Major Disappointment with Fuji and S2

Paul Caldwell said:

However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image.

Click to expand...

Paul F Caldwell said:

You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas.

Click to expand...

Paul F Caldwell said:

Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details.

Click to expand...

Paul F Caldwell said:

To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Paul F Caldwell said:

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

Click to expand...

Paul F Caldwell said:

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan said:

Paul Caldwell said:

However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the ?patter or track? noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe?s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you haven't seen it in your D1x. If you search the
Nikon SLR threads you'll find a number of folk who talked about
seeing patterned and lines of noise running in shadow areas,
especially if you used Bibble or QImage to run a 10mp file as
output. Patterned noise tends to be prevalent in deep shadow of all
digital cameras. The pattern is because of the Bayer filter
array--at the low end margin the signal/noise ratio in the blue and
sometimes red photosites can be quite high, definitely higher than
in the green photosites. This low-end noise is one of the reasons
why I say that the digital cameras only have 6-7 stops of USABLE
dynamic range, even though most tests you'd run would tend to
suggest that the cameras have 7-8. I can't say for sure where the
S2 is in dynamic range and noise, since I've only just returned my
prototype body for a production version. The D1x and D100 are
nearly identical and tend not to show shadow noise unless you apply
to aggressive a curve to the output.

Thom Hogan said:

You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas.

Click to expand...

It's in the underexposed areas because the signal is low while
noise stays consistent. Thus, in shadow areas, the signal:noise
ratio is low.

Thom Hogan said:

Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can?t recover
the details.

Click to expand...

Yep. Because noise won't be equal in each photosite, it's like a
moire fringe, and very difficult to remove.

Thom Hogan said:

To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Which is why I've been repeating what I've said about film
previously: you have to control contrast in the field. At the
highlight end, you've got polarizers and graduated neutral density
filters. In the shadow end, you need fill flash or reflectors. As
my late mentor Galen Rowell used to say: you've got to learn to see
like the medium you're using. If your film can only record 6 stops
of information (slide film would be 5-6 stops, depending upon who
you ask and what emulsion you're using), then you'd better make
sure that that's all you let through the lens.

Thom Hogan said:

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

Click to expand...

That may be more of a semantic miscommunication. I'm sure Fuji
knows that signal:noise deterioates at the low end of the camera.
They may simply be saying that the camera is operating as designed.

Thom Hogan said:

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not an impartial party since I've done work for Fuji, but
I think you'd get the same answer from Nikon. Or Canon. Or any
other manufacturer's tech support team. At least in my experience.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan said:

Paul Caldwell said:

However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you haven't seen it in your D1x. If you search the
Nikon SLR threads you'll find a number of folk who talked about
seeing patterned and lines of noise running in shadow areas,
especially if you used Bibble or QImage to run a 10mp file as
output. Patterned noise tends to be prevalent in deep shadow of all
digital cameras. The pattern is because of the Bayer filter
array--at the low end margin the signal/noise ratio in the blue and
sometimes red photosites can be quite high, definitely higher than
in the green photosites. This low-end noise is one of the reasons
why I say that the digital cameras only have 6-7 stops of USABLE
dynamic range, even though most tests you'd run would tend to
suggest that the cameras have 7-8. I can't say for sure where the
S2 is in dynamic range and noise, since I've only just returned my
prototype body for a production version. The D1x and D100 are
nearly identical and tend not to show shadow noise unless you apply
to aggressive a curve to the output.

Thom Hogan said:

You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas.

Click to expand...

It's in the underexposed areas because the signal is low while
noise stays consistent. Thus, in shadow areas, the signal:noise
ratio is low.

Thom Hogan said:

Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details.

Click to expand...

Yep. Because noise won't be equal in each photosite, it's like a
moire fringe, and very difficult to remove.

Thom Hogan said:

To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Which is why I've been repeating what I've said about film
previously: you have to control contrast in the field. At the
highlight end, you've got polarizers and graduated neutral density
filters. In the shadow end, you need fill flash or reflectors. As
my late mentor Galen Rowell used to say: you've got to learn to see
like the medium you're using. If your film can only record 6 stops
of information (slide film would be 5-6 stops, depending upon who
you ask and what emulsion you're using), then you'd better make
sure that that's all you let through the lens.

Thom Hogan said:

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

Click to expand...

That may be more of a semantic miscommunication. I'm sure Fuji
knows that signal:noise deterioates at the low end of the camera.
They may simply be saying that the camera is operating as designed.

Thom Hogan said:

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not an impartial party since I've done work for Fuji, but
I think you'd get the same answer from Nikon. Or Canon. Or any
other manufacturer's tech support team. At least in my experience.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Click to expand...

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don’t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

D100 were unproven as
fars as image quality was concerned.

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don?t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the ?patter or track? noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe?s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can?t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

without looking...

Click to expand...

Uwe Steinmueller said:

Member said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

Click to expand...

Was in short supply before the D100 and S2 came out. Shot supply
can be high demand and/or low production.

Member said:

D100 were unproven as
fars as image quality was concerned.

Click to expand...

The D100 builds on the experience of the very proven D1 and D1x.

Member said:

Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Click to expand...

Where did you get that. The AA filter of the D60 is about as strong
as the one in the D100 (both have strong AA) and the S2 has a less
agressive AA.There is no right or wrong, just different trade-offs.

Click to expand...

Member said:

This is not a critique of the D60 by any means but the D100 and S2
are in the same league.

Uwe

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don?t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the ?patter or track? noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe?s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can?t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don’t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Robert M said:

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don’t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don’t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

Ultimately it's image quality that counts. Of the trio D60, D100,
S2, the D60 was a known quantity - ultra smooth images, improving
upon the well known D30. The other 2 - D100, S2 were unproven as
fars as image quality was concerned. Unfortunately, many jumped
without looking...

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Click to expand...

Mike Russell said:

John,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3322210

The D100, S2 and D60 are all pretty damned good Camera's. I
appreciate the fact that you like your D60 and feel it is the best
to be had. However post like yours bring absolutely no value and
help no one.

Paul is bringing up a concern regarding some pattern Noise in the
under-exposed area's of his shots. The issue has been noticed by a
few people. This does not mean in anyway everyone is having a
problem. Is it a major issue? I don't think so.. After Reading
Thoms reply I think it just enforces that one has to learn and
understand there tools.

After reading your posts I know you love Your D60 and apparently
hate all others. I suppose you probably love Nike and refuse to
wear Rebok, oh and eat at McDonalds and refuse to try Burger King,
Drink Coke and Hate Pepsi...

Click to expand...

Mike Russell said:

Get over your Brand loyalty, read the reviews and you will know all
three Camera's (as mentioned above) are great tools. I happy you
have a d60, I am happy with my S2... I really like the fact that
quality of my S2 images can be better though (not to say that I am
a better photographer).

Mike

John Davis said:

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Paul Caldwell said:

I wanted to wait a day before I posted this information. Some may
ask if I want some cheese with my whine, and I understand. However
when you consider that 2400.00 is not a small piece of change, I
figure some people out there may want to know this.

Since I have owned my S2, I have been overall greatly impressed by
the image quality in that I have shot the D1x 15 months now and
several digital bodies before that for 4 years. Before that I
worked with film for at least 20 years. I have been always been in
an amateur with photography, in that I don’t use it for my primary
source of income. I have sold some of my work over the years, but
never in a large scale. I can also say that these last 4 years
have been by far the most interesting as the technology has grown
in leaps and bounds.

I understand that all new products will undergo teething troubles;
however I also expect that the company will attempt to address the
concerns if they are valid, and not deny them.

Since the S2 was released, there have some concerns over various
design issues and the like. Really not much has been said out
overall image faults. However over the last two weeks various
people have noticed the “patter or track” noise that the S2 can
produce in certain images. Please check out http://www.outbackphoto.com
and look at the 09/01/02 entry in Uwe’s S2 diary. Since this noise
is presented in a pattern or series of tracks it is very damaging
to the overall image. You can almost always see it in areas of an
image that were underexposed. I see it in my work in leaves or
water areas. Sometimes it can be removed, but many times the
removal process will damage the image enough that you can’t recover
the details. To assume that you can always get the perfect
exposure every time, is a wrong assumption, especially in outdoor
work. Many times, I am faced with a situation where I have to
underexpose an image to keep certain highlights from blowing out,
knowing that I have several methods to recover or combine later in
Photoshop.

As an attempt to assist Fuji with this problem, I complied a very
detailed listing of images and wrote a very detailed explanation of
the problem, i.e. how best to find it. This package was delivered
to their tech support group. I was told yesterday that no one at
Fuji was able to see the problem period. Now I know the image I
sent had the effect and others have reported it on this forum and
other sites. I have to say that to have a company just deny an
issue exists is pretty disappointing. I can reproduce it anytime
with my camera.

I wanted to post this so others will be both aware of the problem
and be aware of how callous a company like Fuji can be.

Paul Caldwell
[email protected]

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rinus said:

I believe that the trcak noise in my camera is a MAJOR issue. I do
not mean to say that it is an issue for most but I for one intend
to use film/digital for its announced capabilities. If I have to
let go of a good dynamic range because the algoriths do not live up
to their promised specs, I am not the one with the problem, Fuji
is. It proves that there is an issue with ordinary use of this
CCD/processor combination that sells under the Fuji name.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Rinus of Calgary

Click to expand...

Anthony Medici said:

I don't know of any digital camera that doesn't have a number of
problems. If I took your suggestion, are you saying I won't have
ANY problems? I guess the issues my brother is having with the D60
are in his imagination and he shouldn't be considering returning
the D60 for one of the other cameras. At least, when he is able to
get a good image with the camera, the image is smooth. (What ever
that is?)

OBTW, I didn't jump without looking and I find it insulting that
since I didn't choose the D60, that must have been what I did. I am
very happy with my D100 and my D1H and I don't need to be told by
someone who has never used them that I pick the wrong cameras.

I'll apologies if you have purchased all the dSLR (there by being
one of the few who has bought more cameras than me) and have done
exhastive comparisons between them. In the meantime, I'm very glad
you are happy with your D60. And I will be very glad if you were
more objective.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

John Davis said:

Ultimately it's image quality that counts. Of the trio D60, D100,
S2, the D60 was a known quantity - ultra smooth images, improving
upon the well known D30. The other 2 - D100, S2 were unproven as
fars as image quality was concerned. Unfortunately, many jumped
without looking...

This is why the D60 is still in such a short supply.

John

P.S. - It could be that this pattern noise that Thom Hogan refers
to is also in the Canon D60. Well, it just happens that Canon's
design decisions in the anti-aliasing filter are better than the
others.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anthony Medici said:

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Rinus said:

I believe that the trcak noise in my camera is a MAJOR issue. I do
not mean to say that it is an issue for most but I for one intend
to use film/digital for its announced capabilities. If I have to
let go of a good dynamic range because the algoriths do not live up
to their promised specs, I am not the one with the problem, Fuji
is. It proves that there is an issue with ordinary use of this
CCD/processor combination that sells under the Fuji name.

Click to expand...

Anthony Medici said:

Rinus of Calgary

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

Clearly... I am dealing here with a sensitive bunch. Excuse me!

Click to expand...