HS50EXR and F900EXR reviews, continued ...

[jcmarfilph]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[Peter71951]

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[Kim Letkeman]

PerH wrote:

Very good test Kim. This is not news. DR400 is superior in most situations.

Thanks. It's not news to you, but some do need to be reminded now and again ...

 

[Kim Letkeman]

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Peter71951 wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[MitchyK7]

Kim, I used to avoid DR400 all the time on my HS20, as i found it tended to flatten the images. Much like zooming in, but without zooming in. The images would loose the feeling of depth, so i would only use DR400 or higher for specific shots, fast speed, sunsets etc. So with this in mind, how would you say the HS50 fares in regards to image depth at more or less constant DR400, and what is the best way to counter this? In composition, or in PP? And how?

Many thanks for all the work, i've actually learned a lot more from these boards (Myfinepix, is a shambles these days) about my camera than Fuji bothered to inform me about it. lol

 

[jcmarfilph]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[Kim Letkeman]

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Deliberately shooting at +2/3 EV what a joke. Who shoots that way and recover it later? Use proper metering and I bet you wouldn't see any difference at all.

That statement shows such a profound lack of understand of what the meter is for that I feel for you as a photographer who chooses to learn nothing about the fundamentals. So start by rereading the reason for my choice and see if you can fathom what I was driving at.

Just by using +2/3 EV knowing Fuji cams tends to blow highlight is a sure sign of ignorance and blatant work to justify your claim which in reality will happen only to 1/1000 shots.

I'll wait ...

Now ... as I said, I did not want a silhouette of the lamp. Had I exposed for the highlights, I get no detail in the shadows. They turn to mush if I lift them with such a tiny sensor (sound familiar?)

Then expose the lamp and deal with the highlight (exposed using -EV). Sounds familiar?

*sigh* ... I honestly wish that you knew how to express what you think you are saying, because what you wrote makes no sense. By compensating to open shadows I was "exposing for the lamp" .... using -EV exposes for the light, which ruins the exposure for the lamp.

Opening dark shadows on a tiny sensor creates massive noise and smoothing ... whereas pulling down highlights in DR400 mode does no damage at all.

I doubt that you understood that, but you will have some follow-on quip anyway.

Blasting +2/3 EV on an already bright subject is a disaster.

As I showed, it is not a disaster if you understand what can be done.

Obviously, only you know what you are capable of handling, and I am certainly not surprised that you do not understand the above and consider it a disaster. I imagine you are very familiar with that outcome ...

So instead, I expose at a compromise setting by compensating the meter. Lifting the shadows a bit during exposure allows me to get more detail with less noise and I can pull back the highlights to retain detail there as well, but only if I shoot at DR400 and take advantage of EXR's extended dynamic range.

Again, wrong metering.

Again, you clearly do not understand the purpose of metering.

There are several very good books on getting appropriate exposures for what you are trying to accomplish ... you might want to get yourself some of them and actually read them. The first few in the list here are excellent.

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2010/04/my-favorite-ie-best-photography-books.html

I am certain that you skipped over that entire explanation to make some sort of inane comment ... so have at it. I only acknowledged you because your comment was too naively (or intentionally) obtuse to be left without response ...

I am certain that you are doing crafted lousy comparison to justify your claim about MSize being always better than LSize and then now DR400 being always better than DR100.

Frankly, the effort to try to think in terms that can get through a Neanderthal level of understanding of the fundamentals makes me realize that I should never have taken you back off of the ignore list. It diminishes me to have this interaction and I need to stop wasting my time.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Kim Letkeman]

MitchyK7 wrote:

Kim, I used to avoid DR400 all the time on my HS20, as i found it tended to flatten the images.

The flattening is a good thing is you are after the best possible capture. You want the least level of tone and sharpening so that you can apply that during processing.

However, JPEG shooters will want to experiment with DR400 plus a film mode. That should allow for more pleasant tones at the risk of blowing highlights or blocking shadows. But the finished product will have more punch.

Much like zooming in, but without zooming in. The images would loose the feeling of depth, so i would only use DR400 or higher for specific shots, fast speed, sunsets etc. So with this in mind, how would you say the HS50 fares in regards to image depth at more or less constant DR400, and what is the best way to counter this? In composition, or in PP? And how?

I edit every image, JPEG or RAW. If you have not read my EXR article, then you should do so. I clearly explain why I recommend what I recommend. I also clearly explain the many variations in settings that are used for various circumstances (which puts the lie to the comments form Dave that I advocate one set of settings for every situation) ...

Many thanks for all the work, i've actually learned a lot more from these boards (Myfinepix, is a shambles these days) about my camera than Fuji bothered to inform me about it. lol

Yes, there is much to learn and Fuji makes it incredibly complex.

 

[CAcreeks]

MitchyK7 wrote:

Kim, I used to avoid DR400 all the time on my HS20, as i found it tended to flatten the images. Much like zooming in, but without zooming in. The images would loose the feeling of depth, so i would only use DR400 or higher for specific shots, fast speed, sunsets etc.

Could be the HS20 has a different implementation.

In the DPreview test of the F200EXR, note that the tone curve for DR400 is exactly the same as DR100 in shadows until you get past midtones, then it rolls off instead of climbing steeply.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf200exr/9

 

[Wellington100]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[CAcreeks]

Wellington100 wrote:

I can't understand why your settings have suddenly become controversial with the HS-50. The bottom line is if people don't want to use the high DR capability of the EXR sensors, why buy them in the first place? It does not makes sense to me to use these cameras and not take advantage of the expanded DR.

Its the same reason why I would much rather have the X10 than the X20. The X10 has a unique selling proposition around its DR with great benefits for all day shooting in any light conditions, the X20 is just a step on the way to a RX100, its not unique in any meaningful way.

I agree. Rather than pontificate further, I offer a non-EXR image showing <irony> really excellent dynamic range!

EXIF stripped but this is from Canon D10, perhaps still the best waterproof digicam. Yup that's Brian taking a picture of me taking a picture of Anasazi petroglyphs.

Photo (c) 2013 Brian Vogt

 

[Wellington100]

CAcreeks wrote:

Wellington100 wrote:

I can't understand why your settings have suddenly become controversial with the HS-50. The bottom line is if people don't want to use the high DR capability of the EXR sensors, why buy them in the first place? It does not makes sense to me to use these cameras and not take advantage of the expanded DR.

Its the same reason why I would much rather have the X10 than the X20. The X10 has a unique selling proposition around its DR with great benefits for all day shooting in any light conditions, the X20 is just a step on the way to a RX100, its not unique in any meaningful way.

I agree. Rather than pontificate further, I offer a non-EXR image showing <irony> really excellent dynamic range!

EXIF stripped but this is from Canon D10, perhaps still the best waterproof digicam. Yup that's Brian taking a picture of me taking a picture of Anasazi petroglyphs.

Photo (c) 2013 Brian Vogt

You look like were up the creek, with a paddle

--
Doctors are bad for your lifestyle.

 

[jcmarfilph]

Wellington100 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jcmarfilph wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I note that there seems to be some doubt about how bad DR100 is for general purpose shooting.

So I cut to the chase and show you exactly what you lose when you shoot DR100 ...

In anything approaching challenging light it is ruinous and a complete waste of time ... but see for yourself ...

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hd50exr-review-part-14-dynamic-range.html

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I love that one ...

I spent some time today performing a few tests that I thought were needed, including one that explains very well why we see so many blurry images from the HS50EXR.

I will be performing other tests of course, and if you have some you want to see I will try to get them done before the cameras go back in a week.

If you want to comment or make a request, you know where to find me and you know where to find the reviews.

--

Nothing Special

This blog is my personal space. Do not confuse this with statements or opinions on behalf of any employer I have ever had, have now, or will ever have in the future.

kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[CAcreeks]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I spent some time today performing a few tests that I thought were needed, including one that explains very well why we see so many blurry images from the HS50EXR.

If you want to comment or make a request, you know where to find me and you know where to find the reviews.

Thanks a lot for review #15 on burst mode. Totally amazing how sharpness improves during the burst.

Is this also advisable for the F900EXR? I would think so.

 

[jcmarfilph]

CAcreeks wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I spent some time today performing a few tests that I thought were needed, including one that explains very well why we see so many blurry images from the HS50EXR.

If you want to comment or make a request, you know where to find me and you know where to find the reviews.

Thanks a lot for review #15 on burst mode. Totally amazing how sharpness improves during the burst.

Is this also advisable for the F900EXR? I would think so.

I have advised that setting since I started using HS30.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3269226

It does not improve sharpness at all but it only gives you higher rate of keepers especially on shots with very low shutter speed and the important thing is it allows you to use the camera buffer so you can continuously shoot and track the subject.

Check my HS50 settings, you won't regret it.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3452045

-=[ Joms ]=-

 

[Tim39]

CAcreeks wrote:

Thanks a lot for review #15 on burst mode. Totally amazing how sharpness improves during the burst.

Any chance of getting a link to that review?

 

[CAcreeks]

Tim39 wrote:

Thanks a lot for review #15 on burst mode. Totally amazing how sharpness improves during the burst.

Any chance of getting a link to that review?

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hs50exr-review-part-15-shooting-in.html

Also

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hs50exr-review-part-16-film-modes-and.html

and

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.ca/2013/04/hf50exr-review-part-17-white-balance.html

 

[nicknd99]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I love that one ...

I spent some time today performing a few tests that I thought were needed, including one that explains very well why we see so many blurry images from the HS50EXR.

I will be performing other tests of course, and if you have some you want to see I will try to get them done before the cameras go back in a week.

If you want to comment or make a request, you know where to find me and you know where to find the reviews.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Kim,

Took a look at your latest results, thanks! Would you shoot burst mode for stationary subjects as well?