Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Fuji S5 dominates dynamic range amongst DSLRs

Reply
Thread Tools

Fuji S5 dominates dynamic range amongst DSLRs

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp



Good to see that Fuji are keeping up to date with their contributions
to DPReview.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
Tony Polson wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

>
>
> Good to see that Fuji are keeping up to date with their contributions
> to DPReview.
>
>

But apparently not enough.
The S5 only managed a "recommended" rating, not the "highly recommended"
rating reserved for Nikon and Canon.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael.Pasturi@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Tony Polson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

>
> Good to see that Fuji are keeping up to date with their contributions
> to DPReview.
>
>


Isnt the S5 just a Nikon cloned camera that needs to use Nikon lens
too?

Whats of Fuji, the sensor?

M/P

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Isnt the S5 just a Nikon cloned camera that needs to use Nikon lens
> too?
>
> Whats of Fuji, the sensor?


yep - it is a nikon d200 body with fuji's sensor and a slower frame
rate.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Avery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2007
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:42:31 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Tony Polson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.

>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

>>
>> Good to see that Fuji are keeping up to date with their contributions
>> to DPReview.
>>
>>

>
>Isnt the S5 just a Nikon cloned camera that needs to use Nikon lens
>too?
>
>Whats of Fuji, the sensor?
>
>M/P


Yes, and the rest of the electronics.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2007
RichA wrote:
> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp
>

I looked over the page and there is a major flaw in the
test setup. The curves on the plots of EV on the horizontal
axis (e.g. 1st plot going from -6 to +5) illustrate
the problem well: The curves flatten out (becoming
horizontal) as you move to the left to darker
parts of the test strip. This is like the "toe"
in characteristic curves in film. The problem is, digital
camera sensors are linear and in the "standard curve"
applied by raw converters, no such "toe" is created.
Figure 8b shows a typical transfer curve for a digital
camera (in photographic stops, the blue points):
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
The test setup seems to have several stops of scattered
light in the system causing this problem. This is quite
common with setups like this (single test targets)
and depends not only on the target and sensor, but
the lens and even how much dust is in the air.

Roger


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2007
In rec.photo.digital frederick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

>>
>>
>> Good to see that Fuji are keeping up to date with their contributions
>> to DPReview.
>>
>>

> But apparently not enough.
> The S5 only managed a "recommended" rating, not the "highly recommended"
> rating reserved for Nikon and Canon.
>


It's not reserved for Nikon & Canon, and not all of them get it
either.

--
Chris Malcolm (E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Sheehy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2007
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:1183653368.176871.116620
@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp


DPReview's DR tests are of particular monolithic conversions, not of the
RAW data. While it is expected that the Fuji would have extra highlights
because of the extra, less sensitive sensor wells, this does nothing for
sensitivity on the shadow end. It is highly unlikely that it has 1.5 stops
more "footroom" in the shadows, compared to the 5D. The previous S3 had a
read noise of about 1.3 ADU at ISO 100, compared to the 5D's ~2 ADU, which
suggests a maximum differnce of about 1/2 stop in favor of the Fuji (the 1-
series Canons have about the same read noise as the Fuji S3 at ISO 100).
The D200 can't be the same, either; the D200 has a read noise of about 3.0
ADU at ISO 100.

I really wish that more testers would become RAW-literate and test the
cameras, not the conversions of choice, complicated by their styles.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2007
On Jul 7, 2:54 am, John Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:1183653368.176871.116620
> @o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...Pro/page18.asp

>
> DPReview's DR tests are of particular monolithic conversions, not of the
> RAW data. While it is expected that the Fuji would have extra highlights
> because of the extra, less sensitive sensor wells, this does nothing for
> sensitivity on the shadow end. It is highly unlikely that it has 1.5 stops
> more "footroom" in the shadows, compared to the 5D. The previous S3 had a
> read noise of about 1.3 ADU at ISO 100, compared to the 5D's ~2 ADU, which
> suggests a maximum differnce of about 1/2 stop in favor of the Fuji (the 1-
> series Canons have about the same read noise as the Fuji S3 at ISO 100).
> The D200 can't be the same, either; the D200 has a read noise of about 3.0
> ADU at ISO 100.
>
> I really wish that more testers would become RAW-literate and test the
> cameras, not the conversions of choice, complicated by their styles.
>


I'll agree with that. I found dpreview is very reliable when it comes
to how a camera handles, its features etc, but when it comes to image
quality, it's not so reliable (and neither is any other site, at least
judging from other images I've found on the web and also from personal
experience with some of these cameras). But I guess a mean must be
found.

eg if I were to do reviews, then most people here would probably find
my "optimal" high-ISO shots very noisy indeed, as I much prefer high
frequency luminance noise to lower (by measured variance) but lower-
frequency (coarser) noise; in fact, I'm positively allergic to coarse
noise, whereas I actually like high-frequency noise. Also, if you
introduce raw conversion into the process, you run into all sorts of
problems: some converters have much better resolution of high-
frequency details (I mean Y details), others are bad at this but are
very good at colour adjustment, etc. Which one is more important
depends on what you do with the resulting image, how much time you're
willing to spend processing in photoshop (or whatever you're using),
your skill at colour manipulation, the hardware at your disposal, your
priorities etc. Impossible to satisfy in a review. Best to do your own
tests eg using raw files, if you ask me.

As far as the Fuji is concerned, I just read the review, and I also
find it rather hard to understand the extra range in the bottom (not
to mention the rather unsubtle noise reduction applied). It's probably
flare, as Roger says.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unicode Dominates The Web Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 2 02-08-2010 12:30 AM
HD-DVD dominates market, Blur-Ray falls short. Neck & Red DVD Video 0 02-08-2007 06:18 PM
Fuji dominates P&S quality Rich Digital Photography 8 12-08-2006 11:28 PM
Sharing codebehind dlls amongst multiple apps Mark Edwards ASP .Net 1 02-21-2005 09:56 PM
Sharing GIFs (assets) Amongst Multiple Apps RC ASP .Net 1 11-11-2004 08:41 AM



Advertisments