still not happy with S602..

K Mcgregor said:

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

Click to expand...

K Mcgregor said:

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

Click to expand...

Jay Sottolano said:

Jared Hunter said:

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs
resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to
resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real
information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate
SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

Click to expand...

There may be some difference here with the 6900 and the 602 given
the new sharpening algorithms, etc. I'll have to try some shots on
my own to see the effect. Thanks!.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Not so fast, EJN.
Our friend here may have a point. Although the 602 is a pretty
awesome camera, there is a learning curve involved. However, K's
explanations and camera settings used indicate, to me at least,
that this isn't just about getting to know the ins and outs of this
camera.

Click to expand...

I agree that the S602 doesn't measure up well in its price range in
terms of still image quality. I've had the much the same
frustrating experience adjusting to the S602's still images,
because I too was used to a much more impressive still image camera.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

That doesn't mean the S602 is poor overall, its the best camera
available overall in my view. Its terific speed, features
flexibility, burst modes, and movies make up for its all too
predictably low endish still output, in my opinion. Fact is, using
other cameras one would be very hard pressed to catch the moments
the S602 catches, so what can you say when the alternative is
nothing?

To KM, I'd say that I have been able to improve my S602's shots
though a myriad of should-be-unecessary gimmicks. One thing I find
very helpful is a 1B Skylight filter. By enhancing the contrast (I
think this is why) it helps the 602's passive contrast based AF
system. Though its still not a 100% solution, its about a 60% fix,
which is very, very welcome in my book. It also seems to shift the
over-orange low contrast standard S602 photo to a much more natural
looking image for my taste. The downside is the added bulkiness,
but its livable.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

I've also found that shooting in "SP" sports mode, instead of
"Auto" or "P"rogram gives a better auto white balance and the
higher speed shutter bias is generally welcome to minimize blur.
"S"hutter priority is also an good option with a fast shutter
setting.

Also realize that much of the "problem" here isn't a problem at
all, its simple physics/optics. The S602's great 35-220mm (6x)
zoom range means the lens won't be as bright as the same quality
35-105 (3x) zoom lens (all else being equal). If you want the
optical zoom, you get the consequences too. Since when is such a
flexible tool, at any price, a good indoor choice for lens
brightness? The S602's lens is quite miraculous for its size and
yes, even brightness, given its zoom/wideangle ability, especially
considering how wonderfully compact it is.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

Jared Hunter said:

It all depends on the intended purpose of the image. If I'm going
to print, I leave it at 6Mp. If I'm going to post on the web, I'll
downsample to approx. 1024 across or so. I can't understand people
posting full size images on the web unless they are trying to prove
a technical point.

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs
resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to
resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real
information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate
SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

Click to expand...

I agree that 4MP down-sampling probably doesn't hurt, and might
help a tad, though your eyeball probably does much the same given
the same physical image size.

I love my S602, but I think the SuperCCD is a small liabilty in
general. I think you get less detail out of it than a quality 3MP
CCD in 3MP mode, and possibly slightly more than 3MP-worth in 6MP
mode depending on the image itself.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

My take on it is that if your subject's lines are largely
continuous (like the resolution test screens are commonly used for
testing), then software interpolation can make the image look like
a 4MP result--whether that is real data or not is another issue.
If the subject is rich in relief and organic detail, the 6MP mode
won't be in the same leage as a good 4MP camera, it'll look every
bit the 3MP CCD it really is. But who can fault it for that?

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

Have a look at my 100% unscientific test results...

http://www.pbase.com/sg10/compare

...even given the anecdotal nature of that gallery, I think the
some of the quality differences shown exceed my capability to screw
up the tests.

Click to expand...

K Mcgregor said:

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

sg10 said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Not so fast, EJN.
Our friend here may have a point. Although the 602 is a pretty
awesome camera, there is a learning curve involved. However, K's
explanations and camera settings used indicate, to me at least,
that this isn't just about getting to know the ins and outs of this
camera.

Click to expand...

I agree that the S602 doesn't measure up well in its price range in
terms of still image quality. I've had the much the same
frustrating experience adjusting to the S602's still images,
because I too was used to a much more impressive still image camera.

Click to expand...

That's a bold statement. I've been more impressed by the 602's
overall image quality than, say, a 5700... at half the price. I'm
not saying the 602 is a better camera in absolute terms, but it
doesn't look like it has 2MP less on board. In fact, I would say it
ranks just below the G2 in image quality. In other words: at least
as good as any 3MP camera and even some 4MPs. And its operating
features make up for its "lack" of pure resolution.

If you compared it to a 717 in auto mode, then you're absolutely
correct, of course. But I doubt you will find more camera for your
money than in the 602.

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

That doesn't mean the S602 is poor overall, its the best camera
available overall in my view. Its terific speed, features
flexibility, burst modes, and movies make up for its all too
predictably low endish still output, in my opinion. Fact is, using
other cameras one would be very hard pressed to catch the moments
the S602 catches, so what can you say when the alternative is
nothing?

To KM, I'd say that I have been able to improve my S602's shots
though a myriad of should-be-unecessary gimmicks. One thing I find
very helpful is a 1B Skylight filter. By enhancing the contrast (I
think this is why) it helps the 602's passive contrast based AF
system. Though its still not a 100% solution, its about a 60% fix,
which is very, very welcome in my book. It also seems to shift the
over-orange low contrast standard S602 photo to a much more natural
looking image for my taste. The downside is the added bulkiness,
but its livable.

Click to expand...

You seem to be happy with the skylight filter. I would suggest a
good polarizer for better color saturation. I'm not sure how the 1B
helps the AF, but if it makes your reds better... why not.

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I've also found that shooting in "SP" sports mode, instead of
"Auto" or "P"rogram gives a better auto white balance and the
higher speed shutter bias is generally welcome to minimize blur.
"S"hutter priority is also an good option with a fast shutter
setting.

Also realize that much of the "problem" here isn't a problem at
all, its simple physics/optics. The S602's great 35-220mm (6x)
zoom range means the lens won't be as bright as the same quality
35-105 (3x) zoom lens (all else being equal). If you want the
optical zoom, you get the consequences too. Since when is such a
flexible tool, at any price, a good indoor choice for lens
brightness? The S602's lens is quite miraculous for its size and
yes, even brightness, given its zoom/wideangle ability, especially
considering how wonderfully compact it is.

Click to expand...

Agreed: a big zoom implies some sacrifices. However, with a little
practice, everyone should be able to get more or less the same
image quality from the same camera. I've seen spectacular results
from other 602 owners; why should you or KM be an exception? If it
isn't the photographer, it must be the camera.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

That's a bold statement. I've been more impressed by the 602's
overall image quality than, say, a 5700... at half the price. I'm
not saying the 602 is a better camera in absolute terms, but it
doesn't look like it has 2MP less on board. In fact, I would say it
ranks just below the G2 in image quality. In other words: at least
as good as any 3MP camera and even some 4MPs. And its operating
features make up for its "lack" of pure resolution.

If you compared it to a 717 in auto mode, then you're absolutely
correct, of course. But I doubt you will find more camera for your
money than in the 602.

Click to expand...

I agree pretty much with that. Though I would point out that the
S602's creative marketing makes it appear less expensive than it
really is. Add $50 for a rechargable battery setup, and $75 for
even a small amount of decent memory media, and at 3MP its actually
more expensive than the 5+MP 707, which is the far better still
image camera in my opinion, even in bright light.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

Again, I like the S602 overall, but lets not kid ourselves. I
really wish it had a 5MP sensor, a brighter lens (3x with a tack-on
2x teleconverter would've been my choice), better low light
performance, and active autofocus. I'd have bought that in the
$1000 range in a heartbeat if it were offered in a similar package.

Click to expand...

sg10 said:

I've had great results with the S602 too (I think). I just wish it
happened more often.

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

sg10 said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

That's a bold statement. I've been more impressed by the 602's
overall image quality than, say, a 5700... at half the price. I'm
not saying the 602 is a better camera in absolute terms, but it
doesn't look like it has 2MP less on board. In fact, I would say it
ranks just below the G2 in image quality. In other words: at least
as good as any 3MP camera and even some 4MPs. And its operating
features make up for its "lack" of pure resolution.

If you compared it to a 717 in auto mode, then you're absolutely
correct, of course. But I doubt you will find more camera for your
money than in the 602.

Click to expand...

I agree pretty much with that. Though I would point out that the
S602's creative marketing makes it appear less expensive than it
really is. Add $50 for a rechargable battery setup, and $75 for
even a small amount of decent memory media, and at 3MP its actually
more expensive than the 5+MP 707, which is the far better still
image camera in my opinion, even in bright light.

Click to expand...

Objectively comparing image quality, you're right. No question
there. I don't like the way the Sony is built, but that's very
subjective and has nothing to do with quality; it's just the way of
holding the camera.

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Again, I like the S602 overall, but lets not kid ourselves. I
really wish it had a 5MP sensor, a brighter lens (3x with a tack-on
2x teleconverter would've been my choice), better low light
performance, and active autofocus. I'd have bought that in the
$1000 range in a heartbeat if it were offered in a similar package.

Click to expand...

Personally, I would use more than 6x zoom if it were there. You're
barking up the wrong tree here. Of course, I would have liked a 602
with a 5MP sensor (or the 6MP from the S2 - although technically
impossible in such a compact design), but not at the cost of the
zoom lens. As far as the AF in low light is concerned, you could be
a lot worse off. A good AF assist light would have solved most of
its problems.

For the record, I own a 6900 and, unlike others, don't believe the
602 is a good enough reason to get rid of it. It has some
interesting improvements, but I'm not impressed. Other
manufacturers are ahead in this respect.

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I've had great results with the S602 too (I think). I just wish it
happened more often.

Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you. Do you feel like swapping your new 602 with
my 9 month old 6900? LOL ! Seriously though, it seems 602 owners
are either incredibly happy with their choice or can't seem to get
the best out of it. I'm not implying it's incompetence, but maybe
it doesn't quite match your needs or expectactions.

Click to expand...

ianR said:

I agree, none of those images you've posted are very good.
The jpeg quality is certainly a big factor. You're simply throwing
away too much information by using basic. Use fine as previously
stated.
Hard sharpening too, I agree introduces noise and will degrade the
results in most cases.
But, you really do need to use higher shutter speeds. You say you
try to keep it over 1/50th second and then you answer your own
problem by saying you get good results with a tripod at 3 seconds.
You are seeing movement in these pictures.
You want to try for at least 1/60th and to be sure 1/125 the
second. If you zoom in, you'll need much faster speeds to get good
results. At 210mm you'll need an even faster shutter speed to get
good results.
This is a common problem with people who switch toa camera with a
big zoom lens.
Forget about Depth of field on digital. It comes in bucketfulls.
You'll get much better results at F4 and a high shutter speed than
F8 and a low shutter speed.
Here's a picture taken at F4. The mast of the boat in the
foreground is in focus as are the buildings in the distance. Plenty
of DOF
http://www.action-bookmark.fr/ian/Re/Flotte/images/Dscf1879.jpg

So do a test with the camera set to:
ISO160
Normal
Fine (3mp or 6mp as you like. 3mp will look better on screen)
Widish aperture and high shutter speed: try F4
Use the tripod as a control to check that there is no shake.
If you still can't get good results then there is a problem with
the camera.
regards
Ian

Click to expand...

Greg Brammah said:

I too had the 6900 before the 602. I have found that the 602 is a
little more difficult to get to grips with than the 6900. This is
strange accepting that it's supposed to improve on the 6900s
shortcomings, according to Fuji at least.

I could generally get acceptably sharp images from the 6900, with
whatever mode I chose. The modes chosen were of-course dependant
upon shooting conditions. However when you're in a rush it would be
nice to use Auto and get say 50% of your results in-focus; with
6900 this would happen, with the 602 It rarely happens and for me
is a lot less predictable.

I feel that I'm always fighting soft-focus or even blur with the
602 however. I have managed to get some excellent shots with the
602, which lends me to believe that it's my ability that's lacking
for the most part. I keep practising and have begun to notice a few
small improvements over recent weeks.

However, I remember being wowed by the overall sharpness of the
6900 when I first got it and having a similar feeling in the
reverse when I got the 602. I have taken pictures in bright
sunlight in excess of 1/500 at f5.6 with ISO 160 on a tripod 3MP
Fine 6MP Fine Soft and Normal Sharpening 2sec timer Same subject,
Whilst these tend to be sharp they don't quite match the 6900; they
also seem to be a little noisier in dark areas too. However when
printed out there is little or no discernable difference. The other
thing that my 602 suffers from quite badly is chromatic aberation
on the left upper side of picures, I have some truly awful shots
taken at a local steam railway staion, where a lattice ironwork
bridge in partial sillouhette was almost half and half with
abberation!

If I had known what I do now I would have kept the 6900 and not
gone for the 602. The 602 was bought mainly for the diopter
adjustment as I wear reactolite glasses, which are pretty much
useless for camera work in bright conditions. With all that said I
think the 602 is an excellent mid-range camera and I have learnt
more about photography as a subject trying to come to terms with it
than I did in all the time I had the 6900, so every cloud has a
silver lining I guess.

Greg

Pieter Gordebeke said:

sg10 said:

Pieter Gordebeke said:

That's a bold statement. I've been more impressed by the 602's
overall image quality than, say, a 5700... at half the price. I'm
not saying the 602 is a better camera in absolute terms, but it
doesn't look like it has 2MP less on board. In fact, I would say it
ranks just below the G2 in image quality. In other words: at least
as good as any 3MP camera and even some 4MPs. And its operating
features make up for its "lack" of pure resolution.

If you compared it to a 717 in auto mode, then you're absolutely
correct, of course. But I doubt you will find more camera for your
money than in the 602.

Click to expand...

I agree pretty much with that. Though I would point out that the
S602's creative marketing makes it appear less expensive than it
really is. Add $50 for a rechargable battery setup, and $75 for
even a small amount of decent memory media, and at 3MP its actually
more expensive than the 5+MP 707, which is the far better still
image camera in my opinion, even in bright light.

Click to expand...

Objectively comparing image quality, you're right. No question
there. I don't like the way the Sony is built, but that's very
subjective and has nothing to do with quality; it's just the way of
holding the camera.

ChromeDome said:

Again, I like the S602 overall, but lets not kid ourselves. I
really wish it had a 5MP sensor, a brighter lens (3x with a tack-on
2x teleconverter would've been my choice), better low light
performance, and active autofocus. I'd have bought that in the
$1000 range in a heartbeat if it were offered in a similar package.

Click to expand...

Personally, I would use more than 6x zoom if it were there. You're
barking up the wrong tree here. Of course, I would have liked a 602
with a 5MP sensor (or the 6MP from the S2 - although technically
impossible in such a compact design), but not at the cost of the
zoom lens. As far as the AF in low light is concerned, you could be
a lot worse off. A good AF assist light would have solved most of
its problems.

For the record, I own a 6900 and, unlike others, don't believe the
602 is a good enough reason to get rid of it. It has some
interesting improvements, but I'm not impressed. Other
manufacturers are ahead in this respect.

ChromeDome said:

I've had great results with the S602 too (I think). I just wish it
happened more often.

Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you. Do you feel like swapping your new 602 with
my 9 month old 6900? LOL ! Seriously though, it seems 602 owners
are either incredibly happy with their choice or can't seem to get
the best out of it. I'm not implying it's incompetence, but maybe
it doesn't quite match your needs or expectactions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Greg Brammah said:

Hi Pieter,

I too had the 6900 before the 602. I have found that the 602 is a
little more difficult to get to grips with than the 6900. This is
strange accepting that it's supposed to improve on the 6900s
shortcomings, according to Fuji at least.

Click to expand...

ChromeDome said:

I could generally get acceptably sharp images from the 6900, with
whatever mode I chose. The modes chosen were of-course dependant
upon shooting conditions. However when you're in a rush it would be
nice to use Auto and get say 50% of your results in-focus; with
6900 this would happen, with the 602 It rarely happens and for me
is a lot less predictable.

Click to expand...

ChromeDome said:

I feel that I'm always fighting soft-focus or even blur with the
602 however. I have managed to get some excellent shots with the
602, which lends me to believe that it's my ability that's lacking
for the most part. I keep practising and have begun to notice a few
small improvements over recent weeks.

However, I remember being wowed by the overall sharpness of the
6900 when I first got it and having a similar feeling in the
reverse when I got the 602. I have taken pictures in bright
sunlight in excess of 1/500 at f5.6 with ISO 160 on a tripod 3MP
Fine 6MP Fine Soft and Normal Sharpening 2sec timer Same subject,
Whilst these tend to be sharp they don't quite match the 6900; they
also seem to be a little noisier in dark areas too. However when
printed out there is little or no discernable difference. The other
thing that my 602 suffers from quite badly is chromatic aberation
on the left upper side of picures, I have some truly awful shots
taken at a local steam railway staion, where a lattice ironwork
bridge in partial sillouhette was almost half and half with
abberation!

Click to expand...

ChromeDome said:

If I had known what I do now I would have kept the 6900 and not
gone for the 602. The 602 was bought mainly for the diopter
adjustment as I wear reactolite glasses, which are pretty much
useless for camera work in bright conditions. With all that said I
think the 602 is an excellent mid-range camera and I have learnt
more about photography as a subject trying to come to terms with it
than I did in all the time I had the 6900, so every cloud has a
silver lining I guess.

Click to expand...

Timothy Dunnigan said:

Ian,

This reply answers very well, in my opinion, a number of negative
posts in the forum recently. Your photo, in particular, is
amazingly sharp and very similar in composition to a different
recent thread in which autofocus and water reflection was a concern.

It seems to me that the S602Z likes light. I was very happy with
landscape photos (and their 8x10 prints) I took in the Painted
Desert, but was thinking that the absence (to my eyes) of artifacts
and blurriness was do to the non-organic nature of the landscape.
Some of those photos were shot in bright desert light, others under
significant cloud cover, but I was happy with all.

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

Greg Brammah said:

Hi Pieter,

I too had the 6900 before the 602. I have found that the 602 is a
little more difficult to get to grips with than the 6900. This is
strange accepting that it's supposed to improve on the 6900s
shortcomings, according to Fuji at least.

Click to expand...

I've tried out a 602 but I didn't have any difficulty getting good
pictures. I did find that the AF is a bit more tricky than on the
6900.

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I could generally get acceptably sharp images from the 6900, with
whatever mode I chose. The modes chosen were of-course dependant
upon shooting conditions. However when you're in a rush it would be
nice to use Auto and get say 50% of your results in-focus; with
6900 this would happen, with the 602 It rarely happens and for me
is a lot less predictable.

Click to expand...

I just can't accept that the AF gets it so badly wrong that your
pictures look soft overall. Even if that is true and your camera
focuses short or long, say 10% (which seems an outrageous error
margin to me), the huge DOF should compensate for that, IMO. Or
doesn't it work that way?

Many opinions I've read about this here before, point to the noise
reduction as the cause of soft images, rather than the AF.

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I feel that I'm always fighting soft-focus or even blur with the
602 however. I have managed to get some excellent shots with the
602, which lends me to believe that it's my ability that's lacking
for the most part. I keep practising and have begun to notice a few
small improvements over recent weeks.

However, I remember being wowed by the overall sharpness of the
6900 when I first got it and having a similar feeling in the
reverse when I got the 602. I have taken pictures in bright
sunlight in excess of 1/500 at f5.6 with ISO 160 on a tripod 3MP
Fine 6MP Fine Soft and Normal Sharpening 2sec timer Same subject,
Whilst these tend to be sharp they don't quite match the 6900; they
also seem to be a little noisier in dark areas too. However when
printed out there is little or no discernable difference. The other
thing that my 602 suffers from quite badly is chromatic aberation
on the left upper side of picures, I have some truly awful shots
taken at a local steam railway staion, where a lattice ironwork
bridge in partial sillouhette was almost half and half with
abberation!

Click to expand...

That's a disgrace.

Pieter Gordebeke said:

If I had known what I do now I would have kept the 6900 and not
gone for the 602. The 602 was bought mainly for the diopter
adjustment as I wear reactolite glasses, which are pretty much
useless for camera work in bright conditions. With all that said I
think the 602 is an excellent mid-range camera and I have learnt
more about photography as a subject trying to come to terms with it
than I did in all the time I had the 6900, so every cloud has a
silver lining I guess.

Click to expand...

The 602 wasn't intended to be a mid-range camera. I still don't
think it is, and the 6900 certainly wasn't. My buddy just bought a
602 and I'll be following his experiences closely. When he's
mastered the operation of the camera, I think we'll get together
and test both cameras side by side. I hope he doesn't get
frustrated with it like you and other people. Ater all, I'm the one
who told him the 602 was the most camera he could get for his money
:-(

Click to expand...

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I'm glad that you both can prove the 602 can produce good quality
pictures consistently. Although I own a 6900, I did get the chance
to try out a 602 and didn't find anything wrong with it. (The AF
can be tricky at times in comparison, but you get used to it).

As always, negative opinions get a lot more attention than positive
ones. However, you can't deny that some of the results shown here
were plain poor. More than a few times I thought: "My 6900 can do
better than this". How come? Is it due to the photographer? Is it
the camera? It's likely a combination of both. You just can't
expect to go from a compact automatic film camera to a full-control
digicam and not change your technique. I'm not generalizing or
pointing the finger here, but I think this is what happens too
often.

Pieter

Timothy Dunnigan said:

Ian,

This reply answers very well, in my opinion, a number of negative
posts in the forum recently. Your photo, in particular, is
amazingly sharp and very similar in composition to a different
recent thread in which autofocus and water reflection was a concern.

It seems to me that the S602Z likes light. I was very happy with
landscape photos (and their 8x10 prints) I took in the Painted
Desert, but was thinking that the absence (to my eyes) of artifacts
and blurriness was do to the non-organic nature of the landscape.
Some of those photos were shot in bright desert light, others under
significant cloud cover, but I was happy with all.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Timothy Dunnigan said:

I happen to like the challenge this camera presents. It's part of
what interests me in my hobbies. I'm also sympathetic (as I'm sure
you and Ian are also) to those new to the camera who are surprised
by how poor their photos appear. At the beginning of the trip where
I shot the Painted Desert photos I took shots in the Zuni Pueblo
territory. This was only a few weeks after I obtained the camera. I
was shooting on Auto WB, I had inadvertantly left manual focus on
(and was not focussing), I was trying to look through the EVF
wearing glasses with a polarizing coating (try that sometime!). The
truly amazing thing is that I obtained a few decent photos (2 or 3
out of 20 or so) from this batch!

I'm still learning to use this camera and find that experimenting,
as Ian suggested, really helps.

Timothy Dunnigan
http://www.pbase.com/tdunnigan/

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I'm glad that you both can prove the 602 can produce good quality
pictures consistently. Although I own a 6900, I did get the chance
to try out a 602 and didn't find anything wrong with it. (The AF
can be tricky at times in comparison, but you get used to it).

As always, negative opinions get a lot more attention than positive
ones. However, you can't deny that some of the results shown here
were plain poor. More than a few times I thought: "My 6900 can do
better than this". How come? Is it due to the photographer? Is it
the camera? It's likely a combination of both. You just can't
expect to go from a compact automatic film camera to a full-control
digicam and not change your technique. I'm not generalizing or
pointing the finger here, but I think this is what happens too
often.

Pieter

Timothy Dunnigan said:

Ian,

This reply answers very well, in my opinion, a number of negative
posts in the forum recently. Your photo, in particular, is
amazingly sharp and very similar in composition to a different
recent thread in which autofocus and water reflection was a concern.

It seems to me that the S602Z likes light. I was very happy with
landscape photos (and their 8x10 prints) I took in the Painted
Desert, but was thinking that the absence (to my eyes) of artifacts
and blurriness was do to the non-organic nature of the landscape.
Some of those photos were shot in bright desert light, others under
significant cloud cover, but I was happy with all.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Richard Dunn said:

This is not just a feature of SuperCCD's though as the Nikon 5000,
olympus D40 and the Canon G2 also have to guess more whenever the
light levels drop. They produce different sorts of artefacts often
with smoothing algorithms kicking in as light levels drop.

Because of this Ian is surely right in advocating larger apertures
not only yto increase light but to increase shutter speed and
reduce shake.

By the way I love the painted desert images. What a great place,
fantastic scenery mirrored by great skies. Thanks
Richard Dunn

Timothy Dunnigan said:

I happen to like the challenge this camera presents. It's part of
what interests me in my hobbies. I'm also sympathetic (as I'm sure
you and Ian are also) to those new to the camera who are surprised
by how poor their photos appear. At the beginning of the trip where
I shot the Painted Desert photos I took shots in the Zuni Pueblo
territory. This was only a few weeks after I obtained the camera. I
was shooting on Auto WB, I had inadvertantly left manual focus on
(and was not focussing), I was trying to look through the EVF
wearing glasses with a polarizing coating (try that sometime!). The
truly amazing thing is that I obtained a few decent photos (2 or 3
out of 20 or so) from this batch!

I'm still learning to use this camera and find that experimenting,
as Ian suggested, really helps.

Timothy Dunnigan
http://www.pbase.com/tdunnigan/

Pieter Gordebeke said:

I'm glad that you both can prove the 602 can produce good quality
pictures consistently. Although I own a 6900, I did get the chance
to try out a 602 and didn't find anything wrong with it. (The AF
can be tricky at times in comparison, but you get used to it).

As always, negative opinions get a lot more attention than positive
ones. However, you can't deny that some of the results shown here
were plain poor. More than a few times I thought: "My 6900 can do
better than this". How come? Is it due to the photographer? Is it
the camera? It's likely a combination of both. You just can't
expect to go from a compact automatic film camera to a full-control
digicam and not change your technique. I'm not generalizing or
pointing the finger here, but I think this is what happens too
often.

Pieter

Timothy Dunnigan said:

Ian,

This reply answers very well, in my opinion, a number of negative
posts in the forum recently. Your photo, in particular, is
amazingly sharp and very similar in composition to a different
recent thread in which autofocus and water reflection was a concern.

It seems to me that the S602Z likes light. I was very happy with
landscape photos (and their 8x10 prints) I took in the Painted
Desert, but was thinking that the absence (to my eyes) of artifacts
and blurriness was do to the non-organic nature of the landscape.
Some of those photos were shot in bright desert light, others under
significant cloud cover, but I was happy with all.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes,
Richard Dunn
Warwick UK
http://www.pbase.com/rmwd/galleries

Click to expand...