Reading mode: Light Dark

Don't know about you!

Go to last post
Doug Kerr said:
Mark (nl) said:
But Chris, doesn't the same ccd SIZE always mean the same DOF, no
matter how many pixels, or have I lost it completely now?
Click to expand...
Indeed (see my other post in this thread).

Doug Kerr
Click to expand...
Thanks for that other post Doug. I'm not sure I fully understand all (due to my English and because it is very technical for me), but I get the general picture.

So this doesn't seem like a reason to stop me upgrading from 602 to 7000 anymore, and I sure would like the 12mp. Image quality of course needs to be good too, we’ll see how that works out in time.

Looking forward to reading how a time machine works :-)

--
Regards, Mark
http://community.webshots.com/user/marksfinepix
 
Maybe switching of the internal sharpening of the cam wil help here, just like it did on the S602Z
Steven A. said:
Boo said:
I think there must be a problem with those photos - they're
sufficiently bad for there to have been an error somewhere - I find
it difficult to believe that Fuji would post those as examples of a
brand new forthcoming product at the highest resolution and be
satisfied with them - but not being able to read Japanese I don't
know what the captions and text might say they are. At the moment,
it simply doesn't compute for me.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right, those are some of the worst pics ive seen from
any camera ever.

Steven Alan
Click to expand...
 
photobob said:
Mike,

You read his article on time travel already and came back to tell
us! Thoughtful. Could you go ahead a bit and see if there's really
going to be the hoped for S9000 camera that fixes all the
shortcomings of the S602Z? Thanks!
Click to expand...
...and Mike, while you are there, can you tell me if I at least have a chance of ending in the top ten in 'your' challenge. I still have to set it all up, would save me a lot of work if I knew it wasn't worth it :-)

--
Regards, Mark
http://community.webshots.com/user/marksfinepix
 
Sorry that would be breaking the Temporal Prime Directive!

mike
photobob said:
Mike,

You read his article on time travel already and came back to tell
us! Thoughtful. Could you go ahead a bit and see if there's really
going to be the hoped for S9000 camera that fixes all the
shortcomings of the S602Z? Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Oh, no! That could be almost as bad as going back and killing your great grandfather! Well, I'm sure you'd tell if you could. Thanks anyway.

Bob
MikeBee said:
mike
photobob said:
Mike,

You read his article on time travel already and came back to tell
us! Thoughtful. Could you go ahead a bit and see if there's really
going to be the hoped for S9000 camera that fixes all the
shortcomings of the S602Z? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
'Snip from a certain post many moons ago.'

I just wonder what those clowns over at Fuji are doing with their time.....are they blind or just incompetent ?'

The above was a comment from one of our posters about the Fuji 602 replacing the 6900!
Ah! History doth repeat itself - yes?

filibuster
http://www.pbase.com/filibuster
 
would that have been Eric Noack by any chance? Or is it someone who went on to get a 602 ! lol !

Mike
filibuster said:
'Snip from a certain post many moons ago.'

point in trading up to the sxxxx as the yyyyy is quite useable and
really, the way digital cameras are heading we do not need a camera
that is producing lesser results than the previous model.........I
just hope Fuji can do something about this as it needs urgent
attention.
I just wonder what those clowns over at Fuji are doing with their
time.....are they blind or just incompetent ?'
The above was a comment from one of our posters about the Fuji 602
replacing the 6900!
Ah! History doth repeat itself - yes?

filibuster
http://www.pbase.com/filibuster
Click to expand...
--
abstracts:- http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum4.html
Live Band pics http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum5.html
Water pics http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum6.html
 
Time travel is a wonderful thing! LoL!

I will always remember Eric for his highly opinionated views on a camera he never even touched and for when he blew a fuse in no uncertain terms and resorted to extreme name calling, but I'm sure we'll be in for a long bout of similar excitement again !

Mike
Mark (nl) said:
Guessing is better and even quicker sometimes, WTG Mike :-)

--
Regards, Mark
http://community.webshots.com/user/marksfinepix
Click to expand...
--
abstracts:- http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum4.html
Live Band pics http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum5.html
Water pics http://homepage.mac.com/thesentinel/PhotoAlbum6.html
 
Mark (nl) said:
MikeBee said:
would that have been Eric Noack by any chance?
Click to expand...
Took me too long to search for it...(but I found it).

Guessing is better and even quicker sometimes, WTG Mike :-)

--
Regards, Mark
http://community.webshots.com/user/marksfinepix
Click to expand...
Hey Mike, you've either got a good memory, or that time machine really does work (it took me an hour to find that little gem of a snip.)

By the way, I've just done some 10 x 8 prints of the S5000 results on high qual photo glossy. They are really very good indeed. Esp the insect and the child pics. I have not had this sort of qual at 10 x 8 from the 3800.
filibuster
http://www.pbase.com/filibuster
 
At last someone making the correct comparison, ie the 5000 with the 3800, I think everyone is mentally comparing it with a 602 and coming to premature conclusions!

Mike

ps I'll not be forgetting Eric for a long while !
filibuster said:
By the way, I've just done some 10 x 8 prints of the S5000 results
on high qual photo glossy. They are really very good indeed. Esp
the insect and the child pics. I have not had this sort of qual at
10 x 8 from the 3800.
filibuster
http://www.pbase.com/filibuster
Click to expand...
 
Doug Kerr said:
Regarding the depth of field of the S7000 vs. the S602:
Click to expand...
Doug Kerr said:
corase pixel pitch and the image is, because of that, is "less
acute" than the image implied by the chosen circle of confusion
diameter, then the DOF calculated in the tradiitonal way is
meaningless. "Geez, the image is terriblly blurred, but its just
the same from 5 feet to infinity - what a great DOF".

A widely-used criterion for circle of confusion diameter is 1/1250
of the diagonal size of the frame. If we imagine a "3 MP" sensor of
Click to expand...
That is correct for the final image, like on a print.
On a 100% print the DOF will appear to be the same.
Doug Kerr said:
pixel dimensions 2000 x 1500 (I'm assuming a non-rotated array for
simplicity), then that diameter corresponds to 2 pixel pitches.
Crudely, this says that the pixel pitch is not controlling on
resolution as it influences the signficance of DOF. For a sensor
with a finer pitch (S7000 vs. S602), that is even more so.
Click to expand...
You know, I'm not entirely clear on this? If the 7000 has more
pixels within a circle of confusion (you know what I mean 9-),
then doesn't this suggest that, at 100%, the 7000 will appear to have
a higher DOF? Though of course two equally cropped pics printed
will still apear the same.

Ummm. All right then. BAsically the same DOF.

BTW, I misquoted Karl Gunter, he said the 7000 would have a higher DOF.

--
cheers!

Gunn
 
filibuster said:
By the way, I've just done some 10 x 8 prints of the S5000 results
on high qual photo glossy. They are really very good indeed. Esp
the insect and the child pics. I have not had this sort of qual at
10 x 8 from the 3800.
Click to expand...
Really! That is very interesting. I was getting tired of people
comparing super CCD 6mp images at 100%, with std CCD pics.

I mean this is the fuji forum right? People should know better!

My gf wants a 3800, but I can't bring myself to buy one for her due
to its 100 ISO limit. I still have problems with the 5000 though.
2s max eposure is not enough! (for time exposures of streams
etc... I think!)

--
cheers!

Gunn
 
MikeBee said:
Time travel is a wonderful thing! LoL!

I will always remember Eric for his highly opinionated views on a
camera he never even touched and for when he blew a fuse in no
uncertain terms and resorted to extreme name calling, but I'm sure
we'll be in for a long bout of similar excitement again !
Click to expand...
Can I start?

You poopoo pants!!

--
cheers!

Gunn
 
Chris,

No, the blurring that occurs for image points not perfectly focused is an optical effect, and has nothing to do with pixels (that's why we have DOF for film cameras). A point on an object which is not at the focus distance will be imaged onto the sensor (or film) not as a point, but as a furry circle. For a point on an object at one of the DOF distance limits, the diameter of that furry spot is (by definition) the one we adopted as our crtiterion of blurring. (If it isn't, then the object of interest isn't at a DOF limit.)

It doen't matter if that furry circle is represented in the image by 20 pixels or 9, its representation is still the same size as a fraction of the entire image size (again, by definition).

Doug Kerr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top