Fuji Brings Back High ISO To Small Cameras

[jpeyton]

After the F31 was discontinued, people were disappointed with Fuji's F50 and F100 in regards to high ISO performance. Looks like the F200 is a winner; better than the LX3 or G10 at ISO 800+.

Text

ISO 1600
ISO 1600
ISO 1600

ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800

ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 400

 

[996GT2]

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...

 

[andylawcc]

borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

 

[extra]

Duno these don't really look better than the LX3.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: extra
Duno these don't really look better than the LX3.

Looks a lot better IMO.

LX3

ISO 800
ISO 800
ISO 800

ISO 1600
ISO 1600

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

$400

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

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

$400

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

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?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

$400

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

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?

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).

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

$400

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

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?

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).

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.

 

[ElFenix]

ISO 1600, 1/10 sec, F4.0, -0.7 EV

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.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

ISO 1600, 1/10 sec, F4.0, -0.7 EV

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.

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.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: andylawcc
borat: very nice! wonder what's the MSRP

$400

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

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?

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.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Of course, given that Panasonic fibs about the LX3's ISO rating (click the ISO Sensitivity tab), this swings the pendulum back a bit.

keeps pretty good company

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Of course, given that Panasonic fibs about the LX3's ISO rating (click the ISO Sensitivity tab), this swings the pendulum back a bit.

keeps pretty good company

Check out the Nikon P6000!

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Of course, given that Panasonic fibs about the LX3's ISO rating (click the ISO Sensitivity tab), this swings the pendulum back a bit.

keeps pretty good company

Check out the Nikon P6000!

wait, what?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.p...)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Of course, given that Panasonic fibs about the LX3's ISO rating (click the ISO Sensitivity tab), this swings the pendulum back a bit.

keeps pretty good company

Check out the Nikon P6000!

wait, what?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.p...)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon

That's weird.

 

[extra]

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. ^_^

 

[gar655]

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.