Fuji S5 dominates dynamic range amongst DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Tony Polson, Jul 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Tony Polson wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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.
    ;-)
    frederick, Jul 5, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    Guest

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

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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
    , Jul 5, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jul 5, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    Avery Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:42:31 -0700, wrote:

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

    >>
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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.
    Avery, Jul 5, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA wrote:
    > An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 6, 2007
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital frederick <> wrote:
    > Tony Polson wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>> An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 6, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    RichA <> wrote in news:1183653368.176871.116620
    @o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

    > An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Jul 6, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    acl Guest

    On Jul 7, 2:54 am, John Sheehy <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote in news:1183653368.176871.116620
    > @o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > An amazing performance, more than I would have guessed.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmS5Pro/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.
    acl, Jul 7, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neck & Red
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
    Neck & Red
    Feb 8, 2007
  2. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    679
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  3. Rich

    Fuji dominates P&S quality

    Rich, Dec 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    261
    Mike Jacoubowsky
    Dec 8, 2006
  4. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    989
    The One
    Nov 29, 2007
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Unicode Dominates The Web

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 7, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Feb 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page