what the dSLRs use in FINE mode ... and the equivocated statement "seems to" coupled with "at 100% on a monitor" is your first clue that the reviewer is not able to make any useful statement on the actual image quality difference. That will most certainly be because he or she does not understand jpeg compression and is simply assuming it must be bad.
Moreover, when the image is noisy, it appears that in combination with the compression process, there is a further loss of detail.
Well duh ... the noise is the culprit here. I shoot 1600 ISO images at NORM on my F10 and F11 and see no reason to change to fine. The noise overwhelms the minor differences by doubling compression.
But, when images are printed, images look better than when seen at full size on a monitor.
And there is the real story. These differences they talk about, if they actually exist at all, will completely disappear when viewed in a print or downsized for the web.
This is why the first advice given on these forums to newbies is to stop judging image quality at 100%!!!
I can hardly imagine a shot that a 12mp cam with a 1/2.35" sensor could take that would benefit from shooting FINE instead of NORM.
--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
Stephen88603
Leading Member
Hi yesterday I bought the F50 even though there is a lot of negative posts on this site. I don't know what the big fuss about IQ is all about I think its a really great cam for only £149 photos at iso 400 are coming out really good I would say better then my sony W200. I don't usually shoot above iso 400 for that you need a dslr if you need good IQ.
Anyway considering the low price and excellant IQ , I feel its the best cam when you compare it to others
Cheers
Stephen
Anyway considering the low price and excellant IQ , I feel its the best cam when you compare it to others
Cheers
Stephen
Have you resorted to this level punching of below the belt, just to be able to keep calling the F50fd a bad camera that should be receiving negative reviews/attention?
I don't work for Fuji, I just noticed the unreasonable bashing of a good camera by some users here and responded to that. And even if I did work for Fuji that still wouldn't make any of my points invalid.
Why don't you quote my post point for point and tell me point for point where I am wrong in my argumentation? Ad hominem attacks a.k.a. shooting the messenger in stead of the message is such an incredibly sad way of trying to 'win' a discussion.
I personally don't think the 'problem' here is my argumentation though, but your very narrow mindset of what you are willing to accept as a good camera. For some reason in your mindset the F30/F31 are positioned as 'ideal compact' where in reality they are far from it. And if someone else doesn't agree with you on that narrow mindset and gives logical arguments against it by pointing out the many improvements of F50 compared to its predesessor, ofcourse that person just has to be an evil Fuji marketing figure. I assume you also think DPR's Lars Rehm & Simon Joinson are working for Fuji's marketing department, because they 'dared' to give the F50 a Highly Recommended? Or maybe they are just plain wrong, because you are so right?
Luckaly quite a lot of people here in this thread have a broader mindset.
Being a good compact camera means more to me than its high-ISO performance in absolutes. There is a lot more to a camera then ISO1600. Some people seem to forget that here.
Ofcourse Fuji could - in regard to high ISO - have done better with a lower pixel sensor. But that they did stick a 12mp sensor in F50 doesn't suddenly turn it into a bad camera. And certainly not if it usually takes better pictures than its competition.
I wonder if we've been reading the same review?
In the version I read the reviewer got a lot more usable shots @1/25s and 1/15s shutterspeed with IS enabled then with IS disabled. Since I already have quite a stable hand this still sounds like anything but near-worthless to me.
That it's not as good as some other manufacturers IS systems is a different subject.
--
Try to live without y'r cam
not being a fuji owner i'm just familiar with the good indoor results ive read of the f-10/20/30/31,, tried to find one had no luck but did find the f 40....so the question is for indoor shots, do i buy the f-40 or the f-50. i have enough good outdoor cameras.
G
gail
Guest
Yes, I did:
"The CCD-shift's performance is nothing to get excited about. Whether you use mode 1 or 2 does not make too much difference; in both settings the effect of the image stabilization is fairly small. In fact, it was so bad that we repeated our lab tests several times, but with the same result. While other systems make handheld shots at 2 even 3 shutter speed settings slower than normal perfectly possible, the IS on the F50fd won't get anywhere near that - although it slightly increases your chances of getting a usable shot at very slow shutter speeds."
"If you're shooting at three stops below the recommended minimum shutter speed at least you have a one in five chance of getting a completely sharp and an 50% chance of getting an at least acceptable image. Looks like you'll be needing the high ISO aspect of the 'Dual IS' after all."
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf50fd/page7.asp
I've never said the F50 is a bad camera. I've said that it is not as good as it's predecessors in high ISO performance. It could have been, had Fujifilm not chosen to pump a whopping 12mp into their sensor. And, as dpreview pointed out, the IS is poor.
I think your problem with comments like mine is that some of us are not as enthusiastic about the F50 as you are.
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php
igilligantoo
Veteran Member
Surely you can see how Gail and I could assume you are connected to fuji.... (although you might just be amazon related haha).
You have been posting on this forum for 3months. Your entire posting history are responses in others threads, always in defense or praise of this F50 camera. We have yet to see one photo posted from your new and improved camera.
You have yet to post your own thread, except this one which is a rehash of a dead thread, and you did it just to keep the issue alive.
And why would saying that you work for fuji be an ATTACK? I would love to have a job with fuji.
I am willing to say the F50 is an average P&S camera from the evidence I have seen. The F30/31 is not an ideal camera. It just happened to be able to take photos in low light without flash better than any other little p&S camera. What does the F50 do better than any other P&S camera? The answer to that is close to nothing. Actually IMO, canon, sony and panny all do better in daylight conditions because their IS is more effective. They are easier to use, better auto shooters for the average joe and have more control available to the above average shooter.
From the review
"In fact, it was so bad we repeated our lab tests several times, with the same results." "IT WAS SO BAD"
You keep talking about how they have improved the camera from the previous model. The thing everyone wanted them to improve was to add IS! And the IS they finally add to the F50 was so bad that the reviewers were not even sure it was on!
What an improvement that seems to have been.
Do I think the F30/31 was a great camera... In low light yes. In good light it was an OK camera.
Do I think the F50 is a great camera, not on any level. It is just an OK camera IMHO. So why this camera got a Highly recommend is still a mystery to me. And why you have been touting it for 3 months an even greater mystery to a few of us on the forum.
Peace be with 4non. If I have not welcomed you to the forum before now, Welcome aboard... And please start posting some of your photos. That is the way to put all of us 'know it alls' in our place. I love great photos no matter what camera they come from. And I look forward to seeing some amazing shots from the F50.
In fact I dogged the F40 until danny started posting those food shots that always make me hungry.
--
gus
Get what makes you happy...
Anything less makes you less happy!
You have been posting on this forum for 3months. Your entire posting history are responses in others threads, always in defense or praise of this F50 camera. We have yet to see one photo posted from your new and improved camera.
You have yet to post your own thread, except this one which is a rehash of a dead thread, and you did it just to keep the issue alive.
How do you know it is a good camera? Do you own it? Please post some of your photos to show how great the camera is.
You are a messenger that just keeps saying you are right without any evidence to support your claims. Photo evidence from your F50...
And why would saying that you work for fuji be an ATTACK? I would love to have a job with fuji.
4NON... we all know that Lars and Simon do not work for Fuji..... They work for AMAZON. Amazon is in the business of selling all brands of cameras. Not just fuji.
I am willing to say the F50 is an average P&S camera from the evidence I have seen. The F30/31 is not an ideal camera. It just happened to be able to take photos in low light without flash better than any other little p&S camera. What does the F50 do better than any other P&S camera? The answer to that is close to nothing. Actually IMO, canon, sony and panny all do better in daylight conditions because their IS is more effective. They are easier to use, better auto shooters for the average joe and have more control available to the above average shooter.
Here you go again with the better pictures argument... Please post some photos that you have taken with your F50. We can compare them to pics from the Canon and sony forum. Or even my sony 6mp camera.... which is a better daylight shooter than my f30.
I wonder if you read the same review? They could not even tell if the IS was on it was so ineffective.
From the review
"In fact, it was so bad we repeated our lab tests several times, with the same results." "IT WAS SO BAD"
You keep talking about how they have improved the camera from the previous model. The thing everyone wanted them to improve was to add IS! And the IS they finally add to the F50 was so bad that the reviewers were not even sure it was on!
What an improvement that seems to have been.
Do I think the F30/31 was a great camera... In low light yes. In good light it was an OK camera.
Do I think the F50 is a great camera, not on any level. It is just an OK camera IMHO. So why this camera got a Highly recommend is still a mystery to me. And why you have been touting it for 3 months an even greater mystery to a few of us on the forum.
Peace be with 4non. If I have not welcomed you to the forum before now, Welcome aboard... And please start posting some of your photos. That is the way to put all of us 'know it alls' in our place. I love great photos no matter what camera they come from. And I look forward to seeing some amazing shots from the F50.
In fact I dogged the F40 until danny started posting those food shots that always make me hungry.
--
gus
Get what makes you happy...
Anything less makes you less happy!
G
gail
Guest
I rarely pixel peep but wanted to compare high iso, low light shots between three of the four digital cameras I own: my new F20, my Canon SD700 and my Pany FZ18.
I simply sat in a dimly lit room and photographed a chair at ISO 400 and 800. Auto white balance and, for a few shots, forced flash. The lighting and subject were such that I'd never photograph anything like that in real life.
I've, of course, read for years about the Super CCD. Finally bought one after reading the F50 review. I bought the F20 and have been playing with it for two weeks.
The F20 low light shots continue to amaze me. I feel so confident that I keep my camera set to Auto ISO 1600, something I would never even consider with my other cameras.
The Canon consistently produced the more accurate colors, with the F20 coming in second. The Canon high ISO photos, while not a good at the F20, was better than the Pany. The Pany was the "worst" in all areas (but I don't care because I primarily photograph outside in good light and the FZ18 does very well there). I took some shots last week in a more realistic low light situation, and the FZ18 did well.
I'm really glad I got the F20 though and will take most of our family Christmas shots with it, unless I need wide angle.
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php
Ok I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I'll illustrate:
A friend of mine bought a Samsung F series LCD TV. The F series is the basic/budget line from Samsung. I own a Samsung M series LCD TV which is their high-end line, using a much better panel, components and processing.
So is his Image Quality "bad"? When compared to my M series it most certainly is.
But when compared to no TV at all could you call it bad? I wouldn't say so.
That would be where I'm coming from: the F50 IS is "bad" when compared to some other IS systems, but it is certainly a lot better than having none at all.
Just look at the results: a lot more usable images with IS enabled then without it.
This is what I've trying to state from the beginning
We agree on this. That's also what I've been stating from the beginning
But again, that it's not as good as his predessesor in high ISO, doesn't mean it's 1.) bad at high ISO (on the countrary) or 2.) that it's predesessor is a better camera.
I don't have a problem with your comments at all Gail.
I just disagreed on the IS part and hope that I've now cleared up why
--
Try to live without y'r cam
Igilligantoo, before I respond I'd like to encourage you to read into Logical Fallacies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I've seen you use quite a lot of them in your posts here and it's starting to get annoying.
There is an extremely simple explanation for that:
I've been reading DPR for years now, and every now and then checked the forum.
The F50fd is the camera I've been interested in for a while now, because I've been looking for a good (near) ultra-compact to replace my Z3, which was too much of a compromise, as DSC-R1 companion. Since there was no DPR review of it a few months ago I visited the forums to find some info... and happend to run into a bunch of people condemning it to hell for no other reason than it having 12mp.
Since this was a completely one-sided view in my opinion I registered to comment.
But I guess that would make me a Fuji marketing person in your book wouldn't it?
See Non Sequitur above.
I happen to read (professional) reviews before I buy. I've read many positive ones on F50, including the latest one on DPR (what was actually what I was waiting for to make my final decision). I've seen it get many (Highly) Recommended's and several awards. I've seen it's sample pictures.
I think that's quite enough basis to conclude it IS a good camera.
I don't have to post pics at all to provide 'evidence' that F50 is a good camera.
There are more then enough F50 sample pictures available on the web, including the reviews (and awards) that often come with them.
Besides, or better said: more importantly: YOU are the one appearantly rejecting the majority of the reviews on F50fd, including the DPR one, in favor of your own personal (and i.m.o. biased) view. It would appear to me that YOU are the one who actually has something to prove then, not me.
You're turning around the burden of proof.
I'm so very sorry. I really don't understand how I could've missed that.
--
Try to live without y'r cam
I've seen you use quite a lot of them in your posts here and it's starting to get annoying.
- Ad Hominem
- Non sequitur
- Straw man
- Red Herring
Nope, I actually can't, at least not based on your argumentation
See Non Sequitur above.
There is an extremely simple explanation for that:
I've been reading DPR for years now, and every now and then checked the forum.
The F50fd is the camera I've been interested in for a while now, because I've been looking for a good (near) ultra-compact to replace my Z3, which was too much of a compromise, as DSC-R1 companion. Since there was no DPR review of it a few months ago I visited the forums to find some info... and happend to run into a bunch of people condemning it to hell for no other reason than it having 12mp.
Since this was a completely one-sided view in my opinion I registered to comment.
But I guess that would make me a Fuji marketing person in your book wouldn't it?
So posting "your own thread" is a prerequisite for not being "suspect" of being a Fuji marketing figure in your book? You've just lost me completely.
See Non Sequitur above.
See Red Herring: posting arguments distracting from the original subject. You were going to respond to the wrongness of the points in my original post.
I happen to read (professional) reviews before I buy. I've read many positive ones on F50, including the latest one on DPR (what was actually what I was waiting for to make my final decision). I've seen it get many (Highly) Recommended's and several awards. I've seen it's sample pictures.
I think that's quite enough basis to conclude it IS a good camera.
Again a Red Herring (you were going to respond to my first post to show my claims wrong), complete with a non sequitur.
I don't have to post pics at all to provide 'evidence' that F50 is a good camera.
There are more then enough F50 sample pictures available on the web, including the reviews (and awards) that often come with them.
Besides, or better said: more importantly: YOU are the one appearantly rejecting the majority of the reviews on F50fd, including the DPR one, in favor of your own personal (and i.m.o. biased) view. It would appear to me that YOU are the one who actually has something to prove then, not me.
You're turning around the burden of proof.
Oh so your insinuation that I was a Fuji marketing figure, and the following negative comments regarding your own insinuation (deception etc. etc.) were actually meant in a positive way??
I'm so very sorry. I really don't understand how I could've missed that.
--
Try to live without y'r cam
Is this a Red Herring again?
If you actually take my above post seriously you might also want to look up sarcasm. The point was: based on your arguments for declaring me a fuji marketing man, we could declare anyone speaking out in favor of F50 a fuji marketing man... because appearantly in your mindset only fuji marketing people speak out in favor of F50.
Is this an incinuation that they gave F50 a HR so they would sell more of those?
Or am I getting a bit too suspicious here? ;-)
Oh, we've gone up from bad to average. That's an improvement.
I still wonder though where all those positive reviews and awards are coming from. All those reviewers must probably be plain crazy or at least completely uninformed, or maybe even all fuji marketing for giving a bar average camera that does nothing better than it's competition that amount of praise. Because you are right ofcourse.
Yup, must all be Fuji marketing now I think of it... all of them on the payroll. Who'd ever think Fuji would get so big they'd actually be owning many of the major photography sites and magazines worldwide.
What use is comparing photo's that were not taken under the same circumstances? Want usable comparisons? Read the reviews, especially the DPR one.
Oh, and also check into the ISO800 comparison of F50 and F31 @6mp ;-)
You might want to throw in an English reading comprehension course. You'd probably also want to add 'Comprehension of comparitive charts' while you're at it.
I'm not even going to respond to this...
If you'd try to get out of your very 'specific' mindset regarding what a good camera should be and re-read the review(s), plus my first post, plus posts from several others, also in the previous topic, you might start to get it. Possibly...
Thanks, I guess.
I will when I get my F50 in from Hong Kong (Ebay) and find the time.
Not that I'd expect that to change your mind though. If you dismiss - not just one but many - professional reviews as incomprehensible nonsense in favor of your own view, then who am I? ;-)
--
Try to live without y'r cam
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum