Fuji S5 dominates dynamic range amongst DSLRs

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by RichA, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Tony Polson, Jul 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    frederick Guest

    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
  4. Isnt the S5 just a Nikon cloned camera that needs to use Nikon lens

    Whats of Fuji, the sensor?

    Michael.Pasturi, Jul 5, 2007
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    yep - it is a nikon d200 body with fuji's sensor and a slower frame
    Guest, Jul 5, 2007
  6. RichA

    Avery Guest

    Yes, and the rest of the electronics.
    Avery, Jul 5, 2007
  7. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The main contribution of the Fuji S2, S3 and S5 cameras is the sensor
    which has two sensors per pixel: a large "normal" and a much smaller
    sensor for the highlights.

    This extends the dynamic range in the highlights by a couple stops.

    The drawback is that there is not a lot of real estate left over to
    squeeze in higher pixel counts in the future.

    Another poster laments the slow frame rate, but people concerned with
    capturing the full dynamic range are more likely people interested in
    overall image quality including taking the time for a serious composition.

    For example, a product photographer dealing with deep shaddows, rich
    colors and lighting and highlight relefections from the product would
    take his time with each image ... frame rate is not a concern.

    Alan Browne, Jul 6, 2007
  8. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jul 6, 2007
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Maybe the basics on DR, but the review itself is brand new.
    RichA, Jul 6, 2007
  10. 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):
    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 N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 6, 2007
  11. It's not reserved for Nikon & Canon, and not all of them get it
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 6, 2007
  12. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    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 Sheehy, Jul 6, 2007
  13. RichA

    acl Guest

    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

    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
    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.