Re: Which camera has the best dynamic range?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2008.

  1. Bob Donahue wrote:
    > I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had
    > to date, have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You
    > can't see the curves of the body panels, they come out pure white
    > with no shading! Cars that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in
    > the market for a new "point and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my
    > choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610.
    > Both of these models are advertised as having special "dynamic range"
    > modes. Which one would be my best bet for avoiding washed out
    > highlights?


    Bob, you may be able to save money simply by setting the exposure
    compensation on your existing camera to -1/3 stop - i.e. just under-expose
    a little.

    Fuji have made CCDs in the past with dual sensors at each pixel - large
    sensors for the main parts image and smaller sensors for the bright parts
    of the image. This technology I would be inclined to trust, although I
    have not used it myself. I don't know if the F100fd includes this
    technology, but it appears that it might. You may need to use RAW mode to
    make the most of this, and it's not obvious whether the F100fd has RAW..
    A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as it's
    simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP image.
    Check for yourself before purchase!

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012407fujif100fd.asp

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:55:47 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as it's
    > simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP image.
    > Check for yourself before purchase!


    I wouldn't trust this comment unless it's reworded slightly. Are
    you sure that you didn't mean to type something like :

    > I wouldn't trust a small-sensor camera's ISO 12,800 offering . . .


    Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
    and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
    that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
    lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
    images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
    but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
    expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
    great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
    will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
    can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
    binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
    alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.
    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:55:47 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> A small-sensor camera offering up to ISO 12800 I would not trust, as
    >> it's simply beyond the laws of physics to produce a reasonable 12MP
    >> image. Check for yourself before purchase!

    >
    > I wouldn't trust this comment unless it's reworded slightly. Are
    > you sure that you didn't mean to type something like :
    >
    >> I wouldn't trust a small-sensor camera's ISO 12,800 offering . . .

    >
    > Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
    > and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
    > that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
    > lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
    > images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
    > but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
    > expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
    > great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
    > will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
    > can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
    > binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
    > alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.


    Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
    reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
    unusable settings?. As I said, I would advise the buyer to check before
    purchase just what the capabilities actually are, and whether the results
    are acceptable for their own applications.

    But the question here is about the dynamic range, rather than the absolute
    ISO sensitivity. It may be that the other capabilities of the camera
    would offset poor high-ISO image quality. Here I would expect manual
    control (at least exposure compensation), and perhaps RAW output.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2008
    #3
  4. On Aug 31, 12:55 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-bit.nor-
    >
    > Bob, you may be able to save money simply by setting the exposure
    > compensation on your existing camera to -1/3 stop - i.e. just under-expose
    > a little.
    >


    > David


    I agree. I use the exposure compensation a lot. I figure the little
    computer in the camera's metering system cannot know exactly what
    parts of the tonal range are of most interest to me. Thank god for
    cameras that have a histogram function :)

    Using the exposure compensation to make sure you grab the highlights
    is ordinarily an okay procedure. Any digital camera today has a MUCH
    wider dynamic range than printing paper has, so you are not going to
    be able to see in print the full range the camera captures anyway.
    You are always, just like in the film days, faced with the decision to
    throw away tones at one extreme or the other (or both) or else greatly
    reduce the contrast of the image. For the extreme of the later
    decision, look at the increasingly popular HDR techniques.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Aug 31, 2008
    #4
  5. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:53:24 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> Many cameras, including the F100fd and some from Casio, Panasonic
    >> and Olympus offer very high ISO settings at reduced resolution, and
    >> that doesn't mean that these cameras can't be trusted. When used at
    >> lower, more reasonable ISO settings they can produce very good
    >> images. The F100fd's image quality at ISO 12,800 isn't very good,
    >> but nobody that is at all familiar with small sensor cameras would
    >> expect it to be. In fact, it's not all that bad. It won't produce
    >> great or very good quality 4"x6" snapshots, but what it does produce
    >> will be usable, and better than what many other small sensor cameras
    >> can do at much lower ISO settings. Reduced resolution or pixel
    >> binning leaves a lot to be desired, but it's better than the
    >> alternative, which is usually a totally unusable image.

    >
    > Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    > results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
    > reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
    > unusable settings?. As I said, I would advise the buyer to check before
    > purchase just what the capabilities actually are, and whether the results
    > are acceptable for their own applications.


    David, why do you *insist* on ignoring the most important points
    only to come back with a reply addressing a minor point that shows
    that you'd rather attempt to prove that what you said was correct if
    only your mistaken assumption was true? It appears that you didn't
    even read the sentences that you quoted above, where I explicitly
    stated that the F100fd offers ISO 12,800 at reduced resolution. No,
    the F100fd does NOT offer 12MP at ISO 12,800. That ISO is only
    available at resolutions of 3mp and lower. If you read my reply to
    the OP you could have followed the links to reviews that showed what
    the ISO 12,800 results look like instead of assuming the worst. As
    you quoted but evidently didn't read, the ISO 12,800 IQ "isn't very
    good", but it is quite usable for 4"x6" snapshots. It may not
    produce the best 4"x6" image quality you've ever seen, but it's more
    acceptable than most other small sensor cameras that also have
    reduced resolution, high ISO modes.

    More worrying is that you completely ignored my point that even if
    the ISO 12,800 results were bad, it shouldn't cause someone to
    assume, as you did, that it would not only make the results
    completely unusable, but that it should be grounds for not trusting
    the camera or even any other cameras that Fuji makes, which is what
    you actually typed. That's complete nonsense and I'm sure that
    there are other manufacturers and their cameras that you'd never
    judge so unreasonably. As I said, Casio, Panasonic and Olympus are
    also "guilty" of producing cameras with reduced resolution, high ISO
    modes. Do you want to stand by your statement and hint that Casio,
    Panasonic and Olympus cameras should be prejudged, and you'll also
    have "considerable reduced trust" for those brands as well?


    > But the question here is about the dynamic range, rather than the absolute
    > ISO sensitivity. It may be that the other capabilities of the camera
    > would offset poor high-ISO image quality. Here I would expect manual
    > control (at least exposure compensation), and perhaps RAW output.


    Yes, the other capabilities "may" offset poor high-ISO image
    quality, but you don't seem to want us to assume that to be the case
    as you've already let us know that the camera and its manufacturer
    probably can't be trusted.

    Manual control and RAW output aren't needed however, to get very
    good image quality. As reviews noted, Fuji's F30 (or perhaps the
    F31) produced better jpeg results out of the camera than the much
    larger, more sophisticated S6000 which used the same sensor. When
    the S6000's RAW images were processed and compared, only then did
    they approach the same image quality, but didn't actually surpass
    it. Surprising perhaps, as this isn't usually the case with other
    brands, but Fuji seems to be able to get more out of in-camera jpeg
    processing than other companies manage.

    The F100fd's expanded dynamic range, by the way, is only available
    at ISOs up to and including ISO 400, and at those ISOs image quality
    is noticeably better than the other cameras managed. According to
    the reviews and the test images, Fuji's DR appears to work pretty
    well. But as we've both already said, solving the OP's blown
    highlights problem might be solved by simply using some exposure
    compensation, rather than requiring a new camera.
    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008
    #5
  6. ASAAR,

    It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
    on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.
    However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
    never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
    those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

    Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
    driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
    should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
    manufacturers it.

    The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
    acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
    the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
    excellent tool for the OP's job.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2008
    #6
  7. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
    > on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.


    If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
    facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
    demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
    arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
    "see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
    ground.


    > However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
    > never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
    > those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.


    I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
    opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
    to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
    (though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
    name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
    hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
    later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
    His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
    or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
    something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.

    Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
    subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
    results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
    hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
    certainly much more o



    >
    > Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
    > driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
    > should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
    > manufacturers it.
    >
    > The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
    > acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
    > the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
    > excellent tool for the OP's job.
    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008
    #7
  8. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    Rats! This is a continuation of the prematurely posted reply that
    this laptop's keyboard has a tendency to produce . . .

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
    > on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.


    If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
    facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
    demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
    arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
    "see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
    ground.


    > However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
    > never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
    > those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.


    I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
    opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
    to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
    (though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
    name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
    hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
    later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
    His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
    or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
    something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.

    Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
    subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
    results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
    hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
    certainly with far more objectivity than stating that due to an
    implausible high ISO mode, neither the camera's quality nor the
    manufacturer could be trusted. As I said, Panasonic (and others)
    are also marketing driven and their cameras have high ISO capability
    that is far worse than what Fuji delivers, yet you have an
    extraordinary fondness for most products Panasonic.


    > Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
    > driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
    > should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
    > manufacturers it.


    You're just choosing a figure that you don't want to believe and
    using it to tar an entire line of cameras. Nobody has said that the
    results at ISO 12,800 are fabulous, just usable as a last resort to
    get images that other cameras would have to pass on.



    > The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
    > acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
    > the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
    > excellent tool for the OP's job.


    But you did everything you could to make sure that they should
    share your opinion that the camera and other Fuji products can't
    really be trusted. As usual, when your absurd statements are
    pointed out, rather than apologize for hasty ill founded statements,
    you ignore that you ever made them and hide behind reasonable
    sounding platitudes that you are likely to soon abandon. To recap.:

    > Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    > results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
    > reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
    > unusable settings?


    Your expectations are wrong. ISO 12,800 clearly isn't going to be
    used by anyone to produce anything approaching gallery quality
    images. But that's NOT what very high ISO shots from ANY camera are
    used for. For use in extremely low light, it will produce small
    4"x6" snapshots of usable, if not good quality. Based on your own
    statements, the failure to back them up, and the way you continue to
    ignore points that you can't defend, *everyone* in these newsgroups
    should have much less trust in your opinions than in manufacturer's
    marketing hype, that is rarely if ever as off base as your opinions.
    This is truly sad, as I'm quite sure that you, unlike some others
    here, really know better.
    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008
    #8
  9. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > Rats! This is a continuation of the prematurely posted reply that
    > this laptop's keyboard has a tendency to produce . . .
    >
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my
    >> ground on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know
    >> more.

    >
    > If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
    > facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
    > demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
    > arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
    > "see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
    > ground.
    >
    >
    >> However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
    >> never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as
    >> well - those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

    >
    > I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
    > opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
    > to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
    > (though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
    > name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
    > hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
    > later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
    > His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
    > or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
    > something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.
    >
    > Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
    > subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
    > results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
    > hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
    > certainly with far more objectivity than stating that due to an
    > implausible high ISO mode, neither the camera's quality nor the
    > manufacturer could be trusted. As I said, Panasonic (and others)
    > are also marketing driven and their cameras have high ISO capability
    > that is far worse than what Fuji delivers, yet you have an
    > extraordinary fondness for most products Panasonic.
    >
    >
    >> Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be
    >> marketing driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence
    >> I feel that one should be wary of any small-sensor camera which
    >> offers ISO 12800, whoever manufacturers it.

    >
    > You're just choosing a figure that you don't want to believe and
    > using it to tar an entire line of cameras. Nobody has said that the
    > results at ISO 12,800 are fabulous, just usable as a last resort to
    > get images that other cameras would have to pass on.
    >
    >
    >
    >> The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether
    >> that are acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor
    >> CCD, and If the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the
    >> camera may be an excellent tool for the OP's job.

    >
    > But you did everything you could to make sure that they should
    > share your opinion that the camera and other Fuji products can't
    > really be trusted. As usual, when your absurd statements are
    > pointed out, rather than apologize for hasty ill founded statements,
    > you ignore that you ever made them and hide behind reasonable
    > sounding platitudes that you are likely to soon abandon. To recap.:
    >
    >> Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    >> results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have
    >> considerable reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the
    >> company?), which has unusable settings?

    >
    > Your expectations are wrong. ISO 12,800 clearly isn't going to be
    > used by anyone to produce anything approaching gallery quality
    > images. But that's NOT what very high ISO shots from ANY camera are
    > used for. For use in extremely low light, it will produce small
    > 4"x6" snapshots of usable, if not good quality. Based on your own
    > statements, the failure to back them up, and the way you continue to
    > ignore points that you can't defend, *everyone* in these newsgroups
    > should have much less trust in your opinions than in manufacturer's
    > marketing hype, that is rarely if ever as off base as your opinions.
    > This is truly sad, as I'm quite sure that you, unlike some others
    > here, really know better.


    ASAAR, if you have some specific technical points, related to the OP's
    desire for a high dynamic range, I will happily discuss them with you.

    If you feel I have not backed up my opinions sufficiently, I will try and
    expand or explain.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2008
    #9
  10. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:20:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > If you feel I have not backed up my opinions sufficiently, I will try and
    > expand or explain.


    No, I don't believe that you will. You have only to examine the
    quotes in your own replies to see the issues you've avoided
    addressing. That goes for this latest reply of yours. You've had
    many opportunities to expand or explain, but it's not even a matter
    of backing up your opinions sufficiently. You have yet to make a
    reasonable start. It means nothing to you to have me repeatedly say
    that Fuji doesn't provide full resolution 12MP shots at its highest
    ISOs, and Fuji makes this clear on their website, in their catalogs
    and in their manuals. You continue to state that you wouldn't trust
    a company that offers those high ISOs with 12mp shots, when even the
    most clueless dummy knows by now that Fuji doesn't and has never
    offered that in any of their cameras. You're quick to see insults
    before they materialize, yet you don't mind tarnishing your own
    reputation with what now can only be described as your own
    incorrigible behavior, which continues year after year. You can
    only play "rope-a-dope" for so long before everyone catches on.
    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008
    #10
  11. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:20:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> If you feel I have not backed up my opinions sufficiently, I will
    >> try and expand or explain.

    >
    > No, I don't believe that you will. You have only to examine the
    > quotes in your own replies to see the issues you've avoided
    > addressing. That goes for this latest reply of yours. You've had
    > many opportunities to expand or explain, but it's not even a matter
    > of backing up your opinions sufficiently. You have yet to make a
    > reasonable start. It means nothing to you to have me repeatedly say
    > that Fuji doesn't provide full resolution 12MP shots at its highest
    > ISOs, and Fuji makes this clear on their website, in their catalogs
    > and in their manuals. You continue to state that you wouldn't trust
    > a company that offers those high ISOs with 12mp shots, when even the
    > most clueless dummy knows by now that Fuji doesn't and has never
    > offered that in any of their cameras. You're quick to see insults
    > before they materialize, yet you don't mind tarnishing your own
    > reputation with what now can only be described as your own
    > incorrigible behavior, which continues year after year. You can
    > only play "rope-a-dope" for so long before everyone catches on.


    ASAAR,

    The statement that I made was, quite intentionally, intended to be that an
    acceptable 12MP ISO 12,800 image is an unreasonable expectation from a
    small sensor camera. Indeed, it would be interesting to do the sums and
    see just what physical size of sensor was required to do this. I did
    /not/ intend to say that Fuji (or any other company) provided this
    combination of settings in their camera.

    You say that 6 x 4 inch photos might be usable from the ISO 12,800 setting
    offered by Fuji - so being kind that might be a 1200 x 800 pixel image,
    i.e. about 1MP. This may be consistent with the other claims made for
    some Fuji cameras. It would be interesting to have a link to an ISO
    12,800 image - I didn't see a full review on the D P Review Web site.

    I still trust engineering and physics more than marketing claims.

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 1, 2008
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:20:27 GMT, David J Taylor weaseled:

    > The statement that I made was, quite intentionally, intended to be that an
    > acceptable 12MP ISO 12,800 image is an unreasonable expectation from a
    > small sensor camera.


    It appears that you're now trying to make us believe that you
    can't or won't read. Nobody has ever said that 12MP ISO 12,800
    images were possible. You've been explicitly told several times
    that at the highest ISOs, the Fuji camera only is capable of taking
    reduced resolution pictures. What you've done is warned people that
    not only a particular Fuji camera, but all cameras made by Fuji are
    suspect, because YOU would have a problem with any company that
    offers features that only you are aware of. What's unreasonable is
    getting a straight answer from you.



    > Indeed, it would be interesting to do the sums and
    > see just what physical size of sensor was required to do this. I did
    > /not/ intend to say that Fuji (or any other company) provided this
    > combination of settings in their camera.


    You're really adept at using what are called "weasel" words,
    David. No, you didn't explicitly state anything. But you imply
    much, and this is what you said :

    > Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    > results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
    > reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
    > unusable settings?


    When you ask that question and then repeatedly ignore the answer,
    most likely because it contradicted your unreasonable assumptions,
    it only leads us to have considerable reduced trust in you and your
    motivations.


    > You say that 6 x 4 inch photos might be usable from the ISO 12,800 setting
    > offered by Fuji - so being kind that might be a 1200 x 800 pixel image,
    > i.e. about 1MP. This may be consistent with the other claims made for
    > some Fuji cameras. It would be interesting to have a link to an ISO
    > 12,800 image - I didn't see a full review on the D P Review Web site.


    1MP is one of the resolutions offered at ISO 12,800. Since I
    replied to you that the F100fd can "produce small 4"x6" snapshots of
    usable, if not good quality", you're free to assume either that I
    know this because I took some pictures myself with the camera at
    that setting, or that I saw some of the 12,800 ISO images in a
    review. Hint: read my reply to the OP. DPReview doesn't test all
    cameras. When they miss one, Google can be your friend.


    > I still trust engineering and physics more than marketing claims.


    As do most reasonable people. But it appears that you're using it
    here to defend your bogus assumption that Fuji's camera provided a
    12MP 12,800 ISO option. Where's the marketing claim that you trust
    less? Only in your imagination. Fuji *never* made that claim, and
    stating this yet again, after being told that such a claim and such
    an option never existed shows how little you care about the truth.
    ASAAR, Sep 1, 2008
    #12
  13. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:20:27 GMT, David J Taylor weaseled:
    >
    >> The statement that I made was, quite intentionally, intended to be
    >> that an acceptable 12MP ISO 12,800 image is an unreasonable
    >> expectation from a small sensor camera.

    >
    > It appears that you're now trying to make us believe that you
    > can't or won't read. Nobody has ever said that 12MP ISO 12,800
    > images were possible. You've been explicitly told several times
    > that at the highest ISOs, the Fuji camera only is capable of taking
    > reduced resolution pictures. What you've done is warned people that
    > not only a particular Fuji camera, but all cameras made by Fuji are
    > suspect, because YOU would have a problem with any company that
    > offers features that only you are aware of. What's unreasonable is
    > getting a straight answer from you.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Indeed, it would be interesting to do the sums and
    >> see just what physical size of sensor was required to do this. I did
    >> /not/ intend to say that Fuji (or any other company) provided this
    >> combination of settings in their camera.

    >
    > You're really adept at using what are called "weasel" words,
    > David. No, you didn't explicitly state anything. But you imply
    > much, and this is what you said :
    >
    >> Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
    >> results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have
    >> considerable reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the
    >> company?), which has unusable settings?

    >
    > When you ask that question and then repeatedly ignore the answer,
    > most likely because it contradicted your unreasonable assumptions,
    > it only leads us to have considerable reduced trust in you and your
    > motivations.
    >
    >
    >> You say that 6 x 4 inch photos might be usable from the ISO 12,800
    >> setting offered by Fuji - so being kind that might be a 1200 x 800
    >> pixel image, i.e. about 1MP. This may be consistent with the other
    >> claims made for some Fuji cameras. It would be interesting to have
    >> a link to an ISO 12,800 image - I didn't see a full review on the D
    >> P Review Web site.

    >
    > 1MP is one of the resolutions offered at ISO 12,800. Since I
    > replied to you that the F100fd can "produce small 4"x6" snapshots of
    > usable, if not good quality", you're free to assume either that I
    > know this because I took some pictures myself with the camera at
    > that setting, or that I saw some of the 12,800 ISO images in a
    > review. Hint: read my reply to the OP. DPReview doesn't test all
    > cameras. When they miss one, Google can be your friend.
    >
    >
    >> I still trust engineering and physics more than marketing claims.

    >
    > As do most reasonable people. But it appears that you're using it
    > here to defend your bogus assumption that Fuji's camera provided a
    > 12MP 12,800 ISO option. Where's the marketing claim that you trust
    > less? Only in your imagination. Fuji *never* made that claim, and
    > stating this yet again, after being told that such a claim and such
    > an option never existed shows how little you care about the truth.


    ASAAR,

    I made no assumption about the brand of camera in my statement about
    small-sensor cameras and very high ISO speeds. If you want to read in an
    assumption - that's up to you. I have never claimed that any camera
    offered 12MP at ISO 12,800, and therefore stick by my point that I would
    highly mistrust any that did (with the present state of sensor
    development). You would as well.

    I have advised people that:

    - if they want to use such high ISOs check the results. Perhaps it would
    be helpful if you could provide a link to such an image.

    - Fuji have made high dynamic range sensors, with dual photosites.

    - To check whether any particular Fuji camera does, or does not, include
    such a sensor.

    You are correct that I have less trust in a company which makes claims for
    its cameras which are not backed by either practical results or the
    relevant physics. So I would place less trust in a company which claimed
    4 stops of image stabilisation when independent tests showed only 1-2
    stops, or claims that simply setting a high shutter speed was "image
    stabilisation". The latter claim seems, to me at least, to be
    deliberately misleading.

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 1, 2008
    #13
    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. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    663
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. ASAAR

    Re: Which camera has the best dynamic range?

    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    567
    ASAAR
    Aug 31, 2008
  3. ray

    Re: Which camera has the best dynamic range?

    ray, Aug 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    611
    Dave Martindale
    Sep 8, 2008
  4. ASAAR

    Re: Which camera has the best dynamic range?

    ASAAR, Aug 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    364
    ASAAR
    Aug 31, 2008
  5. SMS

    Re: Which camera has the best dynamic range?

    SMS, Sep 8, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
Loading...

Share This Page