Speed test - Fuji S602

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Bill, Jan 20, 2004.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    For those who may have read the lunatics post claiming that I was 'scammed"
    by Fuji regarding the "5 frames per second" rate for continuous shooting
    mode, I wanted to post this. Good ol' what's his name claims he "tested
    extensively" (by shooting a stopwatch!...... how scientific!). He concluded
    that the S602 can not shoot at the speed claimed by Fuji.

    So I used a program that displays elapsed time on the PC monitor and I set
    it to display 4 decimal places (1/10,000 of a second). I set the camera to
    manual mode, and shot at 1/80 sec. to insure a "frozen" image, since the
    refresh rate of my monitor is 60Hz. I ran the test 4 times, in both 3MP and
    1MP modes. The elapsed times for each set of 5 frames, in seconds, was
    0.9414, 0.9922, 0.9882 and 0.9922. All tests came in at just under 1 second.

    So Fuji is correct when they state that it can shoot up to 5 frames per
    second in continuous mode. At least as far as my test shows. And it is
    certainly as valid as his/her shooting pictures of a stopwatch!

    What else do you lie about, GP????

    I will ignore his posts from now on, but I just couldn't leave his lies
    uncontested! My apologies to the group.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Jan 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Hi...
    Well said, and well worth saying... :)

    Besides, regardless of the timed results, we're not
    sending a rocket to Mars, we're taking pictures.
    5 per second is really about 5 a second, eh? :)

    Heck, if I'm invited to dinner at 7 and show up
    at 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after, we'll both
    agree that I'm on time, right? :)

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Jan 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You mean just over.
    5 frames in one second is 3.8 fps, just like I said.

    1 at 0
    2 at .26
    3 at .52
    4 at .78
    5 at 1.04

    = 3.8 fps

    All S602s are precisely the same, we tested hundreds on drpreview.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Bill

    pjp Guest

    What I know is that when using that mode at 6M Fine setting using 1/10,000
    shutter in manual mode, I got more than enough pics of a vehicle passing at
    60mph 20' in front of me (e.g. pointed facing road, shutter pressed as
    vehicle approached and let off as soon as possible once sure it was in
    frame) that it was easy to choose one with the entire vehicle in the frame.
    Oh, you can see eight sided wheel nuts on the rim no problem.
     
    pjp, Jan 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill

    Bill Guest

    NO.............I MEAN "under" 1 second total elapsed time to shoot 5 frames.
    Don't change MY words. Come up with your own. How on Earth can you consider
    those times (0.9414, 0.9922, 0.9882 and 0.9922) as being OVER 1 second? And
    how can you POSSIBLY say that a camera taking 5 frames in just under 1
    second is shooting at at rate of 3.8 frames per second? That is just stupid!
     
    Bill, Jan 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Bill

    pjp Guest

    That's why I said vehicle and not car, it was a big yellow schoolbus
    actually :) but you may be right about # of sides on bolts anyway. What I
    know is that it was no problem distinguishing them as bolts. Actual pic's on
    a cd now and I'm not gonna bother searching for it right now.
     
    pjp, Jan 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Hi...
    This is Foveonic math...

    2 plus 2 = 7 and 3/4's.
    7 minus 2 = 1 and 9/10's.
    4 times 9 = 553
    3 megs plus nothing = whatever Sigma say it is
    today, and so on.

    Keep trying, you'll get it :)

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Jan 21, 2004
    #7
  8. stupid!

    Your (slightly exaggerated) rate is 4 fps, 1 pic every 0.25 secs.

    The actual rate is 3.8fps.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill

    Bill Guest

    You are an incredibly stupid person! If one picture is taken at "0" seconds,
    another at 0,25, again at 0.50 and then at 0.75 the last (5th) one is taken
    at 1.0 seconds. That is 5 frames in ONE second elapsed time. Also, you must
    be insane if you expect anyone to believe that you "tested hundreds on
    dpreview". Yeah.....sure you did! And anyway, at least I gave the details of
    my test method, while you won't reveal your indisputable means!

    Go away!!!
     
    Bill, Jan 21, 2004
    #9
  10. At a rate of, according to your exaggerated rate, 4 fps. Or 0.25 secs
    between images.

    Fuji lies in their own manual, as you just proved, they specifically state
    the camera takes pics that are "0.2" seconds apart, at a rate of 5 fps.
    Note, they conveniently leave off the second decimal place, so they can
    claim raw stupidity if ever dragged into court by every victim of their
    fully intentional fraud.

    Same goes for the S2 Pro, which they similarly, and also intentionally
    fraudulently advertise as 3 fps, when it can't quite take one frame every
    0.5 seconds.
    The users did. All took precisely 0.26 secs between images for a rate of
    3.8 fps. Quite good quality control--including yours.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Interesting that you can see through the marketing of Fuji, but not Sigma.
     
    Braindead Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Interesting that you don't call the guy names when its Fuji.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #12
  13. If I can take 5 frames in 1 second, thats fine.
     
    Braindead Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #13
  14. You can't. But 3.8 fps is pretty good.

    Leave it to Fuji to take a decent thing and turn it into a liability.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 21, 2004
    #14

  15. Okay George, I think I am the only one here but I really agree with you.
    Let's just say the 5fps is right. That would mean that the camera could take
    10 pictures in 2 seconds (which it probably can't due to data flushing to
    memorycard and what else, but for the sake of it let's just say it can).
    That won't be the case. In the 2nd second the camera will "only" be able to
    take a maximum of 4 pictures. Have to agree with you on this one. Five
    frames per second it just can't do.

    P-P. (prepares himself to be shot now...)
     
    P-P. Henneken, Jan 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Bill

    Bill Guest

    You really ARE stupid! By your own words, 0.25 seconds between images. So
    image #1 is taken at 0 seconds, to start. #2 at 0.25, #3 at 0.5, #4 at 0.75,
    and #5 taken at 1.0. What is the total time elapsed???? ONE second. And how
    many frames were shot? Try FIVE! Oh, and my test times are NOT exaggerated.
    Any time you want to see the actual screen shots of the elapsed timer, just
    say the word. But you won't......because you'll be shown as the lying idiot
    you really are.

    And since you want to quote the manual "specifically", they say it can
    "shoot up to 5 frames at intervals as short as 0.2 seconds".
    Page 44. You can't even read a manual correctly!
     
    Bill, Jan 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Keep going. Take top 25 mode (I can't believe I have to explain 1st grade
    math)....

    1 at 0.0 secs
    2 at 0.26 secs
    3 at 0.52 secs
    ....
    25 at 6.24 secs

    Rate = 3.8 fps.
    That cannot be done under any circumstance, it is a brazen intentional lie.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 22, 2004
    #17
  18. It can take 10 in a row in top 25 mode, but the 10th frame will always snap
    (best case) at 2.34 seconds, because the camera is only good for 3.8 fps,
    not 5 fps as Fuji lies.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Invert it and you get fps. In this case 1/0.25 = 4 fps. It is that
    simple.
    You are plainly wrong. Imagine camera that can take one frame each
    0.99 s elapsed. First frame is at 0 s, second at 0.99 s. Does it mean
    the camera can shoot 2 fps in countinous mode? Certainly not! In fact
    it is just a tad faster than 1 fps.

    --
    Best regards,
    Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
    http://www.widzew.net/~bladteth/rower.html
    mailto:
    MCM #252
     
    Rado bladteth Rzeznicki, Jan 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Fuji would actually rate it that way, astonishingly.

    Their S2 Pro advertisement is almost as bad as your example, not quite 1
    frame every half second, advertised as 3 fps.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 22, 2004
    #20
    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.