602 questions

[Thomas L]

Hi,

I used Lanczos-3 filter for resampling in a program called Thumbnailer. After reading your post I resampled the image in Photoshop Elements using bicubic and there result turned out to be much better. I'm not going to use Thumbnailer for enlarging pictures anymore.

I have to agree with you. The differences are not that distinct between the native 6 mp and 3 to 6 mp interpolated image. At least I would not care for the difference and waste storage space on the native 6 mp. However, for large prints the native 6 mp is probably preferable.

Thomas,

Thank you for the info. Just out of interest, I also downloaded the
same images from the same site. I resampled the 3 mp file to 6mp in
PS6 using Bicubic. The differences between the resampled 3 mp and
the native 6 mp are not as distinct as the images you posted (How
did you do yours?). I am more incline to say that they are very
similar. (Sorry, I do not know how to embed images stored on my
hard drive. Cut & Paste didn't work.) When both files are resampled
to 12 mp for further comparison, then I can tell that the native 6
mp file is better. However, I cannot say that the difference is
enough to justify the claim by Fuji. One other consideration is
that the resampling was done from a compressed JPG file. The
differences could be even less if I had an uncompressed file for
resampling. I would think this is the case, because the native 6 mp
file was "resampled" in the camera using original data. Further
resampling is unfair to the 3 mp file.

In any case, I still think the Super CCD is a very interesting
design. The 3 mp image is in the top 10% of the 3 mp prosumer
digicam league and the 6 mp file is the resampling result of a very
clever hardware/firmware combination. I look forward to the 602.

Shii

You can find some comparison shots between 3 and 6 mp on:
http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa782151 (very slow site!!).
The shots are beta samples from the F601 with the new super CCD. I
know that the optics are better on the 6900, but the difference
between 3 and 6 mp is evident. Below are two cropped samples, that
I also posted last week, of a 3 mp picture interpolated to 6 mp
compared with a native 6 mp.

I sneered at the Fuji marketing hype before but now, after
following numerous discussions on this site, I am looking at the
Super CCD with a lot of interest. Not that I am accepting the
argument that one could generate 6 mp worth of information from a 3
mp sensor, but I am interested in the argument that the Super CCD
can get more out of a 3 mp sensor than the conventional CCD can. Of
course, I understand that the hexagonal layout allows bigger sensor
area and hence better dynamic range and lower noise, etc. I am
looking at other possible benefits of a hexagonal layout. At the
risk of offending some Fuji fans here, I wonder if I could look at
the hexagonal layout, inconjunction with the proprietary software,
as a clever way of doing image resampling. In other words, this is
a hardware/software combination to image resampling rather than
just a software approach such as Bicubic and GF. I further
understand that the 6900 can generate both 3 mp and 6 mp files.
Could somebody post, or point me to a link, 3 mp and 6 mp files of
the same scene so I can "play" with them?

Thanks,

Shii

--
Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/thla/finepix2800z

--Thomas http://www.pbase.com/thla/finepix2800z

 

[Peter G]

Thanks for pointing that out. I use Lanczos whenever I use irfanview, but when actually printing I tended to used bi-cubic, because I was using photosop. I never realized there was that much difference. I will make sure to use bicubic from now on.

Peter

Thomas,

Thank you for the info. Just out of interest, I also downloaded the
same images from the same site. I resampled the 3 mp file to 6mp in
PS6 using Bicubic. The differences between the resampled 3 mp and
the native 6 mp are not as distinct as the images you posted (How
did you do yours?). I am more incline to say that they are very
similar. (Sorry, I do not know how to embed images stored on my
hard drive. Cut & Paste didn't work.) When both files are resampled
to 12 mp for further comparison, then I can tell that the native 6
mp file is better. However, I cannot say that the difference is
enough to justify the claim by Fuji. One other consideration is
that the resampling was done from a compressed JPG file. The
differences could be even less if I had an uncompressed file for
resampling. I would think this is the case, because the native 6 mp
file was "resampled" in the camera using original data. Further
resampling is unfair to the 3 mp file.

In any case, I still think the Super CCD is a very interesting
design. The 3 mp image is in the top 10% of the 3 mp prosumer
digicam league and the 6 mp file is the resampling result of a very
clever hardware/firmware combination. I look forward to the 602.

Shii

You can find some comparison shots between 3 and 6 mp on:
http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa782151 (very slow site!!).
The shots are beta samples from the F601 with the new super CCD. I
know that the optics are better on the 6900, but the difference
between 3 and 6 mp is evident. Below are two cropped samples, that
I also posted last week, of a 3 mp picture interpolated to 6 mp
compared with a native 6 mp.

I sneered at the Fuji marketing hype before but now, after
following numerous discussions on this site, I am looking at the
Super CCD with a lot of interest. Not that I am accepting the
argument that one could generate 6 mp worth of information from a 3
mp sensor, but I am interested in the argument that the Super CCD
can get more out of a 3 mp sensor than the conventional CCD can. Of
course, I understand that the hexagonal layout allows bigger sensor
area and hence better dynamic range and lower noise, etc. I am
looking at other possible benefits of a hexagonal layout. At the
risk of offending some Fuji fans here, I wonder if I could look at
the hexagonal layout, inconjunction with the proprietary software,
as a clever way of doing image resampling. In other words, this is
a hardware/software combination to image resampling rather than
just a software approach such as Bicubic and GF. I further
understand that the 6900 can generate both 3 mp and 6 mp files.
Could somebody post, or point me to a link, 3 mp and 6 mp files of
the same scene so I can "play" with them?

Thanks,

Shii

--
Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/thla/finepix2800z

--
Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/thla/finepix2800z

 

[Jim Gilliland]

Jack and togsky, it's not a question of "naysaying" anything. It's just a question of mathematics. togsky's scenario is simply not possible. If you use the same number of sensors to sample the same image space, you get the same amount of information. If you want more information, you need to use more CCD cells. You can't gather more information by just moving them around. The mathematical rules of sampling theory guarantee that.

I am not a scientist or an electornics engineer (actually I'm an
industrial engineer), but don't you think that using a different
design in CCD makes a lot of difference here. This is just like the
current debate on what kind of processor to use in your computer,
AMD or Intel. AMD has a lower speed in terms of instruction but it
accomplishes more because it increased the amount of work that it
can process per amount of time. The same thing with Super CCD.
Since it has a different design, it may be capturing more details
than a regular CCD even if they have the same amount of megapixel.
Just my two cents!!

togsky

An IE from New Jersey...now that has to be some logical thinking!!
I also was an Industial Engineer during the early years of my
career and worked for 5 yearss in S. Jersey and am in complete
agreement with togsky's two cents! The naysayers should take their
argument to another forum where they will find some sympathy for
their rantings! Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be
wrong...

Jack

 

[Jim Gilliland]

I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read any of my posts.

Are you having any better success in choosing a scope?

Oh, wait... it's ME that's looking for a scope, isn't it? )

My wife bought me an ETX105 for my birthday last month. I like it very much, but we really haven't had enough clear skies for me to use it heavily yet. Unfortunately, clear skies in January/February in northeastern Ohio tends to mean cold temperatures. Brrrr.

The astrostar computer controller is very cool.

No, the tough decision is the camera. The S602 looks to be the best choice, but the Sony F707 is right up there too. I have a couple of concerns with the S602.

The first concern is the lens extension tube. I'm afraid that it will cause severe vignetting when using the camera with a telescope. However, I've read discussions here and in several other forums now that suggest that I may find little practical difference between these cameras in this area. Stated another way, they may BOTH turn out to be poor choices for telescope eyepiece vignetting. :-(

The other concern is battery life. The S602 will use 4 AA NiMH cells. That's what I have in my current digicam, and I'm really unhappy with them. They provide good life, are easy to charge, and are inexpensive. But if you charge them up and let them sit for a week or two, they just go dead on the shelf. That means that I have to remember to charge them up a day or two before I want to use them. And I NEVER remember to do that.

So I want a camera (like the F707) that uses Lithium batteries that hold their charge for months while sitting on the shelf. The only way that I'll buy an S602 is if I can find an external belt battery pack that uses Lithium batteries to power it. And I haven't yet found such a device. I'm not sure its even possible. The voltages produced by the Lithium-ion chemistry may not be compatible with the S602. So that's a big question for me.

But I'm going to keep an eye on PMA to see what else gets announced.

If anyone knows of a Lithium-ion battery pack that can provide a standard 6V output for a camera that normally uses 4 AA cells, let me know.

 

[Peter G]

I agree totally. If I came here to troll, I would have been here long ago, with the early Fuji cameras show much more difficulty with early version super CCDs. I wasn't here because none of the previous cameras really caught my eye.

I came here after getting excited about the new 602 which seems to have a lot of promise. Excellent lens, CF and SM, new faster focus, lower iso noise, nice colour, generic batteries, Higher resolution EVF, Super Macro mode, 5 fps shooting.

I read Phils review of the 6900 twice cover to cover to get a good idea of what the handling of the camera was like. I like a lot of things about the interface. Like the flexible program mode, and the manual focus with the one touch autofocus (this is perfect IMO).

But I also read the image quality section and I agree with Phils conclusions. That this is a 3mp with a very nice 6mp interpolation mode. It also didn't make mathematical sense that they could get double the information by offsetting every second row of pixels. When you do that you might get a tradeoff in performance, but you are not going to double resolution. This is what I see looking at Phils comparison on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fuji6900z/page13.asp

The bottom half showing the Fuji 6mp mode vrs the 6mp interpolation of the nikon cp990. The fuji generally looks better, but shows more artifacts on the diagonal lines of the Martini bottle. Totally expected if you think about what they are doing.

So now that I am very interested in the camera, I start reading all kinds of claims that it is the equal of 4mp and even 5MP cameras. Something that really doesn't mesh with theory or visual observation. So I disagree.

Which is not an attack on the camera, which I am quite excited about. But is an attack on 3 == 6 logic.

Peter

It's as if you had told me that 2+2=5 and expected me to accept it.
I can't do that.

My main point here is a mathematical one. I've looked at the
images, and to me they seem to agree pretty well with what theory
predicts. You may see them differently, and if so I'll accept
that. But I won't accept any statement that contradicts proven
mathematics.

And again, for those who are coming into this late and haven't read
all the threads: I think the Fuji is a GREAT camera, and I also
think that we pay far too much attention to resolution rather than
looking at the camera as a whole. But the design of the Fuji seems
to lead us to this discussion, so I'm trying to help everyone
separate the fact from the exaggeration.

 

[Peter G]

Jim,

What is your issue with the 707? Here in Canada it is $1800 and that is before our 15% sales tax! The fuji 6900 is/was $1200. So from a price perspective the fuji looks a lot more attractive to me. But the price difference doesn't seem so large in the USA and the detail captured with the 707 is pretty amazing.

Peter

I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read any of my posts.

Are you having any better success in choosing a scope?

Oh, wait... it's ME that's looking for a scope, isn't it? )

My wife bought me an ETX105 for my birthday last month. I like it
very much, but we really haven't had enough clear skies for me to
use it heavily yet. Unfortunately, clear skies in January/February
in northeastern Ohio tends to mean cold temperatures. Brrrr.

The astrostar computer controller is very cool.

No, the tough decision is the camera. The S602 looks to be the
best choice, but the Sony F707 is right up there too. I have a
couple of concerns with the S602.

The first concern is the lens extension tube. I'm afraid that it
will cause severe vignetting when using the camera with a
telescope. However, I've read discussions here and in several
other forums now that suggest that I may find little practical
difference between these cameras in this area. Stated another way,
they may BOTH turn out to be poor choices for telescope eyepiece
vignetting. :-(

The other concern is battery life. The S602 will use 4 AA NiMH
cells. That's what I have in my current digicam, and I'm really
unhappy with them. They provide good life, are easy to charge, and
are inexpensive. But if you charge them up and let them sit for a
week or two, they just go dead on the shelf. That means that I
have to remember to charge them up a day or two before I want to
use them. And I NEVER remember to do that.

So I want a camera (like the F707) that uses Lithium batteries that
hold their charge for months while sitting on the shelf. The only
way that I'll buy an S602 is if I can find an external belt battery
pack that uses Lithium batteries to power it. And I haven't yet
found such a device. I'm not sure its even possible. The voltages
produced by the Lithium-ion chemistry may not be compatible with
the S602. So that's a big question for me.

But I'm going to keep an eye on PMA to see what else gets announced.

If anyone knows of a Lithium-ion battery pack that can provide a
standard 6V output for a camera that normally uses 4 AA cells, let
me know.

 

[Jim Gilliland]

What is your issue with the 707? Here in Canada it is $1800 and
that is before our 15% sales tax! The fuji 6900 is/was $1200. So
from a price perspective the fuji looks a lot more attractive to
me. But the price difference doesn't seem so large in the USA and
the detail captured with the 707 is pretty amazing.

No, the price difference here isn't that large, and with the S602 there will probably be even less difference. Price isn't the differentiator.

The Sony is a great camera in many ways, but there are some things that I don't like about it. I do like its swivel design which comes in handy for use with the telescope (where the camera must often be placed at odd angles) and for shooting over the heads of crowds or while holding the camera at waist level. As I've already noted, I really like its battery life. I like its fast lens - F2.0. I like its ability to deal with a wide variety of low-light situations, both for exposure and for auto-focus.

However, it is a bit awkward. Its form factor requires the use of two hands. Its zoom control is in an awkward location. Some of its other controls could be better placed as well.

It seems to have some problems with vignetting right in the camera. The corners of images shot in wide-angle tend to be dark, and many users report that there is a darker band on the left side of their images.

The Sony uses proprietary storage and a proprietary flash attachment.

Some users have reported problems with white balance and flash.

I'm hoping that Sony will announce an updated version of the F707 at PMA, perhaps addressing some of these issues. But if they don't, and if I can't find a solution to the battery issue with the S602, I'll probably buy the Sony. Unless something better comes along.

Of course, if I can find a way to give the S602 the same extended battery life as the Sony (both in use and on the shelf), that could change my decision in a hurry.

 

[Mofongo]

Richard Dunn wrote:
I agree with Ian here regarding both prints and monitor output.
Fufi's 6m prints with the existing 6900 are superb. However a
little automatic sharpening and downsizing in Irfan view produces
monitor images which I prefer to say a Nikon CP5000 as well.

This is what I've been saying. It's senseless to compare moniter samples. You have to compare the prints to see the difference.

I have just finished a 3 week session with the 5m Nikon and the
6900 outperforms it for print clarity, definition, enlargability
(ie abiltiy to crop tightly), colour. The Nikon is only superior in
monitor images straight from the camera. In shadow areas the Nikon
smear then resharpens which looks good on the monitor but awful
when printed. Oddly the 6900 prints shadow areas much much better
than they appear on screen.

The reason we buy high resolution cameras is for the ability to print large and still maintain detail (and for cropping lattitude).

If you see the difference in prints what do the technicalities of how it was accomplished matter? If you can see as much detail in a 6900 enlargement as in a good 4 mp camera than it is safe to say that it has the resolution of a (standard CCD) good 4mp camera.

At this point, the argument should stop because "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"

All the "Laws of information science remarks" and other such mathematical mumbo jumbo mean nothing at this point.

If man was able to fly, who cares about the "theories" that it is mathematically impossible because the "laws of gravity" prohibit an object heavier than air with our bone structer from flying.

Bottom line... the detail in prints proves Fujis Super CCD works.

With it's 3mp Super CCD it pulls in more definition and detail than a standard 3 or 4mp CCD.

Bob
--www.pbase.com/mofongo'The most beautiful sunsets are made by cloudy skies.'

 

[Mofongo]

Jim Gilliland wrote:

The other concern is battery life. The S602 will use 4 AA NiMH
cells. That's what I have in my current digicam, and I'm really
unhappy with them.

I know what you mean here Jim, did you know that Matsushita (Panasonic)

has just announced a 1900 NiMH AA battery? These should help with the battery issue and they will most likely get better also...

Bob--www.pbase.com/mofongo'The most beautiful sunsets are made by cloudy skies.'

 

[Ulysses]

This is what I've been saying. It's senseless to compare moniter
samples. You have to compare the prints to see the difference.

Actually, you need both printer AND monitor samples. It all depends upon what your intended usage would be.

Some people need the larger imager sizes even if they intend to use it for web work. You can often retain a better image when downsampled and saved for the web than when shooting at the native low-resolution.

Printing is important to others. But it's not the ultimate comparison in and of itself, especially when it introduces other problems such as which software was used to render the printed image (different programs don't print and scale the same) and how the printer handles the information (different printers definitely have their own sets of rules on laying down the dots). -- Ulysses

 

[Mofongo]

Ulysses wrote:
Actually, you need both printer AND monitor samples. It all depends
upon what your intended usage would be.

Agreed...

Some people need the larger imager sizes even if they intend to use
it for web work. You can often retain a better image when
downsampled and saved for the web than when shooting at the native
low-resolution.

True, but I would think that most people shooting in the 6mp mode would do so for large print output. Otherwise 3mp fine would be...uh...fine.

Printing is important to others. But it's not the ultimate
comparison in and of itself, especially when it introduces other
problems such as which software was used to render the printed
image (different programs don't print and scale the same) and how
the printer handles the information (different printers definitely
have their own sets of rules on laying down the dots).

What I'm saying is using the same printer and software as I do for all my prints, than than it would be an equal comparison. No variables this way, correct?

Either way, I was very happy with my output from my 6900 the short time I had it and I'm sure I'll be just as happy with the S602 when it's in my hands...1cm super macro was the clincher for me. The other improvements are icing on the cake...

Regards,
Bob

--

Ulysses

--www.pbase.com/mofongo'The most beautiful sunsets are made by cloudy skies.'

 

[Ulysses]

Hey there Bob -

Either way, I was very happy with my output from my 6900 the short
time I had it and I'm sure I'll be just as happy with the S602 when
it's in my hands...1cm super macro was the clincher for me. The
other improvements are icing on the cake...

If you don't mind, I'd be interested in knowing what reasons you'd list for upgrading from the 6900 to the S602.

They seem so similar in most respects. I know that some Sony users did upgrade from the S70 to S75; some Nikon users went from the 990 to the 995. And so forth.

What features or user habits would you experience differently by upgrading besides the macro? And on that macro feature, do you think the lens is up to rendering that 1 cm shot without distortion (would you need to crop a lot of the shot away)?-- Ulysses

 

[Jim Gilliland]

Jim Gilliland wrote:

The other concern is battery life. The S602 will use 4 AA NiMH
cells. That's what I have in my current digicam, and I'm really
unhappy with them.

I know what you mean here Jim, did you know that Matsushita
(Panasonic)
has just announced a 1900 NiMH AA battery? These should help with
the battery issue and they will most likely get better also...

Yes, NiMH batteries have come a long way since I bought most of mine. But even with the higher capacities, I don't think the shelf life is any better. And that's what causes trouble for me. I have no trouble having enough power for my camera - as long as I remember to charge the darn things!

I want a power source that can be charged in January and still be (nearly) fully charged in March (assuming, of course, that I haven't used it in the meantime).

 

[Mofongo]

Ulysses wrote:
Hey there Bob -

If you don't mind, I'd be interested in knowing what reasons you'd
list for upgrading from the 6900 to the S602.

Sure thing Ulysses...first off, I don't really know if mine would be considered an upgrade cause I simply returned mine on the last day of a 10 day return policy at Ritz Camera. The S602 was announced on the last day I could have returned so I had a dilemma. (what timing huh?) Also, seeing I paid $799 for the 6900, I thought maybe I could get the S602 for near the same price.

I already have a camera Olympus C2100 that I love so I was really in no big hurry for a companion camera as the weather kind of stinks for a while for enjoying Fujis wonderful colors.

They seem so similar in most respects. I know that some Sony users
did upgrade from the S70 to S75; some Nikon users went from the 990
to the 995. And so forth.

Before the S602 was announced I had actually thought of buying a Nikon 995 or an older 950 just for the super macro mode...

What features or user habits would you experience differently by
upgrading besides the macro?

Besides the macro mode, the dual media with microdrive capability was a big plus. Also, I was not happy with the lith-ion battery at all so NiMH AA's was also a big consideration. Better low light capabilities, faster (claims to fastest in it's class) auto focus helped alot also.

And on that macro feature, do you
think the lens is up to rendering that 1 cm shot without distortion
(would you need to crop a lot of the shot away)?

Yes I do think the macro mode would be no problem. I had a Casio QV-2900 that had a 1cm super macro mode and it did an outstanding job with no need to crop. (I kicked myself for getting rid of it for this feature) but I did to help buy the 6900 so naturally when the S602 was announced I was delighted...

Here's some sample macros taken with the Casios super macro mode...
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo/macro

Hope I've answered your questions...

Have a great day,

Bob

--

Ulysses

--www.pbase.com/mofongo'The most beautiful sunsets are made by cloudy skies.'

 

[Jack G Heckler]

Jim...I guess my "tongue in cheek" reply didn't come across that way. My Dennis Miller disclaimer should have been a clue! Heck I don't know what the Fuji engineers are doing with the information from the SuperCCD, but apparently it impresses a number of owners and some reviewers such as Simon Johnson from "What Digital Camera"...he appears to be the one who made the famous, or infamous, statement that the 6900 output puts it in a 4.5MP class. Most here do not disagree that the 3MP+ CCD cannot capture more than 3MP+ of information...it is what the camera, lens, software, chips, etc. do with that information that sets it above other 3MP cameras and in some people's eyes elevates it to a 4MP+ class.

Can't we just leave it at that? If someone does not do his/her homework to compare features, resolution, how pics look on the monitor and printer, battery life, type of memory, etc., and spends $800 on a camera that they are not satisfied with...then shame on them!! I am ready to buy my first DC and had decided on the 6900 about the time that the rumors of its discontinuance hit and prices started climbing. Now I am putting the purchase on hold and will wait for the S602 to hit the market and see how it stacks up against the competition.

Have a good one...Jack

I am not a scientist or an electornics engineer (actually I'm an
industrial engineer), but don't you think that using a different
design in CCD makes a lot of difference here. This is just like the
current debate on what kind of processor to use in your computer,
AMD or Intel. AMD has a lower speed in terms of instruction but it
accomplishes more because it increased the amount of work that it
can process per amount of time. The same thing with Super CCD.
Since it has a different design, it may be capturing more details
than a regular CCD even if they have the same amount of megapixel.
Just my two cents!!

togsky

An IE from New Jersey...now that has to be some logical thinking!!
I also was an Industial Engineer during the early years of my
career and worked for 5 yearss in S. Jersey and am in complete
agreement with togsky's two cents! The naysayers should take their
argument to another forum where they will find some sympathy for
their rantings! Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be
wrong...

Jack

 

[Jack G Heckler]

Jim Gilliland wrote:

The other concern is battery life. The S602 will use 4 AA NiMH
cells. That's what I have in my current digicam, and I'm really
unhappy with them.

I know what you mean here Jim, did you know that Matsushita
(Panasonic)
has just announced a 1900 NiMH AA battery? These should help with
the battery issue and they will most likely get better also...

Yes, NiMH batteries have come a long way since I bought most of
mine. But even with the higher capacities, I don't think the shelf
life is any better. And that's what causes trouble for me. I have
no trouble having enough power for my camera - as long as I
remember to charge the darn things!

I want a power source that can be charged in January and still be
(nearly) fully charged in March (assuming, of course, that I
haven't used it in the meantime).

Jim...somewhere I read and actually copied to my "Digital Camera Tips" Word document (I'm over 30 pages of info now), a long-term test of NiMH batteries and chargers...it may have been on Imaging Resource. There were 4-5 batteries that stacked up well among each other, but the writer was very sold on a charger combination as the best and used it as his standard for the battery tests. This combo was the Maha C204 charger followed by a looooong, low-rate trickle charge in a Maha 2A4. I don't recall exactly their cost, but http://www.thomas-distributing.com had them for about $40 for the C204 with 4-1800mAH Maha AA bateries, a car adapter, and a couple battery holders...and maybe $20-25 for the trickle charger. The C204 also has a trickle cycle, but apparently the reviewer felt the 2A4 did a better job of bringing the batteries up to full charge. Interesting article, check it out I'm almost sure it was http://www.imagingresource.com , if not checkout Steve's Digicam.

Have a good one...Jack

 

[Jack G Heckler]

Forgot the hyphen, try http://www.imaging-resource.com and clink on "accessories" and you should be the Great Battery Shootout review.

Jack

Jim...somewhere I read and actually copied to my "Digital Camera
Tips" Word document (I'm over 30 pages of info now), a long-term
test of NiMH batteries and chargers...it may have been on Imaging
Resource. There were 4-5 batteries that stacked up well among each
other, but the writer was very sold on a charger combination as the
best and used it as his standard for the battery tests. This combo
was the Maha C204 charger followed by a looooong, low-rate trickle
charge in a Maha 2A4. I don't recall exactly their cost, but
http://www.thomas-distributing.com had them for about $40 for the C204
with 4-1800mAH Maha AA bateries, a car adapter, and a couple
battery holders...and maybe $20-25 for the trickle charger. The
C204 also has a trickle cycle, but apparently the reviewer felt the
2A4 did a better job of bringing the batteries up to full charge.
Interesting article, check it out I'm almost sure it was
http://www.imagingresource.com , if not checkout Steve's Digicam.

Have a good one...Jack

 

[Jim Gilliland]

But even with the higher capacities, I don't think the shelf
life is any better. And that's what causes trouble for me. I have
no trouble having enough power for my camera - as long as I
remember to charge the darn things!

I want a power source that can be charged in January and still be
(nearly) fully charged in March (assuming, of course, that I
haven't used it in the meantime).

Jim...somewhere I read and actually copied to my "Digital Camera
Tips" Word document (I'm over 30 pages of info now), a long-term
test of NiMH batteries and chargers...it may have been on Imaging
Resource.

Jack, thanks. Yes, I've already read that piece. It was very well done.

But I don't remember it addressing my main issue of shelf life. Do you remember seeing anything on that topic there? The best new NiMH batteries may power a camera for the whole day of shooting, but I think their charge fades on the shelf just as quickly as those of the past. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

 

[Jim Gilliland]

Jim...I guess my "tongue in cheek" reply didn't come across that
way......
Can't we just leave it at that?

Sure thing, Jack. I'm just trying to be helpful here. For those (like you)who are interested, I've provided a bit of education. For others, ignorance is bliss. You can lead a horse to water.....

Anyway, I don't take this stuff too personally. I do find the science fascinating, though.

 

[Ulysses]

Thanks for sharing your experience, Bob.

Nice macro gallery, too.

I should probably take a look at some 6900 macros as I read in here. What is the range supposed to be again for that version?

Here's some sample macros taken with the Casios super macro mode...
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo/macro-- Ulysses