Reading mode: Light Dark

Another 602 Resolution Test!

Go to last post
B

Bill C

Veteran Member
Messages
3,093
Reaction score
0
Location
Leesport, PA, US
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5 Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with 1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  6. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test ... Better 1 or Better 2)

In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
 
bill C, nice pictures, very interesting to me because i just bought my 602 on the first of july and still trying to figure out what resolution to use. if i am seeing things correctly in the first 4 pictures the normal sharpening pictures were much better than the soft sharpening pictures which seemed fuzzy to me. i think i will be using normal sharpening for now. as far as the 3mp and the 6 mp i really had a hard time telling the differance between the two. maybe its my 50 year old eyes but for now i will be shooting 3mp. it would have been of great interest to me to see those first four pictures in hard sharpening. do you think that the jump from normal sharpening to hard sharpening would have been similar to the jump from soft sharpening to normal sharpening? thanks for the tests, again very interesting and informative.
Bill C said:
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I
wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5
Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various
resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal
sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine
Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and
up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp
fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with
1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE
with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for
portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital
darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the
points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled
to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  1. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET
quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while
it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes
are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test
... Better 1 or Better 2)
In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste
of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
Click to expand...
 
KATHERINE M. O. said:
KATHERINE M. O. said:
NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.
Click to expand...
What fires ? Texas has them too, New York more heat wave, etc...
Keep safe there !
love
Kath.
Click to expand...
I'm in Eastern PA - a good 500 miles from the fires. It seems that the wind direction, and a natural corridor has funneled the smoke from approx. 30 forest fires in Canada to the Eastern US....as far south as North Carolina. It's very strange. I can't imagine what the people in Arizona and Colorado (and Canada) are going thru.
Bill
 
bob mckelvey said:
bill C, nice pictures, very interesting to me because i just bought
my 602 on the first of july and still trying to figure out what
resolution to use. if i am seeing things correctly in the first 4
pictures the normal sharpening pictures were much better than the
soft sharpening pictures which seemed fuzzy to me. i think i will
be using normal sharpening for now. as far as the 3mp and the 6 mp
i really had a hard time telling the differance between the two.
maybe its my 50 year old eyes but for now i will be shooting 3mp.
it would have been of great interest to me to see those first four
pictures in hard sharpening. do you think that the jump from normal
sharpening to hard sharpening would have been similar to the jump
from soft sharpening to normal sharpening? thanks for the tests,
again very interesting and informative.
Click to expand...
Bob - I suggest that you take a couple of portraits at both settings (Normal and Soft) and compare the results for yourself. For me, I prefer the soft sharpening for people's faces, and because I can sharpen in the darkroom, I just normally shoot at the soft setting. I've also had a couple of 'strange' situations in which I used fill flash outdoors with Normal sharpening, and the 'edges' of faces just didn't look right. (I have more testing to do there). The test really started out testing the 1.5 tele lens and evolved into testing various resolutions/sharpening settings. I agree with you, however, that on most other shots (non-portrait), normal is better than soft (almost need a setting between soft and normal as normal can be too harsh in some shots).
(by the way - my eyes are 5 years older than yours!)
Bill
 
bill C, since you did not mention it , was just curious as to your thoughts on 6mp vs. 3mp. can you tell much differance between the two, and do you prefer one over the other or just depemds on the situation and use both 6mp and 3mp.
Bill C said:
bob mckelvey said:
bill C, nice pictures, very interesting to me because i just bought
my 602 on the first of july and still trying to figure out what
resolution to use. if i am seeing things correctly in the first 4
pictures the normal sharpening pictures were much better than the
soft sharpening pictures which seemed fuzzy to me. i think i will
be using normal sharpening for now. as far as the 3mp and the 6 mp
i really had a hard time telling the differance between the two.
maybe its my 50 year old eyes but for now i will be shooting 3mp.
it would have been of great interest to me to see those first four
pictures in hard sharpening. do you think that the jump from normal
sharpening to hard sharpening would have been similar to the jump
from soft sharpening to normal sharpening? thanks for the tests,
again very interesting and informative.
Click to expand...
Bob - I suggest that you take a couple of portraits at both
settings (Normal and Soft) and compare the results for yourself.
For me, I prefer the soft sharpening for people's faces, and
because I can sharpen in the darkroom, I just normally shoot at the
soft setting. I've also had a couple of 'strange' situations in
which I used fill flash outdoors with Normal sharpening, and the
'edges' of faces just didn't look right. (I have more testing to do
there). The test really started out testing the 1.5 tele lens and
evolved into testing various resolutions/sharpening settings. I
agree with you, however, that on most other shots (non-portrait),
normal is better than soft (almost need a setting between soft and
normal as normal can be too harsh in some shots).
(by the way - my eyes are 5 years older than yours!)
Bill
Click to expand...
 
We where Lucky, Montreal was covered with and eery yellow glow on sunday only, and Quebec city on monday onlyl. The winds have pushed the smoke flow out of populated area for now. It was the strangest thing, the sun was barely visible and daylight had a yellow tint to it. I wunder what people would have made of it a 100 year ago... Could have fueled lots of superstitions.

Unfortunately, no rain in sight and the wind changes over the fires have encouraged them to spread. Even water bombers are useless since the droped water evaporates before even reaching the flames. The good new is that the fires are well beond the populated areas.

Sorry for the smoke but mother nature knows no borders.

Peter Marina
Bill C said:
KATHERINE M. O. said:
Bill C said:
NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.
Click to expand...
What fires ? Texas has them too, New York more heat wave, etc...
Keep safe there !
love
Kath.
Click to expand...
I'm in Eastern PA - a good 500 miles from the fires. It seems that
the wind direction, and a natural corridor has funneled the smoke
from approx. 30 forest fires in Canada to the Eastern US....as far
south as North Carolina. It's very strange. I can't imagine what
the people in Arizona and Colorado (and Canada) are going thru.
Bill
Click to expand...
--
Peter Marina
 
PS: Wish I had received my camera... could have been an interesting light to experiment with.
Peter Marina said:
Unfortunately, no rain in sight and the wind changes over the fires
have encouraged them to spread. Even water bombers are useless
since the droped water evaporates before even reaching the flames.
The good new is that the fires are well beond the populated areas.

Sorry for the smoke but mother nature knows no borders.

Peter Marina
Bill C said:
KATHERINE M. O. said:
Peter Marina said:
NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.
Click to expand...
What fires ? Texas has them too, New York more heat wave, etc...
Keep safe there !
love
Kath.
Click to expand...
I'm in Eastern PA - a good 500 miles from the fires. It seems that
the wind direction, and a natural corridor has funneled the smoke
from approx. 30 forest fires in Canada to the Eastern US....as far
south as North Carolina. It's very strange. I can't imagine what
the people in Arizona and Colorado (and Canada) are going thru.
Bill
Click to expand...
--
Peter Marina
Click to expand...
--
Peter Marina
 
Sorry folks; I don't own any digital camera yet. But lets face it, no amount of manipulaton will

give this camera an 4mp look! I would have loved to buy this camera, but without the 4mp, it just can't compare with any of the other competitors today. Fuji blew it; they improved the camera yes; but forgot the most important elmement- 4mps.........just my opinion.

I got to play with it and liked the overall feel; I lement the fact that I won't be buying. Looking now at Nikon 4500 and even the Sony s85 and now Olympus came out with the C-4000z model under 500 dollars.
Bill C said:
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I
wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5
Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various
resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal
sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine
Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and
up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp
fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with
1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE
with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for
portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital
darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the
points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled
to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  1. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET
quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while
it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes
are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test
... Better 1 or Better 2)
In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste
of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
Click to expand...
 
Jon008 said:
Sorry folks; I don't own any digital camera yet.
Click to expand...
It's obvious you have a lot to learn...
Jon L said:
But lets face it,
no amount of manipulaton will
give this camera an 4mp look!
Click to expand...
Huh? Here's a Fuji vs Sony 4Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1688970/original

It seems you've fallen into the newbie trap of believing CCD pixel count necessarily equates to actual image resolution.

Fuji 3Mp vs Minolta 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1718209/original

Fuji 3Mp vs Nikon 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/mu/nikon_5mp_vs_fuji_3mp
Jon L said:
I would have loved to buy this
camera, but without the 4mp, it just can't compare with any of the
other competitors today. Fuji blew it; they improved the camera
yes; but forgot the most important elmement- 4mps.........just my
opinion.
I got to play with it and liked the overall feel; I lement the fact
that I won't be buying. Looking now at Nikon 4500 and even the Sony
s85 and now Olympus came out with the C-4000z model under 500
dollars.
Bill C said:
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I
wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5
Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various
resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal
sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine
Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and
up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp
fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with
1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE
with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for
portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital
darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the
points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled
to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  1. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET
quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while
it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes
are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test
... Better 1 or Better 2)
In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste
of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh and john008 if 2 camera's were absolutely equal and 1 had 5MP and the other 2MP there would be no difference at all at a print size of 15x10 cm that is 6x4 inches. Or if you prefer on screen at for example 1280x1024. No difference neither.

The only thing MP's do is allow larger prints and more cropping. For picture quality it does nothing.

And a 3MPis excellent for A4 or 10x8 do you print larger?? And if you do from what distance do you watch this when it hangs on your wall? As from normal distance viewing an A3 or 11.7x16.5 inches will be undistinguishable between identical cameras one with 3MP and the other with 6MP. From closeby you'll see a difference here but how many times do you watch a picture like this? Yes once the first time you see the print then you hang it to a wall and never will see the difference anymore.

Actually fuji didn't blew it the people believeing more MP is better blew it.

For 90% of people 3MP is enough. Fuji just made the best camera at that size but yes seeing that alot of people believe more MP's is better maybe fuji blew it marketingwise but not qualitywise.

Oh and resolution wise here are the numbers by Phil

G2 (about the best 4MP available):

Horizontal 1250
vertical 1200
diagonal 1000

602

Horizontal 1200
Vretical 1200
diagonal 900

And by the way horizontal and vertical are the most important here. Major difference hey LOL. 50pixels or the 602 has 96 % of the resolution of the G2 Wow you really need a 4MP :-))

--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/

PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
 
Yes, I have a lot to learn? But at least I'm not delusional; I've done lots of research on my own and well, you believe what you like. But I won't be buying the Fuji.

And yes I know that 3mp to 4mp is for making a larger image and thats what I'm after; not 8x10 or less and thats what you will get with Fuji and thats okay for some-but not for me.

Why all the urls; you really think the test were even? Common, take them straight from camera on both-don't give me manipulated images from photoshop and try and sell me that 3mp is better than 5mp.
I guess everyone who doesn't buy that one is just plain ignorant, right?
I'm not here to convince anyone; just disappointed in Fuji.
Jared Hunter said:
Jon008 said:
Sorry folks; I don't own any digital camera yet.
Click to expand...
It's obvious you have a lot to learn...
Jared Hunter said:
But lets face it,
no amount of manipulaton will
give this camera an 4mp look!
Click to expand...
Huh? Here's a Fuji vs Sony 4Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1688970/original

It seems you've fallen into the newbie trap of believing CCD pixel
count necessarily equates to actual image resolution.

Fuji 3Mp vs Minolta 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1718209/original

Fuji 3Mp vs Nikon 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/mu/nikon_5mp_vs_fuji_3mp
Jared Hunter said:
I would have loved to buy this
camera, but without the 4mp, it just can't compare with any of the
other competitors today. Fuji blew it; they improved the camera
yes; but forgot the most important elmement- 4mps.........just my
opinion.
I got to play with it and liked the overall feel; I lement the fact
that I won't be buying. Looking now at Nikon 4500 and even the Sony
s85 and now Olympus came out with the C-4000z model under 500
dollars.
Bill C said:
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I
wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5
Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various
resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal
sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine
Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and
up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp
fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with
1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE
with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for
portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital
darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the
points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled
to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  1. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET
quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while
it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes
are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test
... Better 1 or Better 2)
In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste
of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bob mckelvey said:
bill C, since you did not mention it , was just curious as to your
thoughts on 6mp vs. 3mp. can you tell much differance between the
two, and do you prefer one over the other or just depemds on the
situation and use both 6mp and 3mp.
Bill C wrote:
Click to expand...
I think I confused myself with the test! I guess the point is - if I can 'create' a 6mp from a 3mp shot that is almost as good as the 'original' 6mp shot (do not intend to generate another thread about whether or not the 602 is a 3mp or 6mp camera!) then IF storage was a concern (long vacation, etc) then why not shoot at 3mp. So far, I am very happy with the quality of the 3mp shots and about half of them are taken at normal, and half at soft.... I guess it 'just depends'. I can't tell much difference (of course, my monitor is 6 years old!).... I'll update you if I run more tests.... I guess it boils down to personal preference .
Bill
 
It was merely a direct response to your statement:
"But lets face it, no amount of manipulaton will give this camera an 4mp look!"

Nothing more, nothing less. Many like to make sweeping generalizations without providing anything to back up their statements. Talk is cheap. At least I try to make an effort to illustrate the point I'm making. You are free to agree or disagree.
Jon008 said:
Jared Hunter said:
Jon008 said:
Sorry folks; I don't own any digital camera yet.
Click to expand...
It's obvious you have a lot to learn...
Jon L said:
But lets face it,
no amount of manipulaton will
give this camera an 4mp look!
Click to expand...
Huh? Here's a Fuji vs Sony 4Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1688970/original

It seems you've fallen into the newbie trap of believing CCD pixel
count necessarily equates to actual image resolution.

Fuji 3Mp vs Minolta 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/image/1718209/original

Fuji 3Mp vs Nikon 5Mp:
http://www.pbase.com/mu/nikon_5mp_vs_fuji_3mp
Jon L said:
I would have loved to buy this
camera, but without the 4mp, it just can't compare with any of the
other competitors today. Fuji blew it; they improved the camera
yes; but forgot the most important elmement- 4mps.........just my
opinion.
I got to play with it and liked the overall feel; I lement the fact
that I won't be buying. Looking now at Nikon 4500 and even the Sony
s85 and now Olympus came out with the C-4000z model under 500
dollars.
Bill C said:
Yes, just what the world needs - another 602 resolution test! I
wanted to continue of the testing of the Fuji 602 with the 1.5
Tele Conversion Lens, and I decided to also test various
resolutions. Specifically, I wanted to test 3mp Fine Normal
sharpening, 3mp Fine Soft sharpening, 6mp Fine Normal, 6mp Fine
Soft. Also to be tested was taking a 3mp Fine Soft picture and
up-sample it to 6mp and apply sharpening and compare it to the 6mp
fine Normal shot.

Test Settings: ISO 200; Aperature Priority F11; All Taken with
1.5X Tele Lens. Tripod

NOTE: We are still feeling/seeing the effects of the smoke from
Canadian forest fires! So, the shots may be a bit 'foggy'.

What's my results of all of this? I will probably use 3mp FINE
with SOFT sharpening as my default. Soft focus seems ideal for
portraits and other shots can be sharpened/resized in the digital
darkroom. I suggest that you concentrate on the wagon as one of the
points of reference. There are six shots in this test:
  1. 1 - 3MP FINE - NORMAL Sharpening (1.1MB)
  2. 2 - 3MP FINE - SOFT (1.1MB)
  3. 3 - 6MP FINE - NORMAL (2.2MB)
  4. 4 - 6MP FINE - SOFT (2.2MB)
  5. 5 - I took #2 (3MP Soft) and applied some sharpening and upsampled
to 6MP size using the Lanczos 3 algorithm. (1.8MB)
  1. 6 - I took #4 (6MP Soft) and applied sharpening and saved JPGET
quality 90 (1.7MB)
I suppose I should run a 6MP Normal test as well, but for a while
it appears that I will shoot at 3MP Fine Soft. (Besides, my eyes
are getting tired from looking at pixels! It's like an eye test
... Better 1 or Better 2)
In case you are interested in looking at the results of this (waste
of time?, obsession?):

http://www.pbase.com/coughlin47/fuji_602_resolution_test

Bill
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
slipstream said:
And by the way horizontal and vertical are the most important here.
Major difference hey LOL. 50pixels or the 602 has 96 % of the
resolution of the G2 Wow you really need a 4MP :-))
Click to expand...
Very misleading. That is fuji marketing talking there. Horizontal and vertical are more prevalent in the world, not more important. If you make the fuji tradeoff, you get more artifacts for a tiny increase in H&V aligned resolution. Not a tradeoff worth making IMO. This is much worse than saying more pixels is better.

Bottom line is about image quality and after seeing a large number of G2 galleries, which were stunning from day one, I rank the 602 below the G2 in terms of image quality. Nothing to do with its tiny pixel advantage.

Surprisingly the G2 does this with a smaller sensor with much smaller individual sensors due to the combination of smaller sensor, more pixels packed in the smaller space and, if you believe Fuji, the poor fill factor (fuji neglects to mention microlenses compensate nicely).

A summary can be seen on page 13 of the Fuji 602 where the cameras are compared.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis602z/page13.asp

Or perhaps look at the galleries for each cameras review.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/fujis602z_samples/
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canong2_samples1/

Or the 15sec exposure night shots:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujiS602Z/Samples/Night/DSCF0011.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong2/Samples/Night/IMG_0238.jpg

From the galleries of G2/602/6900 images I have seen, I would say this is a fair representation of the differences. If they don't matter to you that is fine. They do matter to me. It also indicates to me that superCCD is no better than plain old normal CCD.

Peter
 
Interesting.

I used the 6mp soft and downsampled (sharpened variously) and compared to the 3mp camera images.

I really didn't notice much differnce between 6mp soft downsized or 3mp soft camera.

But it is clear the "sharpening" algorithm in the camera is largely responsible for a lot of the wierdness in landscape images. It tries to do sharpening and smoothing at the same time, with not so good results IMO.

I think it is important to permanently turn off the in-camera sharpening with this camera. The images then lightly sharpened externally will have a little more noise, but look much more natural (not so much water-colour look).

I would be interested in seeing a soft landscape on a clear day...
 
Sorry fella, you can post all the numbers you want; but my bet is no one is going ot pick

an 2mp over a 5mp????? My eyes do not lie to me; the difference is quite apparent. Of course I'm coming from film cameras and have 25 years of experience. But I'm falrly new to digital, since I don't own a DC as of yet. But will soon.

First I like prints about 10x12 and clearity is absolutely critical. And I'm sorry if you bought the camera and a feel I'm attacking you; i'm not, just stating I expected more from Fuji and I did say some nice things about the camera, but the image quality is just not acceptable to me. There are cheaper or same priced DC that are of better quality than 3mp and I will continue to look.
SlipStream said:
Oh and john008 if 2 camera's were absolutely equal and 1 had 5MP
and the other 2MP there would be no difference at all at a print
size of 15x10 cm that is 6x4 inches. Or if you prefer on screen at
for example 1280x1024. No difference neither.

The only thing MP's do is allow larger prints and more cropping.
For picture quality it does nothing.

And a 3MPis excellent for A4 or 10x8 do you print larger?? And if
you do from what distance do you watch this when it hangs on your
wall? As from normal distance viewing an A3 or 11.7x16.5 inches
will be undistinguishable between identical cameras one with 3MP
and the other with 6MP. From closeby you'll see a difference here
but how many times do you watch a picture like this? Yes once the
first time you see the print then you hang it to a wall and never
will see the difference anymore.

Actually fuji didn't blew it the people believeing more MP is
better blew it.
For 90% of people 3MP is enough. Fuji just made the best camera at
that size but yes seeing that alot of people believe more MP's is
better maybe fuji blew it marketingwise but not qualitywise.

Oh and resolution wise here are the numbers by Phil

G2 (about the best 4MP available):

Horizontal 1250
vertical 1200
diagonal 1000

602

Horizontal 1200
Vretical 1200
diagonal 900

And by the way horizontal and vertical are the most important here.
Major difference hey LOL. 50pixels or the 602 has 96 % of the
resolution of the G2 Wow you really need a 4MP :-))

--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/

PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
Click to expand...
 
Peter Guidry said:
Interesting.

I used the 6mp soft and downsampled (sharpened variously) and
compared to the 3mp camera images.

I really didn't notice much differnce between 6mp soft downsized or
3mp soft camera.

But it is clear the "sharpening" algorithm in the camera is largely
responsible for a lot of the wierdness in landscape images. It
tries to do sharpening and smoothing at the same time, with not so
good results IMO.

I think it is important to permanently turn off the in-camera
sharpening with this camera. The images then lightly sharpened
externally will have a little more noise, but look much more
natural (not so much water-colour look).

I would be interested in seeing a soft landscape on a clear day...
Click to expand...
Peter - thanks for the observations, and I tend to agree with you, although I really haven't done any test shots of landscape to notice the 'weirdness', however, I am now experimenting with flash shots, as I had a strange group shot with fill flash in an outdoors setting. (a couple of people had very 'rough edges' to their chins! I don't know if this was due to the camera sharpening or not - all I know is that I've had some very good results with portraits taken at 3mp fine, soft sharpening)
Thanks,
Bill
 
Jon008 said:
Sorry fella, you can post all the numbers you want; but my bet is
no one is going ot pick
an 2mp over a 5mp????? My eyes do not lie to me; the difference is
quite apparent. Of course I'm coming from film cameras and have 25
years of experience. But I'm falrly new to digital, since I don't
own a DC as of yet. But will soon.
First I like prints about 10x12 and clearity is absolutely
critical. And I'm sorry if you bought the camera and a feel I'm
attacking you; i'm not, just stating I expected more from Fuji and
I did say some nice things about the camera, but the image quality
is just not acceptable to me. There are cheaper or same priced DC
that are of better quality than 3mp and I will continue to look.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comments, I do respect your opinion. Good luck finding your ideal camera. I too have 25 years with film (definitely not a pro however!), and the 602 is my 4th digital -and it meets the majority of my requirements and it obviously does not meet your requirements, so life goes on.
Thanks again,
Bill
 
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