Reading mode: Light Dark

Another Fuji F200EXR review....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raist3d
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
R

Raist3d

Guest
Check out the nominal DR vs 800% DR shots - wow! Just roll over the mouse. Scroll down the page to see them.

http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_amater/Prvni-zkusenosti-Fuji-F200EXR.html

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Took me a second to figure it out....with my slower connection, I had to hold the cursor on the photo for a bit. Hard to say for sure with those small pics, but what you can see looks promising! Thanks for the link
 
Rog55 said:
Took me a second to figure it out....with my slower connection, I
had to hold the cursor on the photo for a bit. Hard to say for sure
with those small pics, but what you can see looks promising! Thanks
for the link
Click to expand...
--
below the pics there is the link to the full size photos
 
I just got my F710 fixed, but I think the F200 might have to be my next digital camera (once the price comes down a bit), and assuming the reviews are consistent. These test shots certainly appear to confirm the benefits of the new sensor...

The outdoor scenes with higher DR (i.e. where the sky isn't 'blown') are good, though it looks to me like they're actually slightly less exposed too, but the two other shots at full size - particularly the one through the arch - are really impressive. Again it looks like they have marginally less exposure, but that's well worth it given all the detail preserved in the highlights. And there doesn't appear to be any increase in noise.

IRC people have suggested that the higher DR is achieved by bumping up the ISO and therefore increasing noise - I don't see evidence of that here. In fact you can download the full size jpegs and the Exif info is intact. Looking at the interior shot both pictures were captured with virtually identical settings.

I still think it's a shame they've stuck it all into an F100 case, and there might still be some useful manual options missing (e.g. focus), but it's looking like a very good camera.
Raist3d said:
Check out the nominal DR vs 800% DR shots - wow! Just roll over the
mouse. Scroll down the page to see them.

http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_amater/Prvni-zkusenosti-Fuji-F200EXR.html

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which
there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
Click to expand...
 
I've looked at the Czech site (in translation). It's clear that the "DR=100%" has blown highlights, and the "DR=800%" does not (to best see this, you have to download the shots, by clicking "HERE").

Still, I don't see that this couldn't be accomplished by underexposing (e.g. setting EV to -0.3 or lower) on a "normal" point-and-shoot.

--
Bob Yanal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/
http://web.me.com/ryanal
 
Thanks for this, we have seen it before.

These are certainly better demonstrations of DR than anything else we have seen so far. However, all the enhancements have involved a slight darkening of dark areas, maybe -1/4 stop. Also, with the arch/tunnel shot the far end is not completely blown nor is it in bright sunlight, so I reckon I could probably preserve the highlights here by dialling between -2/3 or -1.0 EV.

Would you agree, and is this the level of improvement you expected?

Nick
 
Member said:
Raist3d wrote:
Check out the nominal DR vs 800% DR shots - wow! Just roll over the
mouse. Scroll down the page to see them.

http://www.fotografovani.cz/art/forec_amater/Prvni-zkusenosti-Fuji-F200EXR.html
Click to expand...
Looking at the full sized images, I really have to change my scepticism towards the new sensor. They look phenomenal and much better than any previous samples. I hope these samples images are true and that the real world performance matches them.

--
pics: http://www.pbase.com/arn
 
I wish I could have fixed mine!

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
After we underexpose a picture, what is next? Process it in the computer to get details in the dark area? Well, many P&S user never do any post processing so your suggestion is not useful to them.

Moreover, even you don't mind using post processing, it needs time to process hundreds of photos that were underexposed.

This is a P&S camera which mean we should be able to just point and shoot and get a good result (without any further post processing).
Bob Yanal said:
I've looked at the Czech site (in translation). It's clear that the
"DR=100%" has blown highlights, and the "DR=800%" does not (to best
see this, you have to download the shots, by clicking "HERE").

Still, I don't see that this couldn't be accomplished by
underexposing (e.g. setting EV to -0.3 or lower) on a "normal"
point-and-shoot.

--
Bob Yanal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/
http://web.me.com/ryanal
Click to expand...
 
Rockchan said:
Moreover, even you don't mind using post processing, it needs time to
process hundreds of photos that were underexposed.

This is a P&S camera which mean we should be able to just point and
shoot and get a good result (without any further post processing).
Bob Yanal said:
I've looked at the Czech site (in translation). It's clear that the
"DR=100%" has blown highlights, and the "DR=800%" does not (to best
see this, you have to download the shots, by clicking "HERE").

Still, I don't see that this couldn't be accomplished by
underexposing (e.g. setting EV to -0.3 or lower) on a "normal"
point-and-shoot.

--
Bob Yanal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/
http://web.me.com/ryanal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think Bob and Nick (earlier post) have a fair point. The DR800% shots are less exposed than their DR100% counterparts (at least on the two I examined), and of course that's going to result in less blown out highlights. They're just asking if the sensor technology can take credit for it or are we achieving nothing more than what we would do if we just set a negative exposure on our current cameras.

Doing this would result in loss of detail in dark areas of course - and interestingly enough that is exactly what we see in these DR800% shots. You gain a lot in the highlights but you also lose a bit in the shadows. And increased noise is also very evident in the DR800% shots.

As such it doesn't really seem much different to what I already have with the DR on my F100FD. Presumably it gives better results, but it looks more evolutionary rather than revolutionary to me.

So while at first glance these shots looked very promising, on closer inspection I'd have to say the jury is still out. Looking forward to seeing some comparison shots with the F100FD when it's released.
 
--

In fact in the exemple 1&2 it seems that the DR800% picture is a bit more noisy, but in the exemple 3&4 it is less noisy!
 
Gwen22 said:
--
In fact in the exemple 1&2 it seems that the DR800% picture is a bit
more noisy, but in the exemple 3&4 it is less noisy!
Click to expand...
Actually in 1 and 2 the DR800% images are taken at ISO200, whereas the DR100% images are ISO100! Doesn't make is easy to give a fair comparison on these.

On 3 and 4 they are the same ISO.
 
David B Burnette said:
I think Bob and Nick (earlier post) have a fair point. The DR800%
shots are less exposed than their DR100% counterparts (at least on
the two I examined), and of course that's going to result in less
blown out highlights.
Click to expand...
There doesn't seem to be a substantial loss of detail or increase in noise in the shadow areas of the last two sets (the interior and the tunnel) where the ISO is the same. They are lesser exposed compared to the DR100% shots, but I'd say they are appropriately exposed, not underexposed. The detail as actually better in the dark areas of the DR800% interior shot vs. the DR100%, though probably due to better focus. And the darker blue starry field on the roof of the tunnel looks better to me in the DR800% shot.
David B Burnette said:
They're just asking if the sensor technology
can take credit for it or are we achieving nothing more than what we
would do if we just set a negative exposure on our current cameras.
Click to expand...
I see enough to convince me it isn't just setting a slight negative exposure.
David B Burnette said:
You gain a lot in the highlights but you also lose a bit in the shadows.
Click to expand...
Well, even by your judgment, that's a lot versus a little. By my eyes, the shadows about 0.3 EV darker or less depending on the scene, and you gain at least 1 EV in the highlights. Overall, there is benefit for sure, maybe 1 EV, maybe more. Dial in +0.3 EV, and there probably won't be any loss in detail or noise gain in the shadows, and overexposure in the highlights will still be greatly reduced (though the balance seems good as shown).
David B Burnette said:
So while at first glance these shots looked very promising, on closer
inspection I'd have to say the jury is still out.
Click to expand...
The Czech first look report seems direct, fairly well written (even in translation), and the samples with exifs are there. I won't discount it just because it wasn't written in English.
 
David B Burnette said:
Actually in 1 and 2 the DR800% images are taken at ISO200, whereas
the DR100% images are ISO100! Doesn't make is easy to give a fair
comparison on these.

On 3 and 4 they are the same ISO.
Click to expand...
--
I miss the Exif , thx for this precision David.

For me every thing is clear now, it's enough to convinced me to buy one F200 EXR as soon as it wil reach the shelves.................... I just hope I will not have to wait to long because here in France we have no news about the releasing date.
 
Also, even if you were to accept the 'underexposed' argument the point is that the camera has exposed to get the best result from the scene in the first place, which is what you want to happen rather than having to compensate manually (which from my understanding is not easily achievable through the menus on the F100).

I think the indoor shot is the most interesting and suitable for comparisons - as far as I can see the differences in exposure and settings are negligible, but the resulting image with DR 800% captured a lot more detail in the highlight. I'm not convinced that loss of detail or additional noise, if any, in the darker areas is a major concern.

I still want to see more reviews, but I think it's looking very good indeed.

And I was amazed at how well that article translated into English - usually automatic translation is appalling, but it actually looked like proper English :)
bzzz said:
David B Burnette said:
I think Bob and Nick (earlier post) have a fair point. The DR800%
shots are less exposed than their DR100% counterparts (at least on
the two I examined), and of course that's going to result in less
blown out highlights.
Click to expand...
There doesn't seem to be a substantial loss of detail or increase in
noise in the shadow areas of the last two sets (the interior and the
tunnel) where the ISO is the same. They are lesser exposed compared
to the DR100% shots, but I'd say they are appropriately exposed, not
underexposed. The detail as actually better in the dark areas of the
DR800% interior shot vs. the DR100%, though probably due to better
focus. And the darker blue starry field on the roof of the tunnel
looks better to me in the DR800% shot.
bzzz said:
They're just asking if the sensor technology
can take credit for it or are we achieving nothing more than what we
would do if we just set a negative exposure on our current cameras.
Click to expand...
I see enough to convince me it isn't just setting a slight negative
exposure.
bzzz said:
You gain a lot in the highlights but you also lose a bit in the shadows.
Click to expand...
Well, even by your judgment, that's a lot versus a little. By my
eyes, the shadows about 0.3 EV darker or less depending on the scene,
and you gain at least 1 EV in the highlights. Overall, there is
benefit for sure, maybe 1 EV, maybe more. Dial in +0.3 EV, and there
probably won't be any loss in detail or noise gain in the shadows,
and overexposure in the highlights will still be greatly reduced
(though the balance seems good as shown).
bzzz said:
So while at first glance these shots looked very promising, on closer
inspection I'd have to say the jury is still out.
Click to expand...
The Czech first look report seems direct, fairly well written (even
in translation), and the samples with exifs are there. I won't
discount it just because it wasn't written in English.
Click to expand...
 
David B Burnette said:
Rockchan said:
Moreover, even you don't mind using post processing, it needs time to
process hundreds of photos that were underexposed.

This is a P&S camera which mean we should be able to just point and
shoot and get a good result (without any further post processing).
Bob Yanal said:
I've looked at the Czech site (in translation). It's clear that the
"DR=100%" has blown highlights, and the "DR=800%" does not (to best
see this, you have to download the shots, by clicking "HERE").

Still, I don't see that this couldn't be accomplished by
underexposing (e.g. setting EV to -0.3 or lower) on a "normal"
point-and-shoot.

--
Bob Yanal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16445975@N05/
http://web.me.com/ryanal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think Bob and Nick (earlier post) have a fair point. The DR800%
shots are less exposed than their DR100% counterparts (at least on
the two I examined), and of course that's going to result in less
blown out highlights. They're just asking if the sensor technology
can take credit for it or are we achieving nothing more than what we
would do if we just set a negative exposure on our current cameras.

Doing this would result in loss of detail in dark areas of course -
and interestingly enough that is exactly what we see in these DR800%
shots. You gain a lot in the highlights but you also lose a bit in
the shadows. And increased noise is also very evident in the DR800%
shots.

As such it doesn't really seem much different to what I already have
with the DR on my F100FD. Presumably it gives better results, but it
looks more evolutionary rather than revolutionary to me.

So while at first glance these shots looked very promising, on closer
inspection I'd have to say the jury is still out. Looking forward to
seeing some comparison shots with the F100FD when it's released.
Click to expand...
No, the dark parts are -0,33 exposd, but the lights are -1,75
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
n
Next
w
Next unread
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