-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
602 Pro? I'd rather have Fuji 602 5MP
- Thread starter emajk
- Start date
slipstream
Senior Member
Well its just an update to get more sales of the 602 You should never have expected 5MP for this one as its not a new camera. just an update.
The noise levels of fuji are actually rather good compared to others at the same ISO. And the resolution is better then other 3MP CCD so good job FUJI. THe SCCD does work better with larger sensors as the S2 is just fantastic.
And think about it do you really need 5MP. Its nice but not a necessity.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
The noise levels of fuji are actually rather good compared to others at the same ISO. And the resolution is better then other 3MP CCD so good job FUJI. THe SCCD does work better with larger sensors as the S2 is just fantastic.
And think about it do you really need 5MP. Its nice but not a necessity.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
I did not say I expected the 602 pro to be nothing but an update. Still 3 Mp is low nowadays. So, 5 Mp would be something worth wild. And the noise IS higher.
Mike.
Mike.
I dont have any issue re. noise, but I do agree with you in that I would have thought Fuji would have taken the opportunity to increase to at least 4Mp or even 5Mp size. Compared with other cheaper camera's that are coming out, that 3Mp is starting to look quite small. :-(
After all, it may look good, it may handle well, it may have lots of features,
etc etc. But its the pic quality that matters and in this area it may fall short compared with 4Mp/5Mm cams... even cheaper ones, and ones that are physically much smaller too. No doubt because the 602 has sold so well, as did the 6900, Fuji are reluctant to change a good thing, but I do think Fuji have shot themselves in the foot by not going to 4Mp or more.
The most expensive Ferrari car may look good on the outside buts it fails to impress if its only got a crappy 800cc engine fitted. IOW a very expensive posers car without substance...LOL
Grandpa
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum Pro
You are right, Any 5Mp camera available has unbearable noise levels compared to the Fuji. That's the price you pay for such small CCD cells. I really like the Fuji sensor for it's big cells because that means a lot less noise than any of those darn 5-6Mp classical sensors
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
I meant the ccd has higher noise. That has been the problem from the start and still is. Look at the 707, noise?
Mike.
Mike.
slipstream
Senior Member
Well good idea take a look at the 717 (took a look at that one as easier to compare with than with 707 and probably better than 707 anyway) iso noise in the test at dpreview. To me it looks that the 602 has less noise at iso400 than the 717 at iso 200 so hmmm. The 602 is less noisy you know.
I'm not saying the image of 602 is better than 717 but when we are talking noise its better.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
Just look at it. Pics from Imaging resource, houseshot.
http://www.pixelarea.com/image.asp?img=21426&id=2658&pos=2
Need I say more?
Mike.
http://www.pixelarea.com/image.asp?img=21426&id=2658&pos=2
Need I say more?
Mike.
slipstream
Senior Member
Actually no but you should compare comparable things. Here you are comparing pics taken in different conditiosn and probably watching a 707 straight pic at 200% versus an interpolated 602 pic also at 200%. That on its own is already a huge disadvantage.
Here is a merger. Explenation on the picture.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
ianR
Veteran Member
No, you can criticize the Fuji for a lot of things but noise isn't one of them. Sure, the noise looks different but the images are cleaner at ISO400 than the 5mp cameras and I doubt you'll find a review that'll say otherwise. If you know anything about image quality you'll know that in order to prepare an image for screen viewing and to prepare it for printing you need to do very different things to it. An image that's ideal for printing will not look good on screen. The fuji images print beautifully and need a bit more work to make them look good on screen. With most cameras it's the other way around.
Talking of noise, interesting that you cite the Oly 5050 as being a new, competitive camera. That will show you what noise really is. That sensor will be so noisy!!!
And as to 3mp being left behind, well it is if you measure everything by pixel count, but the reality is that there aren't any lenses capable or resolving a true 5mp resolution on that Sony sensor ( and less so on the new 5mp Sony sensor).
The 717 does the best job and guess what, it's got a Zeiss lens probably the best lenses there are and probably 3/4 the price of the camera (espsecially seeing Sony make the sensor). The Nikons and the Minolta are way behind the Sony in the resolution stakes.
You can check the theory if you like, but the reality is that they can't resolve too much more than the Fuji can with 3mp, even the 717, and if they could the 717 would have a 6MP sensor I'm sure of that. There really isn't a big difference.
Phil gives the 717 an absolute horizontal resolution of 1450 lines. The 602 was 1200. The D7 was 1300 with moiré showing.The 5700 was 1350. Left way behind???
Ian
6900
Talking of noise, interesting that you cite the Oly 5050 as being a new, competitive camera. That will show you what noise really is. That sensor will be so noisy!!!
And as to 3mp being left behind, well it is if you measure everything by pixel count, but the reality is that there aren't any lenses capable or resolving a true 5mp resolution on that Sony sensor ( and less so on the new 5mp Sony sensor).
The 717 does the best job and guess what, it's got a Zeiss lens probably the best lenses there are and probably 3/4 the price of the camera (espsecially seeing Sony make the sensor). The Nikons and the Minolta are way behind the Sony in the resolution stakes.
You can check the theory if you like, but the reality is that they can't resolve too much more than the Fuji can with 3mp, even the 717, and if they could the 717 would have a 6MP sensor I'm sure of that. There really isn't a big difference.
Phil gives the 717 an absolute horizontal resolution of 1450 lines. The 602 was 1200. The D7 was 1300 with moiré showing.The 5700 was 1350. Left way behind???
Ian
--
6900
slipstream
Senior Member
Well I hope you looked at my sample which under controlled conditions of the dpreview testing showed something else. So you should start to wonder and like I said before the samples u used are samples taken under different conditions as they were taken at a different time. with different temperature etc.....
So this makes you comparison pointless and unvalid. My comparison is not 100% scientific and valid neither as although these pics were taken indoors and under more identical conditions the best way to compare would be taking them at the same time under the same conditions. But because they are more controilled when comparing they are more valid than yours.
Because you like IR's pics I redid your test but using the House poster instead of the farfield test and the davebox test target. I used these pics because indoors and more controlled than the farfield test.
Take a look at them and take your conclusions. Like I said before I'm not saying the image of the 602 is better than the image of the 707 but when we talk noise it is.
Hope this helps.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
Ok, lets speed time up. 10 years from now we other people will enjoy 20-100 Mp ,if we want to use that setting for portraits that will go up large on the wall. U will still sit there with 3 Mp Fuji. As u see already 'Sony has about 20-25 % higher resolution. Who said u have to compress the size of the chip all the time. All chips in the near future will be "full size" ones like recent pro cams.
What I said in the beginning was, I'd rather see picsizes more up to date. I actually want to be able to use my cam for portraits up om the wall sometime soon with a cam resoable in price. Fuji stays behind.
Mike.
What I said in the beginning was, I'd rather see picsizes more up to date. I actually want to be able to use my cam for portraits up om the wall sometime soon with a cam resoable in price. Fuji stays behind.
Mike.
http://www.pixelarea.com/image.asp?img=21456&id=2658&pos=2
Mike.
Mike.
Well I hope you looked at my sample which under controlled
conditions of the dpreview testing showed something else. So you
should start to wonder and like I said before the samples u used
are samples taken under different conditions as they were taken at
a different time. with different temperature etc.....
So this makes you comparison pointless and unvalid. My comparison
is not 100% scientific and valid neither as although these pics
were taken indoors and under more identical conditions the best way
to compare would be taking them at the same time under the same
conditions. But because they are more controilled when comparing
they are more valid than yours.
Because you like IR's pics I redid your test but using the House
poster instead of the farfield test and the davebox test target. I
used these pics because indoors and more controlled than the
farfield test.
Take a look at them and take your conclusions. Like I said before
I'm not saying the image of the 602 is better than the image of the
707 but when we talk noise it is.
Hope this helps.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
slipstream
Senior Member
Please correct your explanation as it is not correct. It is not smudged out because of niose reduction as the fuji has no noise reduction in these cases but you are watching an interpolated pic from 3MP to 6MP which enlarges noise even. So if you are going to use noise reduction you should do it on all pics (although you dont need to on the 602). The interpolation also makes an image softer but the sony sharpening is standard more agressive than the fuji in any case. The sony lens is sharper too but that doesn't change the fact that the 602 has less noise even using an interpolated pic.
And yes if you start manipulating a pic I dont know which one will be best in the end but that also doesn't change the fact that the 602 ccd has less noise than the 707.
--Well I hope you looked at my sample which under controlled
conditions of the dpreview testing showed something else. So you
should start to wonder and like I said before the samples u used
are samples taken under different conditions as they were taken at
a different time. with different temperature etc.....
So this makes you comparison pointless and unvalid. My comparison
is not 100% scientific and valid neither as although these pics
were taken indoors and under more identical conditions the best way
to compare would be taking them at the same time under the same
conditions. But because they are more controilled when comparing
they are more valid than yours.
Because you like IR's pics I redid your test but using the House
poster instead of the farfield test and the davebox test target. I
used these pics because indoors and more controlled than the
farfield test.
Take a look at them and take your conclusions. Like I said before
I'm not saying the image of the 602 is better than the image of the
707 but when we talk noise it is.
Hope this helps.
--
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
SlipStream
My homepage http://users.skynet.be/slipstream/
PBase : http://www.pbase.com/slipstream/galleries/
Hi emajk,
I hope I will enjoy a 100 MP camera in 10 years. But I can hardly believe that I can spend the necesarry optics. Many salesman make the customers believe it is a question of pixels, but doing wallpapers means working like a pro (Tripod, best available optics.... like in middle format chemical film).
And as german boy at a university with some contacts to zeiss and leica engineers:
If you look at the prices for Zeiss or Leica Objectives of the M-Series or the SLR-Series you hardly find a piece under 1500 €/$ for a non-zoom version. I don't believe that zeiss or leitz produces the optics sold in a complete camera for 1200 €. And the optic should have a 10x zoom and the resolution of 10000 lines/mm ....
Would you believe that a car from japan (with the mercedes lable in front) for 10.000$ is a real brand new S-Class???
Please don't understand me wrong I think the digital cameras sold with leitz an zeiss opticts are NOT bad nor the japanese cars (I've got one myself).
I think we are at that point limited to the sensor size in regard to the resolution of the optics. And higher size means also heavier and much more expencive equipment, things nobody want's to have.
Many people reported here of their good A4 or even A3 prints, so what do you want more? I also suppose that less than 1 % of all pics are printed in a bigger size.
Just some of my thoughts
Lothman
I hope I will enjoy a 100 MP camera in 10 years. But I can hardly believe that I can spend the necesarry optics. Many salesman make the customers believe it is a question of pixels, but doing wallpapers means working like a pro (Tripod, best available optics.... like in middle format chemical film).
And as german boy at a university with some contacts to zeiss and leica engineers:
If you look at the prices for Zeiss or Leica Objectives of the M-Series or the SLR-Series you hardly find a piece under 1500 €/$ for a non-zoom version. I don't believe that zeiss or leitz produces the optics sold in a complete camera for 1200 €. And the optic should have a 10x zoom and the resolution of 10000 lines/mm ....
Would you believe that a car from japan (with the mercedes lable in front) for 10.000$ is a real brand new S-Class???
Please don't understand me wrong I think the digital cameras sold with leitz an zeiss opticts are NOT bad nor the japanese cars (I've got one myself).
I think we are at that point limited to the sensor size in regard to the resolution of the optics. And higher size means also heavier and much more expencive equipment, things nobody want's to have.
Many people reported here of their good A4 or even A3 prints, so what do you want more? I also suppose that less than 1 % of all pics are printed in a bigger size.
Just some of my thoughts
Lothman
ianR
Veteran Member
You still don't get it. They have maybe 25% bigger images the resolution in them is Maybe 5% -10% better. The Minolta has almost exactly the same resolution if you look at the test data. The same number of lines resolved on a bigger file doesn't make a better image just a bigger one.
Yes, when I have printer that's big enough to print at poster size I might want 100mp (if my computer will take it) and if I want a monitor the size of a wall then it might be useful too. In fact, as things stand I could show my 6mp images on a monitor that was 40"x 29.5" at normal screen resolution if I wanted. That's about 1 meter wide by 76 cm if you're in metric. That's pretty big already.
I'll be interested to see the camera lens that can produce resolution adequate for a 100Mb file because at the moment it certainly wouldn't fit in a briefcase let alone a pocket. The best Zeiss lenses made on medium format film camera like a Haselblad can only produce about 30mp or so, so imagine a sensor and lenses 3 times that size. Certainly, there's no camera been produced since photography began that can produce the equivalent of 100Mb resolution outside astronomy.
Plus, if the public don't show a need for it, you won't get it. How many people really want to carry round a D60 sized camera? Most people complain if a camera won't fit in their pocket. If you use a full sized sensor you need full sized lenses. Fact. The zoom lens on the 602 put onto a full sized sensor would have a focal range of between 7.8mm and 48.6 mm. Is that an interesting focal range to anyone? The D60 already has enough resolution to see the deficiencies in their cheaper lenses. Fit an L lens and you really see the difference. The sensor is the same, the limiting factor is once again the lens.
Yes, the file sizes might get bigger, the pixel count might bet bigger like with the 5050 but it'll have to be by interpolation and noise reducton unless some serious improvements come along in lens design.
The G3 is still using a 4mp sensor. Do you think that's seriously outclassed too? Why didn't Canon fit a 5mp sensor? When you truly understand the answer to that question you'll have changed your mind about pixel counting.
The 602 could do with some improvements for sure, but in reality there is little to be gained from a bigger sensor. A better lens yes, less noise always, more speed and faster processing always. Unfortunately, it's easy to write 5mp on a box and convince people that it must be better than 4mp or 3mp because 5 clearly is a bigger number than 3 isn't it.
regards
Ian
6900
Yes, when I have printer that's big enough to print at poster size I might want 100mp (if my computer will take it) and if I want a monitor the size of a wall then it might be useful too. In fact, as things stand I could show my 6mp images on a monitor that was 40"x 29.5" at normal screen resolution if I wanted. That's about 1 meter wide by 76 cm if you're in metric. That's pretty big already.
I'll be interested to see the camera lens that can produce resolution adequate for a 100Mb file because at the moment it certainly wouldn't fit in a briefcase let alone a pocket. The best Zeiss lenses made on medium format film camera like a Haselblad can only produce about 30mp or so, so imagine a sensor and lenses 3 times that size. Certainly, there's no camera been produced since photography began that can produce the equivalent of 100Mb resolution outside astronomy.
Plus, if the public don't show a need for it, you won't get it. How many people really want to carry round a D60 sized camera? Most people complain if a camera won't fit in their pocket. If you use a full sized sensor you need full sized lenses. Fact. The zoom lens on the 602 put onto a full sized sensor would have a focal range of between 7.8mm and 48.6 mm. Is that an interesting focal range to anyone? The D60 already has enough resolution to see the deficiencies in their cheaper lenses. Fit an L lens and you really see the difference. The sensor is the same, the limiting factor is once again the lens.
Yes, the file sizes might get bigger, the pixel count might bet bigger like with the 5050 but it'll have to be by interpolation and noise reducton unless some serious improvements come along in lens design.
The G3 is still using a 4mp sensor. Do you think that's seriously outclassed too? Why didn't Canon fit a 5mp sensor? When you truly understand the answer to that question you'll have changed your mind about pixel counting.
The 602 could do with some improvements for sure, but in reality there is little to be gained from a bigger sensor. A better lens yes, less noise always, more speed and faster processing always. Unfortunately, it's easy to write 5mp on a box and convince people that it must be better than 4mp or 3mp because 5 clearly is a bigger number than 3 isn't it.
regards
Ian
--
6900
Pieter Gordebeke
Leading Member
Well spoken.
...and I'm one of those who wants to run around with a D60-sized camera. Unfortunately, my wife and wallet don't agree.
Pieter
...and I'm one of those who wants to run around with a D60-sized camera. Unfortunately, my wife and wallet don't agree.
Pieter
MikeBee
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum