So Now That EXR is Dead...

I've faithfully stuck to the EXR line since it's introduction. My current model is the F70EXR. I love the compactness and the quality of shots I get from it. But it's starting to have display issues and I was looking at the latest EXR models.

Well lo and behold the last EXR to be released was almost a year and a half ago (F900EXR). So my question is, what Fuji line picks up where the EXRs left off? I'm looking at the $250-$350 range.

I really like the results of the F70EXR. But to be perfectly honest I'm not a settings fiddler. I'm more than likely to just shoot in the EXR mode no matter the situation unless it's real extreme and do adjustments in post rather than in the camera.

Which Fuji point-n-shoot will give me better-than-EXR results without all of the fiddling with settings? Thanks all.

Glenn C.

Small correction, the last EXR camera is the F1000EXR, which however has been released in Japan only. It adds phase AF pixels, which can make autofocus faster and more precise. Very nice and capable all-round camera, especially considering the price.

I don't know whether EXR is actually dead, nor what are Fuji's plans for the future concerning this line. It seems to be common agreement that X-Trans doesn't make much sense with small sensor sizes.

When was that camera released? It sounds like a pocket version of the HS50...... which might really be the last of the big EXR cameras....it will soon be 2 years since the last HS model came out.

PolarHki said:

Small correction, the last EXR camera is the F1000EXR, which however has been released in Japan only. It adds phase AF pixels, which can make autofocus faster and more precise. Very nice and capable all-round camera, especially considering the price.

Click to expand...

The F900 has PDAF as does the HS50 ... it makes minimal difference in Fuji's implementation.

PolarHki said:

I don't know whether EXR is actually dead, nor what are Fuji's plans for the future concerning this line. It seems to be common agreement that X-Trans doesn't make much sense with small sensor sizes.

Click to expand...

People said that in reverse about BSI CMOS ... I've always felt that was silly and now we see superior performance on the latest 1" sensors that are BSI CMOS starting I believe with Sony's RX100II ...

The same thing holds with X Trans ... but it is obvious that Fuji chose a Bayer sensor for the 1/2.3" sensor in the S1 ... and if you have been reading my review on that camera then you already know that -- DR notwithstanding -- the S1 sensor kicks the pants off of the 1/2" sensor in the HS50EXR ...

The fact is that the EXR experiment is probably over because Fuji has figured out that excellent dynamic range is not enough to compensate for loss of resolution, lack of sharpness and clarity under some circumstances, and very complex shooting skills ....

Kim, it might also be them realizing that the marketing of 8 MP high DR just wasn't doing it for them. From everything I've been reading, although these cameras cannot compete in resolution against 12-16 MP Bayer sensor cameras, they do just fine at M size in competing in resolution with 8 MP cameras. And you get the extra DR to boot. For me, 8 MP was always enough and the HS series can easily match any 8 MP camera for resolution and exceed them for DR.
--
https://supermanalexthegreat.shutterfly.com/

I still have my F70exr though I would say the newer sensors do have better "off the cuff" dynamic range, still the F70 does well when using that DR sensor.

The X10 could be worth a look if you can find one without problems

I'm not convinced on the X-Trans CMOS at least on the smaller sensors (they lose saturation at high ISO though the DR is decent it's not as good as the EXR ones) nothing I have seen even raw can match the EXR sensors for DR so I don't agree with Kim about resolution I'd give up bucketloads of res for big DR and many others feel the same way.

Maybe these organic sensors will offer something else there are plenty of complaints about X-Trans CMOS on the "other forum" v those who like it. I suspect sensors will eventually go back to the same way film was multi colour layers once they nail that properly it solves a lot of problems

Look into the XF1. You will find a ton of posts on that camera. Lots of pros/cons.

Better not.
Mine did spend more time on the repair center than taking photos...
--
"Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose" - Madiba

alexisgreat said:

Kim, it might also be them realizing that the marketing of 8 MP high DR just wasn't doing it for them. From everything I've been reading, although these cameras cannot compete in resolution against 12-16 MP Bayer sensor cameras, they do just fine at M size in competing in resolution with 8 MP cameras. And you get the extra DR to boot. For me, 8 MP was always enough and the HS series can easily match any 8 MP camera for resolution and exceed them for DR.

Click to expand...

Excellent points Alex . . .
In MY VIEW it would be a bit tragic IF Fuji does indeed DROP the entire EXR Sensor Line of Technology - At the 1/2" Sensor Size WHEN these EXR sensors are being used in their 8-Mp Range, They have AMAZING Output Abilities . . . Including Relatively HIGH ISO Clean Outputs with a Wide Dynamic Range. . .

The BIGGEST Problem ( imho ) has been the Un-Real Expectation that MegaPixel Mania & SMALL Sensors can Seamlessly Go Together. . . It is MY EXPERIENCE that they Don't !

Their is a Point at Which "Higher Resolution / Pixel Count" gets LOST in Translation within the Constraints of Over-All Pixel QUALITY . . . It is MY VIEW that the Current Level of Sensor Technology for CLEAN & NOT OVERLY-PROCESSED Output is limited to ~ 8-Mp for a 1/2" Sized Sensor . . .

I believe we'd ALL be AMAZED at the Photo & Video Quality that could be Achieved IF Fuji took it's EXR Technology ONE-STEP Further . . . Imagine a 1/2" EXR Sensor that's ONLY 8-Mp Native and ONLY 4-Mp Output in EXR : SN Mode ! ! !

1st of all this would FIT Nicely into the Currently Developing 4-K Video Frontier and Support Super-Zoom Lenses at the Same Time . . .

Their are some here that would argue with me that Sensor Pixel-Site Size ( Light Collecting Photo-Site Size ) is of No Consequence relative to the Sensor's Ability to CLEANLY & Rapidly Collect Light - To this I say Balderdash ! Along this line I would ask those WHY Sony would engineer & market a FULL-FRAME Camera with ONLY 12-Mp ( Check out the Sony a7s ) Hint - It's Because Pixel-Site Size DOES MATTER . . .

It's MY HOPE that Fuji Re-Launches it's EXR Sensor Technology Line Up with EXR-2 . . .
That could give us Super-Zoom Reach with EVEN Greater Dynamic Range & LOWER NOISE !

I'd PERSONALLY Buy an HS50EXR-2 with 8-Mp MAX Output & 4-Mp EXR:SN Mode Output in a Heartbeat !

I CURRENTLY Shoot my HS50EXR with Decently Clean Outputs up to 2,156mm ( 35mm Equiv ) so I have LITTLE NEED for Ultra-Mega-Pixel Files that I could Further Crop - I PREFER to Frame in Camera . . . I also do Little Printing except to SCREEN which is Typically Limited to 2-Mp !
( AVERAGE Computer Monitor @ 1920 x 1080 = 2-Mp / High Def TV = 1920 x 1080 = 2-Mp )

For this to happen We'd have to become Un-Hypnotized to the Mega-Pixel Mania / Marketing Hype that CURRENTLY Strangles the Camera Markets . . .

So their's MY TAKE - Fuji - Bring On a NEW Generation of EXR Sensor Technology !

Good Shooting & Cheers from Orion https://www.flickr.com/photos/99004284@N05/ HS50EXR Pics

Orion, I think we could up image quality a bit further, if we went slightly higher in sensor size to either 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" I think 2/3" is a bit too much for the kind of super zoom lens we want and a bit much for EXR to handle, but the top tier 1/1.7" sensors are EXCELLENT for low noise at high ISO and couple that with EXR and you get even lower noise and better DR. So if we made a native 8 MP 1/1.7" EXR sensor with a 4 MP SN/DR mode it would be just the right size for a superzoom camera of up to 1000mm f/5.6 and it would be a sizeable improvement over what we have now.

As a matter of fact, that configuration would put the camera right in line with some of the all time great compact cameras of the past that we all remember so well (Nikon Coolpix 990, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon Coolpix 5000/5400/5700, Nikon Coolpix 8700, Canon Powershot Pro1, Sony DSC-707, Sony DSC-717, Olympus C-7070, Olympus C-8080), which were from 3MP-8MP and had sensor sizes from 1/1.8" to 2/3"

I also want shutter speed options increased from 1/10,000 sec to 10 min (including Bulb mode) at ALL ISO, direct live histogram, a digital exposure meter, an LCD that changes with exposure, a 4 stop range in exposure bracketing and pixel mapping.

alexisgreat said:

Orion, I think we could up image quality a bit further, if we went slightly higher in sensor size to either 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" I think 2/3" is a bit too much for the kind of super zoom lens we want and a bit much for EXR to handle, but the top tier 1/1.7" sensors are EXCELLENT for low noise at high ISO and couple that with EXR and you get even lower noise and better DR. So if we made a native 8 MP 1/1.7" EXR sensor with a 4 MP SN/DR mode it would be just the right size for a superzoom camera of up to 1000mm f/5.6 and it would be a sizeable improvement over what we have now.

Click to expand...

More Good Ideas Alex . . .

alexisgreat said:

As a matter of fact, that configuration would put the camera right in line with some of the all time great compact cameras of the past that we all remember so well (Nikon Coolpix 990, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon Coolpix 5000/5400/5700, Nikon Coolpix 8700, Canon Powershot Pro1, Sony DSC-707, Sony DSC-717, Olympus C-7070, Olympus C-8080), which were from 3MP-8MP and had sensor sizes from 1/1.8" to 2/3"

Click to expand...

I believe their is Room for Several Variations on the EXR Sensor Schemes . . .

alexisgreat said:

I also want shutter speed options increased from 1/10,000 sec to 10 min (including Bulb mode) at ALL ISO, direct live histogram, a digital exposure meter, an LCD that changes with exposure, a 4 stop range in exposure bracketing and pixel mapping.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Pushing Up the Limits but would be happy with the Ranges that Test-Out to be Capable of Delivering Decent Image Qualities . . . Some Specific Sensor Cooling COULD increase Exposure Time Limits . . .

Assuming that Fuji still Monitors this Forum - They would need to Expand their "Thinking" on previous EXR Implementation & Incorporate EXR Sensor Modes into a User Controllable Selection Model & EXIF Reporting Model . . . As in the Past this has Lead to TONS of UN-NECESSARY Confusion.
ie : PSAM modes with USER Controllable EXR Sensor Mode Selection & Specific EXIF EXR Sensor Mode Reporting. . .

Cheers from Orion https://www.flickr.com/photos/99004284@N05/

Orion12 said:

alexisgreat said:

Orion, I think we could up image quality a bit further, if we went slightly higher in sensor size to either 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" I think 2/3" is a bit too much for the kind of super zoom lens we want and a bit much for EXR to handle, but the top tier 1/1.7" sensors are EXCELLENT for low noise at high ISO and couple that with EXR and you get even lower noise and better DR. So if we made a native 8 MP 1/1.7" EXR sensor with a 4 MP SN/DR mode it would be just the right size for a superzoom camera of up to 1000mm f/5.6 and it would be a sizeable improvement over what we have now.

Click to expand...

More Good Ideas Alex . . .

Orion12 said:

As a matter of fact, that configuration would put the camera right in line with some of the all time great compact cameras of the past that we all remember so well (Nikon Coolpix 990, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon Coolpix 5000/5400/5700, Nikon Coolpix 8700, Canon Powershot Pro1, Sony DSC-707, Sony DSC-717, Olympus C-7070, Olympus C-8080), which were from 3MP-8MP and had sensor sizes from 1/1.8" to 2/3"

Click to expand...

I believe their is Room for Several Variations on the EXR Sensor Schemes . . .

Orion12 said:

I also want shutter speed options increased from 1/10,000 sec to 10 min (including Bulb mode) at ALL ISO, direct live histogram, a digital exposure meter, an LCD that changes with exposure, a 4 stop range in exposure bracketing and pixel mapping.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Pushing Up the Limits but would be happy with the Ranges that Test-Out to be Capable of Delivering Decent Image Qualities . . . Some Specific Sensor Cooling COULD increase Exposure Time Limits . . .

Assuming that Fuji still Monitors this Forum - They would need to Expand their "Thinking" on previous EXR Implementation & Incorporate EXR Sensor Modes into a User Controllable Selection Model & EXIF Reporting Model . . . As in the Past this has Lead to TONS of UN-NECESSARY Confusion.
ie : PSAM modes with USER Controllable EXR Sensor Mode Selection & Specific EXIF EXR Sensor Mode Reporting. . .

Click to expand...

That is already mostly possible ...

PASM modes at M size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR DR 400 but without EXR mode limitations. DR200 is the same, although pretty much pointless in my opinion.

PASM modes at L size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR HR, forcing DR100 or ISO400.


SN mode seems to require EXR SN to be set, but it is so bad with light (much worse than DR / L size) that I could not recommend it for any purpose.


And regarding the idea of reducing pixel count ... that's really not the problem these days, as DXOMark has pointed out in their article (which I have linked several times in response to the theory that Fuji should risk gutting the company to bring out low resolution sensors):

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pixels-offset-noise

Glenn C, sorry I don't have good advice for you. I would not recommend spending money on the F900EXR. It seems like there might be better alternatives.

The F200EXR had amazing DR for its time, especially for highlights, but metering was slanted to underexposure, which helped.

I never owned an F70EXR or F300EXR, but after Fuji switched from CCD to CMOS, it seemed that EXR did not preserve highlight detail as much as before. My F550EXR and F750EXR were good but not great.

Currently I have my eyes on the 1" Sony BiCMOS models: the RX100, G7x, and Samsung Mini. Also the LX100, which has a larger sensor. All but Sony have some highlight trickery, DRO and other names, so whatever I buy, rest assured I will compare it with my EXR cameras. (Sony has DRO but it does not help highlights, only shadows.)

This recent patent shows something similar to what Fuji has done in the past.


The issue I see with these type of sensors is the limitations related to shutter speed and slow sensor readout. Video is becoming more important this days and full sensor readout is required for good video quality.

CAcreeks said:

Glenn C, sorry I don't have good advice for you. I would not recommend spending money on the F900EXR. It seems like there might be better alternatives.

The F200EXR had amazing DR for its time, especially for highlights, but metering was slanted to underexposure, which helped.

I never owned an F70EXR or F300EXR, but after Fuji switched from CCD to CMOS, it seemed that EXR did not preserve highlight detail as much as before. My F550EXR and F750EXR were good but not great.

Currently I have my eyes on the 1" Sony BiCMOS models: the RX100, G7x, and Samsung Mini. Also the LX100, which has a larger sensor. All but Sony have some highlight trickery, DRO and other names, so whatever I buy, rest assured I will compare it with my EXR cameras. (Sony has DRO but it does not help highlights, only shadows.)

Click to expand...

Great discussions folks! Keep the comments and recommendations coming.

So is the F900EXR out of the question? The price is right for my budget. The recommendations above are fine, but are all in the $550-$700 range. Way out of my league right now.

Would like to hear more thoughts on what would be a good upgrade from the F70EXR that I now have. Again, I'm shooting for around $300-$350 range.

GlennAC said:

So is the F900EXR out of the question? The price is right for my budget. The recommendations above are fine, but are all in the $550-$700 range. Way out of my league right now.
Would like to hear more thoughts on what would be a good upgrade from the F70EXR that I now have. Again, I'm shooting for around $300-$350 range.

Click to expand...

I guess the F900EXR would be a good upgrade if you like long zoom, and are willing to pay the penalty in lower lens quality. Autofocus and feature set are competitive. It is more of an 8Mp camera than 16Mp, but that might be fine for you. I would not buy any of the other travel zooms.

The Samsung NX Mini costs only $439 with 9-27 (24-73 equivalent) zoom lens. That's not far above your price range.

Kim Letkeman said:

Orion12 said:

alexisgreat said:

Orion, I think we could up image quality a bit further, if we went slightly higher in sensor size to either 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" I think 2/3" is a bit too much for the kind of super zoom lens we want and a bit much for EXR to handle, but the top tier 1/1.7" sensors are EXCELLENT for low noise at high ISO and couple that with EXR and you get even lower noise and better DR. So if we made a native 8 MP 1/1.7" EXR sensor with a 4 MP SN/DR mode it would be just the right size for a superzoom camera of up to 1000mm f/5.6 and it would be a sizeable improvement over what we have now.

Click to expand...

More Good Ideas Alex . . .

Kim Letkeman said:

As a matter of fact, that configuration would put the camera right in line with some of the all time great compact cameras of the past that we all remember so well (Nikon Coolpix 990, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon Coolpix 5000/5400/5700, Nikon Coolpix 8700, Canon Powershot Pro1, Sony DSC-707, Sony DSC-717, Olympus C-7070, Olympus C-8080), which were from 3MP-8MP and had sensor sizes from 1/1.8" to 2/3"

Click to expand...

I believe their is Room for Several Variations on the EXR Sensor Schemes . . .

Kim Letkeman said:

I also want shutter speed options increased from 1/10,000 sec to 10 min (including Bulb mode) at ALL ISO, direct live histogram, a digital exposure meter, an LCD that changes with exposure, a 4 stop range in exposure bracketing and pixel mapping.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Pushing Up the Limits but would be happy with the Ranges that Test-Out to be Capable of Delivering Decent Image Qualities . . . Some Specific Sensor Cooling COULD increase Exposure Time Limits . . .

Assuming that Fuji still Monitors this Forum - They would need to Expand their "Thinking" on previous EXR Implementation & Incorporate EXR Sensor Modes into a User Controllable Selection Model & EXIF Reporting Model . . . As in the Past this has Lead to TONS of UN-NECESSARY Confusion.
ie : PSAM modes with USER Controllable EXR Sensor Mode Selection & Specific EXIF EXR Sensor Mode Reporting. . .

Click to expand...

That is already mostly possible ...

PASM modes at M size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR DR 400 but without EXR mode limitations. DR200 is the same, although pretty much pointless in my opinion.

PASM modes at L size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR HR, forcing DR100 or ISO400.

Click to expand...

Relative to the HS50EXR : Your above examples are True IF You're not attempting to shoot at ISO-100 or ISO-200 / But the Average User would have No Idea or Method to Verify OR Select what EXR Sensor Mode was being used by the Camera . . . Which was my Original Point

My Implication is that the EXR Sensor Selection was NEVER placed into the User's Control in PASM Modes . . . This IS the Case - Unfortunate as it is . . . You managed to sort some of this out AFTER Much Work & Experimentation - I'm just Saying Fuji Could have Made this Easier. :-D

Kim Letkeman said:

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2009/10/fuji-f70exr-how-to-shoot-it-mkii.html

SN mode seems to require EXR SN to be set, but it is so bad with light (much worse than DR / L size) that I could not recommend it for any purpose.

Click to expand...

You have your Opinion on this - As you already know I have the opposite view on EXR : SN Mode as I personally find it to be capable of producing the Highest Quality Images "I've" been able to achieve with my HS50EXR . . . So let's just agree to disagree . . . Here's my Flickr HS50EXR Gallery for reference https://www.flickr.com/photos/99004284@N05/ It's a Collection of Different EXR Mode Shots

Kim Letkeman said:

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2014/09/fuji-s1-versus-hs50exr-review-part-18.html

And regarding the idea of reducing pixel count ... that's really not the problem these days, as DXOMark has pointed out in their article (which I have linked several times in response to the theory that Fuji should risk gutting the company to bring out low resolution sensors):

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pixels-offset-noise

Click to expand...

Thanks Kim, I did read these articles and isolated what I consider a Flaw in their Methodology despite largely being a fan of their comparative analysis services . . . ( Yes a Paradox )

Here's what's NOT Disputed - For a given Sensor Technology & Size you generally get a Higher SNR from a Less Dense Pixel-Site configuration ( ie 8-Mp verses 16-Mp gets you Cleaner Pixels with Less Noise per Pixel ) DxOmark does NOT Dispute this !
BUT they Treat or View the Pixels that come from the 16-Mp Output in this Example as Being the SAME as the Pixels captured from the 8-Mp Pixel-Sites as BEING EQUAL / AFTER applying their Formulas . . . This is Convenient from a Modeling Standpoint BUT Not True in Fact imho . . .

As an Example of How Erroneous this form of Analysis can become the Canon EOS D5 Mark 3 Sensor is DxOmark Rated LOWER than the Pentax K5 iis Sensor ( Canon = 81 / Pantax = 82 ) . . .
Here's a REAL LIFE Example of High ISO Sensor Performance for comparison . . .


( From Dpreview's comparison tool )

I don't know about anyone else but their NO WAY that I'd Rate the Pentax Sensor HIGHER . . .

In this case I give the Canon a Higher Marks BECAUSE I see Better Definition of Individual Pixels with Greater Adherence to the Original Image . . . Go Check this out for Yourself . . .

It's NOT EASY to come up with an Always Right On Evaluation System and Over-All DxOmark is providing a service for evaluation - It's just Not an Absolute . . .

In MY VIEW the QUALITY of EACH SINGLE PIXEL is the SUPREME TEST of a Sensor's Output & NOT The Quantity ( Although their are TIMES when Quantity Carry's a Lot of Weight ) . . .

I personally applaud SONY for their Vision & Development of the Sony a7s 12-Mp Full Frame Camera. . . It's quite likely I'll end up with one . . .

Cheers from Orion https://www.flickr.com/photos/99004284@N05/ My HS50EXR Gallery

Orion12 said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Orion12 said:

alexisgreat said:

Orion, I think we could up image quality a bit further, if we went slightly higher in sensor size to either 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" I think 2/3" is a bit too much for the kind of super zoom lens we want and a bit much for EXR to handle, but the top tier 1/1.7" sensors are EXCELLENT for low noise at high ISO and couple that with EXR and you get even lower noise and better DR. So if we made a native 8 MP 1/1.7" EXR sensor with a 4 MP SN/DR mode it would be just the right size for a superzoom camera of up to 1000mm f/5.6 and it would be a sizeable improvement over what we have now.

Click to expand...

More Good Ideas Alex . . .

Orion12 said:

As a matter of fact, that configuration would put the camera right in line with some of the all time great compact cameras of the past that we all remember so well (Nikon Coolpix 990, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon Coolpix 5000/5400/5700, Nikon Coolpix 8700, Canon Powershot Pro1, Sony DSC-707, Sony DSC-717, Olympus C-7070, Olympus C-8080), which were from 3MP-8MP and had sensor sizes from 1/1.8" to 2/3"

Click to expand...

I believe their is Room for Several Variations on the EXR Sensor Schemes . . .

Orion12 said:

I also want shutter speed options increased from 1/10,000 sec to 10 min (including Bulb mode) at ALL ISO, direct live histogram, a digital exposure meter, an LCD that changes with exposure, a 4 stop range in exposure bracketing and pixel mapping.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Pushing Up the Limits but would be happy with the Ranges that Test-Out to be Capable of Delivering Decent Image Qualities . . . Some Specific Sensor Cooling COULD increase Exposure Time Limits . . .

Assuming that Fuji still Monitors this Forum - They would need to Expand their "Thinking" on previous EXR Implementation & Incorporate EXR Sensor Modes into a User Controllable Selection Model & EXIF Reporting Model . . . As in the Past this has Lead to TONS of UN-NECESSARY Confusion.
ie : PSAM modes with USER Controllable EXR Sensor Mode Selection & Specific EXIF EXR Sensor Mode Reporting. . .

Click to expand...

That is already mostly possible ...

PASM modes at M size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR DR 400 but without EXR mode limitations. DR200 is the same, although pretty much pointless in my opinion.

PASM modes at L size with DR400 acts exactly like EXR HR, forcing DR100 or ISO400.

Click to expand...

Relative to the HS50EXR : Your above examples are True IF You're not attempting to shoot at ISO-100 or ISO-200 / But the Average User would have No Idea or Method to Verify OR Select what EXR Sensor Mode was being used by the Camera . . . Which was my Original Point

My Implication is that the EXR Sensor Selection was NEVER placed into the User's Control in PASM Modes . . . This IS the Case - Unfortunate as it is . . . You managed to sort some of this out AFTER Much Work & Experimentation - I'm just Saying Fuji Could have Made this Easier. :-D

Click to expand...

I agree that Fuji made a hash of the settings. And that this is one reason EXR is dying fast.

And yes, I put a lot of effort into that article, but the result is that we are going into our 6th year of easy settings that work well and take no effort to find. So it has been a long time since it was extremely difficult to shoot the sensors unless one is predisposed to experiment. And for those people, there can be no complaining that it is complex because it is their choice to ignore well established norms.

Orion12 said:

Orion12 said:

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2009/10/fuji-f70exr-how-to-shoot-it-mkii.html

SN mode seems to require EXR SN to be set, but it is so bad with light (much worse than DR / L size) that I could not recommend it for any purpose.

Click to expand...

You have your Opinion on this - As you already know I have the opposite view on EXR : SN Mode as I personally find it to be capable of producing the Highest Quality Images "I've" been able to achieve with my HS50EXR . . . So let's just agree to disagree . . . Here's my Flickr HS50EXR Gallery for reference https://www.flickr.com/photos/99004284@N05/ It's a Collection of Different EXR Mode Shots

Click to expand...

I don't need to look at other images. I've done testing myself and SN is the worst mode in sunlight and the worst mode in darkness when there is any light present. I find no compelling reason to use it.

Orion12 said:

Orion12 said:

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2014/09/fuji-s1-versus-hs50exr-review-part-18.html

And regarding the idea of reducing pixel count ... that's really not the problem these days, as DXOMark has pointed out in their article (which I have linked several times in response to the theory that Fuji should risk gutting the company to bring out low resolution sensors):

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pixels-offset-noise

Click to expand...

Thanks Kim, I did read these articles and isolated what I consider a Flaw in their Methodology despite largely being a fan of their comparative analysis services . . . ( Yes a Paradox )

Here's what's NOT Disputed - For a given Sensor Technology & Size you generally get a Higher SNR from a Less Dense Pixel-Site configuration ( ie 8-Mp verses 16-Mp gets you Cleaner Pixels with Less Noise per Pixel ) DxOmark does NOT Dispute this !

Click to expand...

Yes, they say that exactly. But then they explain why practically, it does not matter.

Orion12 said:

BUT they Treat or View the Pixels that come from the 16-Mp Output in this Example as Being the SAME as the Pixels captured from the 8-Mp Pixel-Sites as BEING EQUAL / AFTER applying their Formulas . . . This is Convenient from a Modeling Standpoint BUT Not True in Fact imho . . .

Click to expand...

Well, they have plenty of tables throughout the article explaining why it proves to be true in practice as well.

Orion12 said:

As an Example of How Erroneous this form of Analysis can become the Canon EOS D5 Mark 3 Sensor is DxOmark Rated LOWER than the Pentax K5 iis Sensor ( Canon = 81 / Pantax = 82 ) . . .
Here's a REAL LIFE Example of High ISO Sensor Performance for comparison . . .


( From Dpreview's comparison tool )

I don't know about anyone else but their NO WAY that I'd Rate the Pentax Sensor HIGHER . . .

Click to expand...

I am a little surprised that you would have such a fatal flaw in your argument. This is a JPEG comparison and is in no way valid. JPEG engines all have very different defaults settings for saturation, sharpening, noise reduction ... they are not usefully comparable. Ever.

DPReview have no choice but to give people an indication of how cameras (not sensors) perform. But this is the reason for DXOMark's choice to never factor in JPEG processing. They test RAW only.

Canon has always had an excellent JPEG engine ... Pentax, like Panasonic, took a while to get there.

Orion12 said:

In this case I give the Canon a Higher Marks BECAUSE I see Better Definition of Individual Pixels with Greater Adherence to the Original Image . . . Go Check this out for Yourself . . .

Click to expand...

No need. I have done extensive examinations of images in their comparator and on Imaging Resource. I know what matters and what does not, at least according to my blog

Orion12 said:

It's NOT EASY to come up with an Always Right On Evaluation System and Over-All DxOmark is providing a service for evaluation - It's just Not an Absolute . . .

Click to expand...

None of them are. You make your own decisions. But it is wise to factor in raw performance as opposed to assuming that default setting JPEGs are some sort of benchmark.

Orion12 said:

In MY VIEW the QUALITY of EACH SINGLE PIXEL is the SUPREME TEST of a Sensor's Output & NOT The Quantity ( Although their are TIMES when Quantity Carry's a Lot of Weight ) . . .

Click to expand...

Well, the overall image is where it's at. You don't publish individual pixels, you publish the sum total of what is left over after cropping and sizing for the media. That's where the sensor's size makes all the difference and the resolution makes much less difference.

Orion12 said:

I personally applaud SONY for their Vision & Development of the Sony a7s 12-Mp Full Frame Camera. . . It's quite likely I'll end up with one . . .

Click to expand...

It is a great camera. And it meets your definition of perfection for sure.

--

Tommy TJ said:

I still have my F70exr though I would say the newer sensors do have better "off the cuff" dynamic range, still the F70 does well when using that DR sensor.

The X10 could be worth a look if you can find one without problems

I'm not convinced on the X-Trans CMOS at least on the smaller sensors (they lose saturation at high ISO though the DR is decent it's not as good as the EXR ones) nothing I have seen even raw can match the EXR sensors for DR so I don't agree with Kim about resolution I'd give up bucketloads of res for big DR and many others feel the same way.

Maybe these organic sensors will offer something else there are plenty of complaints about X-Trans CMOS on the "other forum" v those who like it. I suspect sensors will eventually go back to the same way film was multi colour layers once they nail that properly it solves a lot of problems

Click to expand...

Tommy, which "newer sensors" did you have in mind? And what models have them. A moment later you discourage consideration of X-Tans. So I'm unclear which "newer sensors" & models you're referring to. And I assume all of Fuji's X models contain the X-Trans sensor - Correct?

GlennAC said:

GlennAC said:

I still have my F70exr though I would say the newer sensors do have better "off the cuff" dynamic range, still the F70 does well when using that DR sensor.

The X10 could be worth a look if you can find one without problems

I'm not convinced on the X-Trans CMOS at least on the smaller sensors (they lose saturation at high ISO though the DR is decent it's not as good as the EXR ones) nothing I have seen even raw can match the EXR sensors for DR so I don't agree with Kim about resolution I'd give up bucketloads of res for big DR and many others feel the same way.

Maybe these organic sensors will offer something else there are plenty of complaints about X-Trans CMOS on the "other forum" v those who like it. I suspect sensors will eventually go back to the same way film was multi colour layers once they nail that properly it solves a lot of problems

Click to expand...

Tommy, which "newer sensors" did you have in mind? And what models have them. A moment later you discourage consideration of X-Tans. So I'm unclear which "newer sensors" & models you're referring to. And I assume all of Fuji's X models contain the X-Trans sensor - Correct?

Click to expand...

I'm thinking ahead aka organic sensors and other developments. I'm not dissing X-Trans but it's hardly the end of the road for sensors. Digital is mature enough but the sensors will keep on improving