F11 Poor Picture Quality

[CheapInformation]

Hello, I managed to pick up a Fuji F11 + 512mb XD card + Official Case for a price of £160 which I thought was very good on Ebay.co.uk

But I Have been using it and haven't been blown away with the picture quality.

Please could anyone help with the following questions:

1) I know there is a natural light option for indoor shooting in low light, but when I try to use this function the icon comes up that tells me that it is going to be blurry if I don't use a tripod or constant surface.

Is this right?

2) When I do use flash, anything more than 2 metres away appears incredible grainy as the flash does not get that far away.

Is there anything I can do against this?

3) Is the "Auto" mode ok for most shooting if I want decent quality pictures? If not,then are the presets like "Landscape", "Portrait" ok? Or do I need to do everything manually?

4) 6MP Fine takes up a huge space, is there that much difference between that and the normal 3MP, I will just be viewing them on a standard 17" TFT monitor?

5) Nearly all my pictures which are indoors look very grainy, this is on the "Auto" mode. Do I need to change the ISO or something? What ISO's do I set it to? ie. Does the lowest ISO give the greatest picture quality or vice versa?

If anyone could help me with any of these questions, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[X2222]

First of all, using natural light mode, even if that warning comes up, the picture will almost certainly not be blurry but it might be very grainy. This is becasue natural light chooses a high iso setting. And the lower the iso setting the less grainy the picture is. Take a flash pic with iso 80 indoors and you will see its fine. If you increase the iso that will in essence increase the range of the flash. Auto mode and auto iso works decently but you really just have to experiment with the camera to learn how to use it. Its not too hard to learn and when you do you will see what great pics u can get.

 

[jp34med3]

Natural light - can still be blurry - the F10 runs the iso up to 1600 if needed - but if the shutter speed will still be slow (1/20 etc) the icon warns you to that fact and that hand movement may result in a blurry pic. As for using the F10 in automatic mode - if you have the iso set to auto then the F10 will change it as it sees fit - can go very high and then give you 'grain' look in your pics. If you set the iso manually (80/100/200 etc) then that's all the F10 will use (except natural light mode). I haven't tried any of the 'scene modes' so I can't comment on them - but if you only plan to view on a monitor and never print any pics out then you can just about use the 'least quality' setting and save card space.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Hello, I managed to pick up a Fuji F11 + 512mb XD card + Official
Case for a price of £160 which I thought was very good on Ebay.co.uk

That sounds like an excellent price.

But I Have been using it and haven't been blown away with the
picture quality.

Please could anyone help with the following questions:

1) I know there is a natural light option for indoor shooting in
low light, but when I try to use this function the icon comes up
that tells me that it is going to be blurry if I don't use a tripod
or constant surface.

Well, how do you define low light? The camera is amazing, but is not a miracle worker. If there is almost no light, then even ISO 1600 can't really help you. But if you brace the camera, you'd be surpised what it will capture.

Here is the classic birthday cake shot with the scene lit by three covered incandescent lamps at the corners of the room and the face lit by the candles. Fairly dim by photographic standards, but easily captured at 1/40s at f2.8 and 1600ISO. I let the camera set those values in Natural Light mode.

This is a version of the shot with only resizing. I think the grain is fine enough that it is not distracting.

Is this right?

Depends entirely on what sort of light you are shooting in. Post something for us to see.

Without care in reducing camera shake (steady yourself and control your breathing or brace the camera), 1/40s is not fast enough to avoid blur.

2) When I do use flash, anything more than 2 metres away appears
incredible grainy as the flash does not get that far away.

Is there anything I can do against this?

At 400 ISO, the flash goes a long way. At 800, even longer. I don't get what you are asking. I ran a test (since I had only anecdotal info) and found that I could get a nice exposure with minimal grain at 400, 800 and moderate grain at 1600 ISO.

I shot from about 6 meters into a darkened basement corner ... here is the scene (it is a disaster area as I am slowly remodeling and this is the corner that catches the overflow.)



And here are the three crops unprocessed (at 100%) from the black rectangle shown in the scene. This is a small area 6 meters away in an unlit corner. The only mistake that could ruin all your flash shots is setting the ISO below 400 for distance shots.



Even with the grain shown in the 1600 ISO crop, the scene would print very well in any of these ISOs.

3) Is the "Auto" mode ok for most shooting if I want decent quality
pictures? If not,then are the presets like "Landscape", "Portrait"
ok? Or do I need to do everything manually?

For indoor shooting, use Natural Light mode, unless you want the flash. Then auto is fine. WARNING Auto does not mean auto ISO. The ISO stays where it is set, so if you want full auto, you better set the ISO to auto as well. Then auto works great.

4) 6MP Fine takes up a huge space, is there that much difference
between that and the normal 3MP, I will just be viewing them on a
standard 17" TFT monitor?

Shoot at whatever floats your boat. I use 6mp at fine because I like my pictures to look their best. It also gives me much more crop flexibility when I screw up a composition.

5) Nearly all my pictures which are indoors look very grainy, this
is on the "Auto" mode. Do I need to change the ISO or something?
What ISO's do I set it to? ie. Does the lowest ISO give the
greatest picture quality or vice versa?

If you are looking at 100%, they will look grainy at 1600 ISO for sure. But when they print or get downsized for display (providing you use the bicubic interpolation in Adobe products), they look fine. It's much better than not getting the shot.

If anyone could help me with any of these questions, it would be
much appreciated.

Hope this helped. I enjoyed exploring the flash issue and I frankly think it works much better than legend has it. Pop into my gallery below to see lots of very high ISO shots. They are heavily post processed, but they would have looked ok as snap shots too ...

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

I have the same problem.I take a lot of people pictures indoors at nigth, and I actually like to use a flash! These are mostly fairly close up people pictures, often portraits. I have a Fuji F11 but am wondering if any one has an idea on the best indoor flash performance in a compact or subcompact, the smaller size p&s the better.Or for these kind of snapshots does it really make any differece?BTW, I am not interested in using a slave, I just want to find the best small camera for indoor flash pictures.

I am not sure, but for the type of indoor flash pictures I take the Oly 800 seems to give much brighter, more satisfying results than the F11. PP does improve the F11 shots greatly, but I would rather not have to bother with it for these kind of pictures (people at parties or posing). Do not get me wrong, the F11 is still the best in low light without a flash, and also takes terrific daylight shots.

Of course Oly is supposed to be one of the best for portraits, but I wonder if there is anything out there known to be better.

2) When I do use flash, anything more than 2 metres away appears
incredible grainy as the flash does not get that far away.

Rube

 

[Kim Letkeman]

What mode are you in? Do you set ISO yourself?

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

Both with Aperture and Auto priorities (2 different shots), ISO 400, ev -1/3, patterned metering (I think that is what it is called).

these are 'people full flength shots, where I am only interested in the person and not any of the background or other details.

Rube

 

[Hellashot]

1) I know there is a natural light option for indoor shooting in

low light, but when I try to use this function the icon comes up
that tells me that it is going to be blurry if I don't use a tripod
or constant surface.

Is this right?

It is probably too dark for iso1600 and your widest appeture. You need to be zoomed out all the way to use f2.8

2) When I do use flash, anything more than 2 metres away appears
incredible grainy as the flash does not get that far away.

Is there anything I can do against this?

Not really. Flashes on P&S cameras are horribly weak.

3) Is the "Auto" mode ok for most shooting if I want decent quality
pictures? If not,then are the presets like "Landscape", "Portrait"
ok? Or do I need to do everything manually?

Depends on how much you want out of your shots. Auto mode goes to iso800 too quickly indoors, plus it blows out highlights using EV 0. I use manual all the time and use EV -2/3 and adjust in PP. EV cannot be changed in program modes.

4) 6MP Fine takes up a huge space, is there that much difference
between that and the normal 3MP, I will just be viewing them on a
standard 17" TFT monitor?

Geez, if you never want to print any images you might as well use the 3MP mode. Use high compression since you'll never print.

5) Nearly all my pictures which are indoors look very grainy, this
is on the "Auto" mode. Do I need to change the ISO or something?
What ISO's do I set it to? ie. Does the lowest ISO give the
greatest picture quality or vice versa?

Like I said before, auto mode goes to iso800 too soon. Set the settings yourself if you want higher quality.

If anyone could help me with any of these questions, it would be
much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Both with Aperture and Auto priorities (2 different shots), ISO
400, ev -1/3, patterned metering (I think that is what it is
called).
these are 'people full flength shots, where I am only interested in
the person and not any of the background or other details.

I hope you are basing your judgement on more than 2 shots. Can you post a couple so we can see what sort of distance, lighting and EXIF you are dealing with?

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

Actually, I have a bunch of them, taken in auto and aperature. The aperature ones were at 4.5, whereas a lot of peopel seem to think that 4 is optimal. The ISOs range from 80-200-400, some with EV at 0, others at -1/3. The recent ones are all pattern (since I found that I make mistakes using spot), and they all have 'one-chip color area sensing.' The lighting is usually poor. I look at the LCD to pick out the white balance, but usually end up with auto wb, because that looks as close to reality as any of the the other options. I also shoot in chrome, as I like that better outside in the day time (but haven't actually checked to see what difference it might make indoors at nite). I did one comparision shoot with the SONY M1 shot in auto, and F11 was not any better.

I would like to post shots as you ask, but they are all of people and fairly private.

i have taken dozens of similar shots with the F11, and previsously with a number of digital cameras for the past 8 years. the F11 is not appreciably better than the M1 nor of an older Pentax, or an even older Fuji 6400 (?), and not as good as the Oly 800 in my onion for these kinds of pictures. The F11 is noiser (grainer) and tends to look less sharp (more blur).
I hope I am doing something wrong!

I could post some day shots of buildings, nature, ect. but they all come out excellently > grin
Likewise with city night shots, where the F11 excels.

Rube

I hope you are basing your judgement on more than 2 shots. Can you
post a couple so we can see what sort of distance, lighting and
EXIF you are dealing with?

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Actually, I have a bunch of them, taken in auto and aperature. The
aperature ones were at 4.5, whereas a lot of peopel seem to think
that 4 is optimal.

That's been posted a few times by one person. It may be slightly better than f2.8, but I shoot a lot at f2.8 and have never been disappointed. In my opinion, when striving for a good shutter speed and exposure ... you use the whole camera, not a small subset.

The ISOs range from 80-200-400, some with EV at
0, others at -1/3. The recent ones are all pattern (since I found
that I make mistakes using spot), and they all have 'one-chip color
area sensing.' The lighting is usually poor.

Poor lighting calls for high ISO ... pegging the ISO at 400 or lower is crippling the camera. Of course you are having problems.

I look at the LCD to
pick out the white balance, but usually end up with auto wb,
because that looks as close to reality as any of the the other
options.

Reviews have mentioned that auto WB is as good as anything. All cameras screw up in incandescent light anyway.

I also shoot in chrome, as I like that better outside in
the day time (but haven't actually checked to see what difference
it might make indoors at nite). I did one comparision shoot with
the SONY M1 shot in auto, and F11 was not any better.

Not any better under what situation? Are you looking at the F11 shots at 100%? Because all cams look bad there, but the high ISO shots look especially bad because of the color noise. Compare the shots from two cams either printed, or resized to the same size. That tells the real story.

i have taken dozens of similar shots with the F11, and previsously
with a number of digital cameras for the past 8 years. the F11 is
not appreciably better than the M1 nor of an older Pentax, or an
even older Fuji 6400 (?), and not as good as the Oly 800 in my
onion for these kinds of pictures.

Well ... if you are limiting the camera's options based on every opinion you read on here (hint ... if the opinion is not backed by actual photos ... ignore it) ... then you are crippling the camera and you might as well shoot any brand or model.

The F11 is noiser (grainer) and tends to look less sharp (more blur).
I hope I am doing something wrong!

What kind of shots and how grainy are we talking? Are these flash shots? Natural Light mode? Are you shooting in the dark? And does the Sony do better?

Can you black out a face and post a shot that way? I'd like to see the lighting and the EXIF ...

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

Poor lighting calls for high ISO ... pegging the ISO at 400 or
lower is crippling the camera. Of course you are having problems.

Right, but these are flash shots, with the person being usually 10-12 feet away.

Not any better under what situation? Are you looking at the F11
shots at 100%?

No, they are 25% or less or full 100%. I use them on the computer, usually at a resolution of 1680 x 1050.

What kind of shots and how grainy are we talking? Are these flash
shots? Natural Light mode? Are you shooting in the dark? And does
the Sony do better?

They are flash shots in fairly dark rooms. The Sony does about the same, with a bit fewer bad shots. They Oly 800, shooting at ISO of 80, does better in both quality and number of botched shots.

Can you black out a face and post a shot that way? I'd like to see
the lighting and the EXIF ...

OK, but that will take a bit.

And thanks for your help, on this and in so many treads!

Rube

PS The original poster also found problems with the F11 using flash indoors at more than 2 meters, so I guess it is not just me, > grin

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Poor lighting calls for high ISO ... pegging the ISO at 400 or
lower is crippling the camera. Of course you are having problems.

Right, but these are flash shots, with the person being usually
10-12 feet away.

And you have a finite amount of flash power available. If your shots are dark, you have your ISO too low or your aperture too narrow.

They are flash shots in fairly dark rooms. The Sony does about the
same, with a bit fewer bad shots. They Oly 800, shooting at ISO of
80, does better in both quality and number of botched shots.

Hmmm ... you mean blurry or dark? Or both?

And thanks for your help, on this and in so many treads!

No problem.

PS The original poster also found problems with the F11 using flash
indoors at more than 2 meters, so I guess it is not just me, > grin

Yeah ... but this cam shoots flash differently in every mode. Long distance shots (I posted tests at about 6 meters) require 800 ISO. No way to get away with less in my opinion.

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

Kim,

I will definately try 800 iso next, I haven't given up yet!

Rube

Yeah ... but this cam shoots flash differently in every mode. Long
distance shots (I posted tests at about 6 meters) require 800 ISO.
No way to get away with less in my opinion.

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Wilson_ng]

You can use the A and S mode. I think they are very good in F11. I use N, S and A mode the most. You can try them especially S mode.

 

[CheapInformation]

You can use the A and S mode. I think they are very good in F11. I
use N, S and A mode the most. You can try them especially S mode.

Thanks for all the replies.

May I ask what the A and S modes means? Do I need to change Apperture size and such like?

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Depends on how much you want out of your shots. Auto mode goes to
iso800 too quickly indoors, plus it blows out highlights using EV
0. I use manual all the time and use EV -2/3 and adjust in PP. EV
cannot be changed in program modes.
...
Like I said before, auto mode goes to iso800 too soon. Set the
settings yourself if you want higher quality.

I would put one caveat on this advice ... for beginners who are playing with ISO because they think they'll get bad pictures based on what they read in this forum ... it is very easy to stray into slow shutter territory, which will guarantee a bad picture with blur.

Beginners should only get into setting ISO themselves once they are getting great shots in the fully automatic modes.

A little grain in some shots is a very good trade against blur.

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[rube39]

I ran a test tonite, in the conditions I usually shoot in, comparing the F11 with the Oly 800. Shot both auto and apreture priority (4 for both cameras). Shot the F11 at 200, 400, and 800 with flash, in a farily dark roon, from about 4.5 meters away. Same with the Oly, at 64, 100, and 200.

the F11 200 shots were by far the best, followed by the 400, and then all the Olys. At 800, the F11 took on a distinct yellow cast.

So I was wrong! Even with a flash, the F11 was superior in low light (as opposed to an Oly 800), in semi controlled conditons, with the the photographer being at least reasonably sober.

Rube

 

[Kim Letkeman]

So I was wrong! Even with a flash, the F11 was superior in low
light (as opposed to an Oly 800), in semi controlled conditons,
with the the photographer being at least reasonably sober.

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[leertracy]

I really appreciate the time and detail that experienced posters are putting into their responses. It's all too easy for folks to dash off a quick comment but quite another to concretely address questions in helpful ways. I have learned so much in the past couple of weeks in both how to use my cameras and how to do PP stuff-- it's making the whole process more enjoyable. So thanks to all of you regular posters who take the time to help and teach.