Fanboy’s Lament

Started May 1, 2011 | Discussions
Billx08 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,373
Re: Fanboy’s Lament

Humphrey Nash wrote:

Beshannon, you have a point. There is nothing "magical" about the Fuji 6500/31/30 sensor, although its highly regarded (at least in Fuji circles). It does seem to provide slightly better color and noise but as you correctly point out the difference are exaggerated at 100%. The Fuji may apply more in-camera sharpening giving it an apparent advantage.
. . .

The following comments, cherry-picked from DPR's review, reflect what I'm driving at. Why can't this excellent sensor be extended to perhaps 8 megapixels in an updated camera with image stabilization, better electronic views, better video, DR adjustments, etc.?

It seems that you've completely missed two of Fuji's larger bridge cameras. The S100fs has an 11mp sensor and those 11 million pixels provide far more detail than other P&S cameras that have anywhere from 10mp to 16mp sensors because it's a relatively large 2/3" sensor. The S200EXR has a 12mp sensor, but due to the EXR design and the slightly smaller sensor size, it doesn't have the resolution of the S100fs. But in its half resolution EXR mode, it produces as much detail as the S6500 and gains the S200EXR's extremely wide dynamic range. Both of these models BTW, are stabilized, unlike the S6500. They both also shoot RAW, and wonder of wonders, as of a couple of days ago Adobe's ACR finally added support for the EXR models. They also use SD/SDHC cards so they aren't limited to use only small, slow xD cards. The S100fs has an articulating LCD display and both the S100 and S200 have flash hot shoes and lenses with slightly wider zoom ranges, 28-400mm for the S100 vs 28-300 for the S6500.

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
The I suggest you get glasses

Chris59 wrote:

Astigmatism can look a little like camera shake and to my eyes, this looks more like astigmatism.

The "ghosting" is quite clear on this shot. Glasses are not that expensive, and I'm sure you will find them useful.

Dave

Midnighter Senior Member • Posts: 1,727
It can and it did

Downsizing sheds detail. Software just makes the best intelligent choice it can on what data should be shed. Some patterns and detail really suffer from downsizing in an image, some do not. Hence, in that image, you can end up with one fabric that looks fine and another that looks like garbage after downsizing. Up-sizing is another dog with (sadly) different fleas.

If you reproduce the image on a printer the image is NOT downsized OR upsized, the ppi in the printed image is increased (or decreased) so that the final image comes out the same size as the other image you are comparing it to.

Its only from this that you get an accurate view on the respective qualities of the images, because a printer (generally) has a high enough printing resolution of its own to compensate for the different resolutions of the images.

Rolo King wrote:

That still doesn't excuses the Olympus' performance with the red fabric. There's almost no detail left. The downsizing couldn't have wiped it all out.

Chris59 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,436
Nope

Chato wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

Astigmatism can look a little like camera shake and to my eyes, this looks more like astigmatism.

The "ghosting" is quite clear on this shot. Glasses are not that expensive, and I'm sure you will find them useful.

Dave

You're wrong. There is simply no ghosting or any other artefacts that are due to camera shake. There is a little colour bleeding and some oval looking flares at about the "1 o'clock" position of some highlights most likely due to astigmatism (depending on where in the shot this crop is from).

Camera shake makes its presence felt over the whole image, usually shows highlights as streaks and will show some sharpness in one "direction".

Being rude doesn't change the reality - there is no camera shake, the poor resolution and other aberrations etc are entirely due to the camera (sensor and lens).

 Chris59's gear list:Chris59's gear list
Samsung NX1 Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Re: Nope

Chris59 wrote:

You're wrong. There is simply no ghosting or any other artefacts that are due to camera shake. There is a little colour bleeding and some oval looking flares at about the "1 o'clock" position of some highlights most likely due to astigmatism (depending on where in the shot this crop is from).

Camera shake makes its presence felt over the whole image, usually shows highlights as streaks and will show some sharpness in one "direction".

Being rude doesn't change the reality - there is no camera shake, the poor resolution and other aberrations etc are entirely due to the camera (sensor and lens).

My bad, being ignorant of the photographic definition, I thought you were being rude.

My sincere apology.

I still disagree however. While more pronounced on the piece of metal, this ghosting appears throughout the picture, and since I looked up the real definiton, this aberation doesn't match your description. The shake would be more visible in closer objects, and especially objects that sharply reflect light..

Dave

rocklobster Senior Member • Posts: 1,408
Sample images

The first sample is the S6500 right? I can tell by the contrast between the white/cream coloured fabric swatches. So whilst the S6500 compares favourably, in the real world it is too high in contrast and you can't adjust it. As far as the Oly is concerned it has an excellent lens but it loses something in fine detail (noise reduction smearing) in some 'real world' shots that i have seen elsewhere.

But, then again, it does have RAW but as my other posting in this forum explains, why can't these cameras produce an acceptable JPEG image like the Canon S95/G11, Panasonic LX5?

Also, why would you buy the Oly XZ1 when you can get a E-PL1 for around the same price with only a small difference in physical size (depending on the lens). The JPEG images straight out of the E-PL1 are far better and any advantage the XZ1 has with the fast f1.8 lens is countered by the far superior high ISO performance of the E-PL1.

The E-PL1 is at the moment the bargain of the century unless you want the pancake lens which is not packaged with the camera although the kit lens is still very good, albiet much larger.

Cheers

rocklobster Senior Member • Posts: 1,408
S6500 JPEG not always good

Have a look at the comparison of these two images taken within minutes of each other with the same settings except for slight framing difference - first the JPEG

and now the RAW image

note the washed out sky and desaturated colours in the JPEG.

Cheers

rocklobster Senior Member • Posts: 1,408
More from RAW

If you were unconvinced by my last posting, the image on the left is the embedded JPEG in the RAW file (displayed when browsing in the FinePix RAW software) and then the slightly processed RAW coverted image at the right.

Note the recovered hihlights as seen as detail in the clouds. White balance not perfect but just a quick coversion to show the difference.

Chris59 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,436
Re: Nope

Chato wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

You're wrong. There is simply no ghosting or any other artefacts that are due to camera shake. There is a little colour bleeding and some oval looking flares at about the "1 o'clock" position of some highlights most likely due to astigmatism (depending on where in the shot this crop is from).

Camera shake makes its presence felt over the whole image, usually shows highlights as streaks and will show some sharpness in one "direction".

Being rude doesn't change the reality - there is no camera shake, the poor resolution and other aberrations etc are entirely due to the camera (sensor and lens).

My bad, being ignorant of the photographic definition, I thought you were being rude.

My sincere apology.

I still disagree however. While more pronounced on the piece of metal, this ghosting appears throughout the picture, and since I looked up the real definiton, this aberation doesn't match your description. The shake would be more visible in closer objects, and especially objects that sharply reflect light..

Dave

Apology accepted.

As for astigmatism versus camera shake, astigmatism makes its presence felt in the corners of the image much more than the centre and will show sharpness in one direction but not the other a little like camera shake. The other aberration it could be is coma which makes highlights look a bit like comets (hence its name) and again affects corners more than the centre with the added attribute of the "tail" of the comet pointing away from the centre.

Camera shake doesn't affect nearby objects any more or less than far away objects. It will be more visible in highlights but the streak would be of more or less equal brightness and still show some sharpness in the plane the camera was not shaken in.

All this is of course "theoretical", but I will try and track down the image for a further looksee.

 Chris59's gear list:Chris59's gear list
Samsung NX1 Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8
antoineb Veteran Member • Posts: 6,624
samples are not the same SIZE!

In comparing these shots, you make the same mistake that DPreview make: instead of taking an area of the same size in the physical world, you take an area of the same pixel size.

If you continue this logical error, then by the time cameras will have say 100mp you'll be comparing the point of a crayon with the whole set of crayons on your 6500, and complaining. Whereas if you did compare the same physical size, you'd see the progress.

But again - this is a logical error, and the fact that DPReview continue to make it and apparently not understand how bad it is, doesn't prevent it from being a big error.

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +5 more
ZorSy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,482
Re: samples are not the same SIZE!

antoineb wrote:

In comparing these shots, you make the same mistake that DPreview make: instead of taking an area of the same size in the physical world, you take an area of the same pixel size.

If you continue this logical error, then by the time cameras will have say 100mp you'll be comparing the point of a crayon with the whole set of crayons on your 6500, and complaining. Whereas if you did compare the same physical size, you'd see the progress.

But again - this is a logical error, and the fact that DPReview continue to make it and apparently not understand how bad it is, doesn't prevent it from being a big error.

Yes, but that's the OP's point: the new more MP cameras in order to be the same "quality" as his S6500 need to be resized down to 6MP (pixel) size to regain the same sharpens. We all know that would happen and the final result would be slightly better than S6500 originals - but the question still remains: the new crop of superzooms, did it really gain quality or just numbers?

He did the right thing comparing pixels on the same level (and the same captured area of the scene is proportionally larger to match the pizel count, so no cheating here). One would, as the OP, expect to see significantly more details related to high MP count - whic is not the case - instead we go in deliberation if it was the camera shake or optical flaw.

Either way, very little advantage having +2x more pixels creamed on such a small sensor. As in "old days" people wanted to see compact/superzoom with improved low light abilities. F31/S6500 was the best chip at time - instead of improvement in sensitivity it got more MP and any advantage in chip technology was lost (this in light of the latest generation of DX format sensors, which gained a lot in high ISO area even with moderate pixel count increase).

High ISO capability of new superzoom range has the same level of noise as years ago - BUT the noise reduction went way up. The fact is - the numbers on the sales brochure look very impressive (photos less so).

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D7100
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,702
Re: samples are not the same SIZE!

ZorSy wrote:

One would, as the OP, expect to see significantly more details related to high MP count - whic is not the case...

Yeah, it is. This difference is only 28% in linear pixel count, and we see a commensurate (small) advantage in detail retained. The problem is, people look at pixel counts and expect more than is there because resolution isn't proportional to pixel count, it's proportional to the square root of pixel count. Doubling pixel count only means a 1.4x improvement in theoretical resolution, not 2x.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
ZorSy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,482
Re: samples are not the same SIZE!

ljfinger wrote:

ZorSy wrote:

One would, as the OP, expect to see significantly more details related to high MP count - whic is not the case...

Yeah, it is. This difference is only 28% in linear pixel count, and we see a commensurate (small) advantage in detail retained. The problem is, people look at pixel counts and expect more than is there because resolution isn't proportional to pixel count, it's proportional to the square root of pixel count. Doubling pixel count only means a 1.4x improvement in theoretical resolution, not 2x.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Ok, my mistake - when writing I was not referring to cameras in OP, more like Olympus SP8000, Panasonic FZ45 or Canon SX30 - real superzooms all having 14MP effective. THAT compared to S6500 is more than double in "resolution"as people call MP "resolution", which is wrong but common. And, yes you are right, would be 1.52X.

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D7100
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads