Fuji S3 announced !!!

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by -=Plane Mad=-, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. -=Plane Mad=-

    Gavin Cato Guest

    I like 1.7X better than 1.5X. Higher quality glass, more concetrated
    Well I guess when you use average glass it's important not to use the edges.
    Is the SD9 as fast as a D2h?
    horseshit.
     
    Gavin Cato, Feb 6, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. -=Plane Mad=-

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Absolute bullshit through and through just like most of your claims,
    especially the ones about sigma lens build quality which you conveniently
    missed my reply to a few days ago.

    Gav
     
    Gavin Cato, Feb 6, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Phil Askey is the one who said it, "S2 Pro RAW files have the .RAF file
    extension, interestingly they contain a 1440 x 960 JPEG which can be viewed
    by certain image viewers (works with ACDSee). This JPEG is no doubt used by
    the camera for playback and magnification."

    That certainly rules the Fuji DSLRs out for anything but snapshots.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #23
  4. The SD9 is infinitley Much faster, the D2H is only 1MP full color.
    The SD9 has at least 5X the color resolution of the tiny D2H sensor count.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #24
  5. Maybe if you hadn't snipped the context "Full-frame sensors to-date have
    proven to be noisy, and have falloff problems with ultra-wide lenses",
    someone could mistake you for making a sensible remark.

    The example links show a wide angle field of view and, because you didn't
    pay attention, the issue was vignetting which is practically absent. In
    fact, it is easier to see vignetting on a smaller image.

    Your attempt to let someone post a full size 11MP image, so you could call
    it blurry (regardless of it being sharp or not), has again failed. You are
    too 'preddy'ctable.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 6, 2004
    #25
  6. Wrong. Sample density plus the number of spatially discrete samples in the
    image plane is what makes resolution in the output image.
    Colors are not important for resolution!
    The human eye has a 10 times worst color resolution than Luminance
    resolution.

    [Rest of your drivel snipped]

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 6, 2004
    #26
  7. The glass is the same, all you avoid is poor edge quality. You also avoid
    the possibility to use better wide angle lenses, because you are forced to
    use more extreme wide angle lenses.
    How do you know?
    How do you know? Last time I looked at the specs it has 3024 x 2016 or 6M
    Photosites x2.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 6, 2004
    #27
  8. SNIP
    Looking at a gamma 1.0, poorly color separated image must look 'preddy'
    awful. And doesn't a 3.4MP LCD display make the camera very large ;-)

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 6, 2004
    #28
  9. What? Are you *seriously* saying that any camera that cannot provide
    an on the spot preview of the raw output of the picture you've just
    taken is only good for snapshots? Let's think about that in the
    context of a high-end film based camera for a second shall we?

    It's a raw file with an admittedly large "thumbnail" embedded, that's
    all. It enables people to use the application of their choice to
    quickly locate the image they want, without having to use the limited
    subset that supports their camera's raw format. It also saves time
    and, by inference of having to less work, battery life in displaying a
    preview on the LCD. The only use I can see for being able to check an
    image on camera for defects in raw format at the pixel level is if you
    have run out of storage, have already deleted the chaff and
    desperately need to take another picture. Perhaps you could provide
    another example though.

    Andy
     
    Andy Blanchard, Feb 6, 2004
    #29
  10. Um. No, that's the wrong "count". The *only* times that sensor count
    matters are when your output medium requires it, such as with large
    prints, or you are more interested in the detail rather than the
    aesthetics of the overall composition, recon pictures for example.
    Unless, of course, you are of the disposition that you would be more
    impressed with the fact that Caravaggio took the time to paint the
    gondolier as well as the gondola instead of by the splendor of
    renaissance Venice and the skill of the artist.

    What a physically larger sensor gives you is more accuracy in what
    really matters on a digital sensor, or film for that matter; the
    *photon* count. It's a bit like capturing rainfall; all things being
    equal a container with uniform cross section top to bottom would have
    the same depth of water regardless of size and shape, yet because of
    the chaotic nature of rain this is not the case. It's a very similar
    thing with photons, and so what a larger area gives you is a
    statistically much better idea of mean photon density for a given
    sensor, and this is ultimately what determines the value assigned to
    that sensor's raw output.

    Sure, combining a sensor with a lens designed to focus the image onto
    a larger target area gives you the benefit of the magnification factor
    for your telephoto shots at the expense of losing at the wideangle end
    of the range. So you save some money on the long lenses, but then
    have to spend the money anyway getting your wideangle back instead and
    make a similar trade of sensor accuracy vs center glass. I don't
    think it's any coincidence that the high-res, small sensor Sony F828
    has noise issues, and the equivalent Nikon 8700 eschews higher ISO
    settings altogether.

    It does make a change to see you place more importance on a part of
    your camera other than the sensor though. ;)

    Andy
     
    Andy Blanchard, Feb 6, 2004
    #30
  11. -=Plane Mad=-

    Gavin Cato Guest

    So what?
    Think whatever you want. You are an idiot.
     
    Gavin Cato, Feb 6, 2004
    #31
  12. -=Plane Mad=-

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Oh yeah, the autofocus / fps etc. are much slower on the d2h arent they.

    As I've said before, you can rant about it on paper as much as you want, it
    doesn't show up that way in real life.
     
    Gavin Cato, Feb 6, 2004
    #32
  13. That makes the S3 a 1.5MP camera. It only takes 1.5M spatially discrete
    full color samples.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #33
  14. That is all the time. Why wouldn't someone be interested in detail when
    adding it doesn't change the aesthetics?
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #34
  15. Relative to digital cameras? Absolutely. They make film cameras for that.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #35
  16. So use film instead.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #36
  17. Gamma doesn't matter, it won't let you assess focus.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #37
  18. At 10.3MP the fps is 0.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #38
  19. The quality of the glass is the same, but the quality of the glass is not
    the same. That makes sense.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #39
  20. It's impossible to assess the quality of outer glass vs center glass using a
    0.3MP preivew.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #40
    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.