Another Fuji scam

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Mark Herring, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    We've had some lively discussion here about various manufacturers
    advertising interpolated resolution---getting bigger files than what
    the CCD inherently produces. The perpetrators include agfa, Epson and

    Fuji was--in my view--the most flagrant. some of their early camera
    blatantly advertised higher resolution--they were labelled simply with
    the interpolated resolution. When challenged, they backed down and

    Now they are back---this time even worse. In the promotion of the
    F700, they talk about how the individual pixel has two
    photodiodes---thus providing more dynamic range. This may or may not
    be true--i have not yet found the explanation of how and why this

    The problem is that they bill this as a 6.2 Mpixel camera. Here is
    the REALLY misleading quote from their press release (as quoted on

    "The FinePix F700 uses 6.2 million photodiodes, producing an
    ultra-smooth output image of 6.2 million recorded pixels."

    By their own statements, the 6.2 million photodiodes (2 per actual
    sensing site) are there to increase dynamic range. There are still
    only 3.1 M real pixels, and the "6.2 million recorded pixels" are
    provided by INTERPOLATION!!!.

    In my opinion, Fuji has reached a new low in consumer abuse. There is
    a de-facto standard: The "resolution" of a camera is the number of
    actual spatial samples taken of the image**. It cannot be increased
    thru interpolation and certainly not by having two photodiode sites in
    every pixel. Fuji backed down in their previous claims---now their
    claims are even more convoluted and misleading.


    **The number of pixels actually sets the **llimiting resolution**.
    The actual resolving power of the camera depends on optics, sensor
    noise, etc.

    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 10, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark Herring

    -Gene- Guest

    My experience with the F700 is comparing it with my Minolta D7i.
    My conclusion is the F700 has the same resolution (5MP) as the
    D7i and about the same exposure latitude.
    -Gene-, Oct 10, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    And they arguably make good cameras, too. I just dont like misleading

    I almost always use Fuji neg film.....
    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 10, 2003
  4. Mark Herring

    max Guest

    Thanks Gene good of you to publish your experiences. I was
    hoping for a lot more from the new super ccd, loks like the
    same old same old. Which is'nt all that bad, so why whine I
    just saved a lot of money, no need to upgrade..;o)-max-
    max, Oct 10, 2003
  5. Mark Herring

    Mark Roberts Guest

    There used to be a joke in the audio business that manufacturers
    specified "IPPILS" power ratings: "Intermittent Peak Power If Lightning
    Mark Roberts, Oct 10, 2003
  6. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    There's more:

    The Good Guys (LA area), just put out a flyer advertising the FujiF700
    as a "6-Mpixel camera". No qualifications like "effective pixels" or
    the like. This on a page full of camera with their resolution
    specified correctly.

    One wonders how many people say: "Gee, 6Mpixel for only $400+----that
    must be a great deal."

    E-mail has been sent them--it will be interesting to see the response.
    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 11, 2003
  7. Mark Herring

    jriegle Guest

    Dpreview's test of the F700 and the increased dynamic range found them
    really disappointed from what was to be expected. In fact, there was no more
    dynamic range in its images when compared to a competing camera!
    It does have twice as many sensors as other 3MP cameras, but half the
    sensors are a small one for recording highlight detail. However, it is just
    another camera that makes images in the 3mp range even though other 3mp
    cameras can do a better job.

    I would not call it lies, but serious exaggerations. At the selling
    price/performance ratio, the F700 is a camera to be avoided in my opinion.
    With car audio, it still is!
    jriegle, Oct 11, 2003
  8. Mark Herring

    someone Guest

    someone, Oct 12, 2003
  9. Mark Herring

    Guest Guest

    I think you have a problem with Fuji, Mark. Relax!

    Up front I will say that I own an S602. I think its a good camera. It has
    its problems, but resolution is not one of them for me generally. Its the
    stupid crappy low light autofocus :)

    The standard for reporting MP of a camera is a de facto standard, which
    means that it there is no written standard, it just IS that way. Fuji use a
    different CCD to all other camera manufacturers, which they very clearly
    state on all their marketing - this means that the "de facto" standard which
    applies to all the Sony CCD manufactured cameras isn't really applicable to
    them. They also NEED to generate an interpolated image to retain all the
    picture information from their whacky CCD which does capture more detail
    than a standard CCD of the same pixel count. This is true with 3rd
    generation CCD.

    I personally think it is a little unfortunate that Fuji quote 6MP, but its
    like comparing a pertol and diesel engined car. They have the same engine
    size, but you just aren't going to go as fast in your diesel. I can't think
    of a company in the world that would advertise there products as being worse
    than they are, so why do you expect Fuji to do the same? My 602 quite
    clearly isn't a 6MP cam, but then, it quite clearly produces better
    resolution than a 3Mp cam.

    I think the problem isn't Fuji, the problem is that consumers are lazy. If
    you buy a camera based purely on the quoted pixel count, then you are a fool
    indeed, just as you would be if you were buying a car and you just said,
    "I'll take any V8".
    Guest, Oct 13, 2003
  10. I was in a store the other day and saw one of these. There was a sticker on
    the front of the camera (floor model) detailing the basic specs, and while
    the sticker did say 6.2, right below that it said 3.1S+3.1R. I think the
    fundamental idea behind the camera is fantastic - high dynamic range could
    make digital rival print film and ultimately far surpass it. Of course the
    execution is disappointing, but you can't blame Fuji for trying to make the
    customer aware of what makes this sensor special.
    Constantinople, Oct 13, 2003
  11. Here's a picture of camera with sticker:
    Constantinople, Oct 13, 2003
  12. Mark Herring

    Guest Guest

    Fuji is clearly deceptive in this case.

    Nope. They just quote their information differently to other manufacturers.
    There is no law which says that they have to print the number of sensor
    pixels on the camera. In the case of the new sensor, they are quite within
    their rights to claim this though if they choose because it is absolutely
    100% true (ok so I haven't put one under the microscope and counted them,
    but you know what I am saying...)
    I hadn't seen Fuji blaming anyone for anything. That was me, and I stand by
    it. If you buy any product without first checking that it's results satisfy
    you, then you deserve all you get. (Except if its food/drink and it has gone
    off or something).

    Anyway - I don't want to be a Fuji zealot. I just hate it when people bash
    something for making false claims by ... making their own false claims. I
    know several people with the cheaper Fujis and all of them are happy with
    their cameras and that is the important thing.
    Guest, Oct 14, 2003
  13. Mark Herring

    pjp Guest

    I don't think Fuji is running a "scam" either.

    When I purchased my S602 (1st digi cam) it was very clear to me after only
    trivial research that the CCD was 3.x megs and therefore a 6M image must be
    interpolated. It was also easy to find out how their CCD design varies from
    the "standard" and raises difficulties doing direct comparism with other

    In other words, none of the critical information required to make a
    purchasing decision was "hidden", "ommitted" etc., e.g. all easily found. So
    how's that a scam?
    pjp, Oct 14, 2003
  14. Mark Herring

    Bill Guest

    I agree.......the box that my S602 came in clearly states "3.1 million
    effective pixels". Then, in another box BELOW that one, it reads "2,832 x
    2,128 (6.0 million) Recorded Pixels".

    Hardly a scam! And as the next message long as you're happy
    wiith your camera, then that's what matters. Personally, I love mine!
    Bill, Oct 14, 2003
  15. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:47:33 +0000 (UTC), "<Enter Your Full Name>"

    Glad to see the thread is still alive.....

    I have now found the camera pitched at Ritz, Good Guys, and
    CompUSA---all with the simple designation of a 6.2Mp
    camera---something Fuji does not quite say.

    On the phone to Ritz, they actually seemed concerned about the issue.
    Good Guys was more flip---including an interesting statement that "We
    have to put up whatever the mfg says".

    As far as I can deduce, each pixel has two sensing sites, and the data
    from the large and small sites (photo diodes) is somehow processed to
    give the dynamic range boost that is advertised. I have no reason to
    suspect this claim.
    The issue is--if the postulate is correct---there are still only
    3.1Million PIXELS---defined as elements of the picture that are
    acquired independently and thus serve to provide spatial resolution.

    Consider this: If you take the simplest device with--say--100 pixels,
    and no processing tricks. The limiting resolution---dictated by
    sampling theory---is set forever by this number. Now, add some
    sensors at random. Depending on how these added sensors are placed
    and processed, they could be used to increase resolution and dynamic
    range---but probably NOT both. Stated another way, if Fuji's
    processing scheme REQUIRES the two sites per pixel for dynamic range
    improvement, then they are not available for resolution improvement.

    As for the Super CCD claim of increased resolution thru tilting, this
    is also just hype. The <<maximum>> resolving power of a sensor goes
    as the number of pixels (as defined above). It makes no difference
    how they are oriented.

    Bottom line: Fuji is misleading us again---much more subtle this
    time, but still offensive to anyone who digs into the details. I have
    established a dialog with them on this in which they have so far been

    Read the reviews----most of the sites that I respect have something to
    say about this being really just another 3+ Mpixel camera.

    For some old history of more blatant misleading by Fuji (which they
    were forced to retract), go to Google groups and search on "Fuji
    Interpolation scam".

    Finally, a useful exercise may be to plot price vs Megapixels. For
    the mainstream houses (eg Nikon, Canon, and Minolta, Olympus), you
    will see a very clear relationship.
    2MP is currently around $200
    3MP is $300-400
    6 MP starts around $1000

    If a camera does not plot anywhere near this curve, you KNOW something
    is fishy.

    Finally, the known offenders to date in promoting interpolated
    Agfa (RIP)
    Epson---one occurrence, as I recall (search Google for my letter to
    Fuji--the most blatant and repeated offender

    And I shoot Fuji C41 in my P&S, and the make great high end printers
    (and blimps)----oh well

    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 17, 2003
  16. That's the idea, and a very good one it is: dynamic range (especially blown
    highlights) is one of digital's main problems.
    Well, no. This time they're actually doing something useful; addressing a
    serious problem in digital imaging. The rotated sensor trick put more
    resolution in the directions that most tests actually measured resolution.
    That one was quite seriously sleazy.
    Yes. It appears that they may have failed for consumer cameras, although I
    suspect that the reviewers (and most consumers) don't know how to use wide
    dynamic range images: most people like contrasty images; making a print from
    a wide dynamic range image requires lots of photoshopping.

    I'd love their 20MP full-frame 645 back, which uses that technology, for my
    Mamiya. (I'd love more to be able to afford it...) Of course, the good thing
    about the 20MP back is that they can advertise it as 40MP all they want, and
    no one with the US$15,000 it'll probably cost will be fooled<g>.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 17, 2003
  17. Mark Herring

    Guest Guest

    The issue is--if the postulate is correct---there are still only
    This is the whole point. Defined by who? Where does it say that the pixel
    count a manufacturer uses must match your definition? It doesn't.

    Try the camera out. If it does the job you want at the price you want then
    buy it. And I know for a FACT that several friends have Fuji cameras and
    they are happy with them. The F700 looks like quite a breakthrough to me,
    despite what dpreview says. I am sure loads of photographers can't wait to
    get their hands on a real camera with better dynamic range. Maybe the S3...
    Guest, Oct 17, 2003
  18. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    Good points---see a few notes embedded below.

    yes--I agree. the issue is not with the validity of the dynamic range
    When I say misleading, I am referring to the billing as a 6.2
    Megapixel camera. At the retailers (Good Guys, Ritz, and CompUSA
    observed so far), all we see is the Fuji displayed next to a bunch of
    other cameras. The tags give info on Megapixels, zoom, some other
    features, and the price. No mention of dynamic range or other
    nuances. Scan down the shelf and you see a REAL 5MP camera for maybe
    $600, and then the "6.2 Megapixel" F700 for $400. Totally
    misleading---really no different if one were to advertise a new film
    at ISO 800 when was really 400.


    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 17, 2003
  19. Mark Herring

    Mark Herring Guest

    Like it or not, there is a defacto standard in the industry. A pixel
    is a sample of a scene (image). More pixels means higher limiting
    resolution. For all of the mainline manufacturers (Nikon, Canon,
    Olympus, Minolta), a 5 Megapixel camera means the same thing in terms
    of resolving power. Further, there is a widely used set of benchmarks
    for equating print size to Megapixels, as in: "2MP will get you good
    4x6s, and 3-4 MP is required for 8x10"

    With this reality as a backdrop, Fuji now stands just about alone in
    publishing claims that are grossly misleading.

    I am keeping my comments mostly in the other thread---if you would
    like a more detailed explanation of the technicalities, please send me
    private e-mail:

    digital photos, more and better computers,
    and never enough time to do the projects.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to No
    Mark Herring, Oct 17, 2003
  20. Mark Herring

    Bill Guest

    Perhaps you should read this:,3973,75160,00.asp

    But I have to wonder, did Fuji fire you or something??? Why do you care? Buy
    whatever camera you like(obviosly it won't be a Fuji!) and go enjoy taking
    I'm a serious amateur who has a darkroom and 30 years of 35mm film
    experience (Canon SLR). My first digital camera was A Toshiba PDR-M5 in
    early 2000. After some experience, I realized that I wanted something more
    sophisticated and also knew what features I missed from my film days and
    what new features were available in newer model digitals as well. So now I
    have a Fuji Finepix S602......and I love it. There are a couple of things I
    would add to a wish list......but for me it's perfect. And maybe one day
    I'll get another camera....who knows?

    The point is, we all buy what we like. The real joy is going out and about
    to get some good photos! Let go of this Fuji thing and enjoy whatever camera
    you bought.

    Bill, Oct 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.