still not happy with S602..

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.

Click to expand...

maxh said:

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.

maxh 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.

Click to expand...

Can you say why it is impossible for Fuji to put a larger sensor
into a compact design like the S602.

Click to expand...

maxh said:

It seems to me that if this were possible (ideal world syndrome)
then Fuji would have a winner as the 602 seems to beat the
competition for handling, features etc. and debate really only
centres around the Super CCD which seems to me to be equivilent to
4MP but not as good as 5MP.

Click to expand...

Mindbomb 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...

Now Wait a minute.
I posted a thread called "602 as a 4MP camera" in which I desribed
the advatnages of downsampling to 4MP and you were bashing me on
that idea but seems you're doing it yourself... here's what you
wrote:

"
With CDRs costing 30 cents these days who cares? Keep the original
6Mps for maximum versatility...
...Perhaps, on antiquated hardware. But why would you want to
archive your images based on the limitations of today's hardware.
Tomorrow you will upgrade and regret not saving the original full
size image.
"

Why would I regret? What versatility? If I am not losing real
detail and just eliminating SuperCCD jpeg/in-camera sharpening
artifacts as you said than I am as good...

Click to expand...

K Mcgregor said:

I simply do not see that normal looks any worse at all than fine.
In fact when viewed at 800 x 600 it seems to me like the normal
version is better. I asked someone else, them not knowing which is
which, and they picked the normal quality one too. I wasn't aware
that being too sharp was the problem, the opposite of that is the
problem. And the hard sharpening to me still makes pictures soft.
The first pics I took with this camera were on normal sharpening
and they were horribly muddy. I changed to hard sharpening in order
to try and redmedy it. These pictures are not however examples of
the problem but I do not think they show good overall quality. Had
I been trying to take good examples, I might have raised the
shutter speed, but I was only trying to take a comparison shot at
normal type settings. Not, therefore, a shutter speed less than
1/30.

To re-iterate.. these are meant only to show my camera performs
little different at fine quality. Or.. to see if you there is any
change.

btw

the grave scenes suffixed f and f2 are the ones at fine quality

the ones suffixed n and n2 are normal quality

Click to expand...

Cameron43 said:

K Mcgregor said:

I simply do not see that normal looks any worse at all than fine.
In fact when viewed at 800 x 600 it seems to me like the normal
version is better. I asked someone else, them not knowing which is
which, and they picked the normal quality one too. I wasn't aware
that being too sharp was the problem, the opposite of that is the
problem. And the hard sharpening to me still makes pictures soft.
The first pics I took with this camera were on normal sharpening
and they were horribly muddy. I changed to hard sharpening in order
to try and redmedy it. These pictures are not however examples of
the problem but I do not think they show good overall quality. Had
I been trying to take good examples, I might have raised the
shutter speed, but I was only trying to take a comparison shot at
normal type settings. Not, therefore, a shutter speed less than
1/30.

To re-iterate.. these are meant only to show my camera performs
little different at fine quality. Or.. to see if you there is any
change.

btw

the grave scenes suffixed f and f2 are the ones at fine quality

the ones suffixed n and n2 are normal quality

Click to expand...

Ken

This picture has been reduced to 1024x768 and resaved as a jpg so
its not quite as good as the original, but how would you rate its
quality as coming from the 602.. acceptable or not.

Just wondered.

Cameron

Click to expand...

Seth B said:

.. catch up on some reading and find the same questions months later.
So, just to put my 2 cents out there K, and please don't take this
the wrong way as I mean you no malice - if the camera still isn't
working out the way you want it to, and the advice of this and/or
other helpful forums is not helping get you where you want to go,
then by all means, why not sell the camera and get yourself
something that fits you better(!)? ebay works wonders for these
selling situations. Hungry buyers await and life's too short,
y'now? I know if you perservere, you can get some great shots from
this little gem.
I personally am well served by a wide variety of shots taken with
my 602 - like these from Fargo, North Dakota taken just last week.
Unlike some of my others, there's absolutely nothing artistic about
these point and shoot shots. They simply capture the spirit of the
evening after the pub and the following hungover morning after a
1500 mile flight and 250 mile road trip for a Springsteen concert.
Thanks to the 602 and Photoshop, I'll always have these and other
images from this this crazy trip. Note the ability to get a
focused flash shot in near total darkness from a well oiled friend
who had never held this camera before. If I wasn't so drunk at
the time, I could tell you how I set it up. Although I do remember
the massage, that's a story for another forum. And the 10 second
self timer gave me plenty of time to get my fat tush to the other
side for the morning shot. Sometimes my goal is to just have fun.
Good luck and wishing you all the best.
Seth
'Momma don't take my Kodachrome away', or for you Brits:
'Always look on the bright side of life'
http://www.pbase.com/seth

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...

HuNan said:

Many of the shots are just uninteresting, poorly composed. Some
are shot at very low shutter speeds and must be taken with tripod
to insure sharpness. Some have greatly varying brightness levels
in the scene, which means that to preserve the darker areas detail
the highlights must wash out. Many are very "sharp", if noise is
a concern, why use iso 200?

A camera is not a magic tool. It must be used with skill, acquired
from experience and knowledge of photography. I can buy the "best"
golf clubs available, but if I then go right out and play a round
of golf (I haven't played in 30 years), I would do very badly,
should I blame the clubs?

KPbase Supporter

Click to expand...