Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera
From: Rich on 4 Feb 2010 20:25
You REALLY think it's going to work like a DSLR with a sensor with
something like 20x the surface area? Dream on.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020206fujifinepixhs10series.asp#specs

From: NameHere on 4 Feb 2010 21:32
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:25:34 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

>You REALLY think it's going to work like a DSLR with a sensor with
>something like 20x the surface area? Dream on.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020206fujifinepixhs10series.asp#specs

We've all already read the specs. Are you this naive? Yet one of my 1/2.5"
sensors still has remarkable performance with a 10.3 EV dynamic range, and
this sensor is even larger with back-lit technology. This is why the
question remains about real-world tests, putting their low-light tricks
through their paces. Until that is done none of your trolling and bashing
is of any consequence to anyone.

You have to up your trolling tactics if this is all you've got.

From: Ray Fischer on 5 Feb 2010 03:24
Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>You REALLY think it's going to work like a DSLR with a sensor with
>something like 20x the surface area? Dream on.

Rich hates everything.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bruce on 5 Feb 2010 10:49
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:25:34 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>You REALLY think it's going to work like a DSLR with a sensor with
>something like 20x the surface area? Dream on.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020206fujifinepixhs10series.asp#specs


My Panasonic DMC-LX3 has a 1/1.63" sensor which has about twice the
area of the Fuji sensor. Shooting RAW at low ISOs with careful
post-processing, the sensor noise is extremely well controlled. I
have no difficulty selling 10 MP images from this camera, provided
that I work within its limitations.

FujiFilm has a reputation for making lower noise sensors than
Panasonic. That alone should negate the difference in sensor sizes.

There is no reason why a photographer working within the limitations
of the FujiFilm HS-10 should not be able to sell images from it. They
will be more than good enough for most stock purposes.

Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

And at the high end of the same gap, Micro Four Thirds offers "sensor
quality" that is almost on a par with APS-C DSLRs and optics that are
of a far higher standard than those disappointing kit lenses. By
diversifying into the mirrorless format, Four Thirds has pulled back
from the brink and has finally come of age.

The replacement for my Panasonic DMC-LX3 will probably be a Micro Four
Thirds camera.


From: MikeWhy on 25 Feb 2010 16:29
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfeom5hm7ci3ivq6cm9gcndior5ovon00q(a)4ax.com...
> Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
> like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
> and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
> with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and
they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an
image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera