• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fuji Brings Back High ISO To Small Cameras

Those ISO 1600 images don't look much worse than ISO 1600 from my old Nikon D200. Granted, the D200 was never known for its high ISO prowess, but P&S cameras sure have come a long way since then...
 
Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP
Click to expand...
$400

Has a similar sensor size to the LX3/G10; 1/1.6", but SuperCCD does a better job with noise performance.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP
Click to expand...
$400

Has a similar sensor size to the LX3/G10; 1/1.6", but SuperCCD does a better job with noise performance.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though.

The LX3 has an f/2.0-2.8 lens (shorter range that starts wider, but faster f/stop). The F200 has an f/3.3-5.1 lens. f/3.3 is about 1.4 stops slower than f/2. If we assume that the F200's lens goes out to f/4 at 60mm, then it's still a full stop slower than the LX3's lens.

So, let's say an LX3 needs ISO 400 in any given situation. The F200 would need around ISO 800 to 1250 in the same situation to compensate for its slower lens...

Doesn't that basically negate the advantage of the SuperCCD EXR?
 
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP
Click to expand...
$400

Has a similar sensor size to the LX3/G10; 1/1.6", but SuperCCD does a better job with noise performance.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though.

The LX3 has an f/2.0-2.8 lens (shorter range that starts wider, but faster f/stop). The F200 has an f/3.3-5.1 lens. f/3.3 is about 1.4 stops slower than f/2. If we assume that the F200's lens goes out to f/4 at 60mm, then it's still a full stop slower than the LX3's lens.

So, let's say an LX3 needs ISO 400 in any given situation. The F200 would need around ISO 800 to 1250 in the same situation to compensate for its slower lens...

Doesn't that basically negate the advantage of the SuperCCD EXR?
Click to expand...
But now we're discussing the lenses and not the sensor.

If we were comparing the whole package, it would be more apples-to-apples comparing it to the Canon G10, since both have 28-140mm lenses, and the Fuji would win hands down (even though the Fuji's lens is a tad slower than the Canon's).
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP
Click to expand...
$400

Has a similar sensor size to the LX3/G10; 1/1.6", but SuperCCD does a better job with noise performance.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though.

The LX3 has an f/2.0-2.8 lens (shorter range that starts wider, but faster f/stop). The F200 has an f/3.3-5.1 lens. f/3.3 is about 1.4 stops slower than f/2. If we assume that the F200's lens goes out to f/4 at 60mm, then it's still a full stop slower than the LX3's lens.

So, let's say an LX3 needs ISO 400 in any given situation. The F200 would need around ISO 800 to 1250 in the same situation to compensate for its slower lens...

Doesn't that basically negate the advantage of the SuperCCD EXR?
Click to expand...
But now we're discussing the lenses and not the sensor.

If we were comparing the whole package, it would be more apples-to-apples comparing it to the Canon G10, since both have 28-140mm lenses, and the Fuji would win hands down (even though the Fuji's lens is a tad slower than the Canon's).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize that the LX3 doesn't go as far out as the F200, but it does go wider. I was simply trying to point out the fact that one should consider more than 1 aspect of a camera's low-light performance. Just because a camera has a fast lens or good high ISO performance does not necessarily make it astonishingly good...it's the sum of these parts that really leads to a particular camera being very dominant in low-light.

For example, the Olympus 4/3 system has a 14-35mm f/2.0 zoom, which is probably the fastest production zoom lens you can buy today. However, the ISO performance of the 4/3 system is lacking when compared to other companies' DSLR lines, so the extra f/stop offered by a faster lens is essentially negated. It's a similar case here between the LX3 and F200. One has the faster, more exotic lens, while the other has better high ISO performance. But, in the end, neither really ends up being a whole lot better than the other.
 
ISO 1600, 1/10 sec, F4.0, -0.7 EV
Click to expand...
i've always assumed that dpreview just reports that adjustment to show that they think the metering is slightly off, but i'm really not sure. they could be doing -.7 in the raw converter which would change the noise characteristics.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
ISO 1600, 1/10 sec, F4.0, -0.7 EV
Click to expand...
i've always assumed that dpreview just reports that adjustment to show that they think the metering is slightly off, but i'm really not sure. they could be doing -.7 in the raw converter which would change the noise characteristics.
Click to expand...
They could also be trying to demonstrate DR and highlight recovery; I'd imagine the skin on the woman's nose was overexposed in that shot at the default exposure.

OR

Since they are sample images from a beta camera, either the camera's meter could be off, or their standard image processing program doesn't properly support files from Fuji's new sensor, thus requiring a little exposure compensation.
 
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP
Click to expand...
$400

Has a similar sensor size to the LX3/G10; 1/1.6", but SuperCCD does a better job with noise performance.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though.

The LX3 has an f/2.0-2.8 lens (shorter range that starts wider, but faster f/stop). The F200 has an f/3.3-5.1 lens. f/3.3 is about 1.4 stops slower than f/2. If we assume that the F200's lens goes out to f/4 at 60mm, then it's still a full stop slower than the LX3's lens.

So, let's say an LX3 needs ISO 400 in any given situation. The F200 would need around ISO 800 to 1250 in the same situation to compensate for its slower lens...

Doesn't that basically negate the advantage of the SuperCCD EXR?
Click to expand...

I think this fact often goes unnoticed, and is a valid point. If one camera is a stop (or more) faster at a given focal length, then "high iso" capability is mitigated somewhat.

Of course, given that Panasonic fibs about the LX3's ISO rating (click the ISO Sensitivity tab), this swings the pendulum back a bit.
 
Yeah, on second thought it does look more useable than lx3, however those samples of hte lx3 you posted are nowhere NEAR a normal iso 1600 shot from an lx3, they are horribly underexposed and thus extremely noisy. Even my wife's little LS3 produces much much better iso 1600 shots than the lx3 examples posted. Like if you took a picture of that cat it's exposed correctly, if you look at those lx3 iso 1600 samples they aren't at all. Especially that second one. Even an SLR is going to be pretty noisy if you do that to it.

The LX3 also has a much faster lens though which in this case is going to negate any iso advantage imho....

This Fuji has a much higher zoom range though and looks much bigger physically than an lx3. I think the correct thing to compare it to is the G10...

And in that case it looks like it might be: if you NEED the more useable iso 800 and 1600, get this thing, if you shoot mostly iso 80-400 grab the G10. Will depend on price though of course. The other problem is fuji is just awful to work with as a company, so we'll see. ^_^
 
And.. the ISO 1600 shots posted are 6mp. Resize (either direction) to equal the LX3 and things get closer still. Plus the Fuji does not shoot RAW and no HD video or high(er) rez screen.

Knock a $100 off the price of the Fuji and it would be a contender. At $400 it's out of its league by lack of any additional features that the majority of P&Sers are looking for.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top