Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Leen, Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I don’t understand about S-pixels and R-pixels. Do you know what they are talking about? Is it really a 12 MP camera? Or is this some kind of marketing game? Bert
Bert, look here <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020503fujifilms3pro.asp> for an explanation. The sensor has 6 million pixels. Each pixel has two photo diodes which are both recorded to give 12 million effective pixels. Not more resolution, but more dynamic range according to the press info.
Thanks, Bob. Very interesting…dynamic range has been one of the weak spots in digital cameras…compared to film. This could be a major step up in digital image quality. Bert
Looks like a great new camera Leen. But like many others, I have went from Nikon lenses to Canon over the last few years, and it would be pretty expensive to change back again now. It will be interesting to see what kind of images this new baby brings with it though, that is for certain. Thanks for the heads up on the camera Leen, I wish you good luck with it.<smile> Gary~*
Robert, of course not! You ever believed advertising? 😉 But it is certainly an improvement, especially for people printing at large formats. Most important however is the larger exposure latitude. Digital requires very exact metering and control of contrasts. Who hasnot seen blown out highlights? In my opinion this is probably the best camera for the portrait and wedding photographer and the landscape photographer. The combination of 12.3 mpx and the exposure latitude will allow the wedding photographer to capture the fine details in both the white dress and the black suit. The landscape photographer will be able to record extremely fine details that with lower mpx cameras sometimes got lost.
I think I will buy this camera, but I will wait till the 2004 Photokina in Cologne. Then we will know what competitors will have available and prices will probably have dropped considerably.
thank you for that review. Just one more question purely out of interest: Why would this camera be less suited for action pictures or sports images? Does this have anything to do with the above or are we just talking shutterspeed?
Leen, Maybe I misunderstood, but the way I read the specs, there are two photodiodes in each pixel space, one with higher sensitivity, so the two values are combined to form the value for a pixel. That sounds to me like it’s still a 6 megapixel camera, but with better dynamic range. Bert
BTW, I was in our local camera shop today and the proprietor told me he hasn’t reordered the Minolta A-1 or any of his Nikon models because they are all due to be replaced next week at the big photography trade show. Anyone heard anything about this?
He thought MInolta would be introducing the A-2, but as I recall that’s already the name of an old film model of theirs.
Robert, because of its probable price tag I had professional photographers in mind. Of course it will be suitable for action pictures too. However, most sports journalists prefer to use faster cameras at lower resolutions as newspapers don’t need very high resolutions. And both Canon and Nikon provide them with faster cameras with more images per second.
Bert, you are right. I misread the information. It is still a 6 mpx camera with increased dynamic range. Nevertheless, as it takes its information from twice the number of photodiodes, I suppose the algorthmes for interpolation will provide better results as there is more information. These "extra" diodes are situated next to the "original" ones, so I suppose the extra information will be used too, not just only to increase the exposure latitude.
I’ll be a more careful reader in the future as I intend to invest in a 10-15 mpx camera this year, provided they will be within my financial means.
In dSLR there is the Nikon D70, Canon ESo 1D Mark II and the Fuji S3, Pentax has dropped the price of the *ist by $300 US
In the 8 mega pixel range Nikon has introduced CoolPix 8700 similar to the Coolpix 5700 but more humph and Minolta has introduced the DiMAGE A-2 http://www.photim.com/Infos/UneInfo.asp?N=989
Fuji has also introduced a presume S20 pro not sure about target size.
Now who knows maybe in three more months they will have an A3…. but still the if the young woman on the front of the brochure is an accessory, optional or not, I just might have a Minolta in my future.
Leen, It was easy to make that mistake. Fuji talked about 12 megapixels in their news releases…I think it was really misleading. It wasn’t until I read the actual specs that I learned the truth. Not ver ethical, in my opinion… Bert
Bert, They say it’s a 6 MP sensor, but they record 12 MP of information. If you look at the image resolution (4256×2848) you will see that it is a 12 MP image. It will be interesting to see the photos when they come out. Bob
Bert, re Fuji ads being misleading….I agree. Have seen it before with them. It’s a shame; the subject is complicated enough without having to wade through half-truths…
It has two 6MP sensors (on the same chip, a large and small sensor dot adjacent to each other)that are combined to create a 6MP wider range image. It can interpolate internally to produce a 12MP image. That’s essentially how the F700 works, 3MP native and interpolated 6MP. The F700 also uses the same SR CCD technology, just not as high a resolution. You may wish to read the reviews on that camera. Steve’s Digicams says the F700’s 6MP interpolated image isn’t up to par with a true 6MP camera. I would expect the same to be true with this camera as well in regard to the interpolated image. I would expect it to be a decent 6MP camera though.
It is a 6 mpx camera, just like my S2. Both offer the same resolution. But I cannot imagine the Fuji engineers to use this extra information of the smaller sized sensor just only for increasing the exposure latitude and not for interpolation purposes too. So I expect a higher quality of interpolation. Due to arranging te sensors diagonally instead of the usual Bayer pattern they have come up with an system of interpolation that produces images twice as large as common DSLR cameras. According to some experts this produces image quality that is better than usual. I am not an expert, but a photographer. So I just only expectif they have the opportunity to improve the interpolation due to an extra sensor, they will.
Interpolation sounds kind of like resampling when you first think about it. But then, when you read about the conventional CCD with the color masks, it is apparent that they are doing interpolation as well. Each pixel position only collects one color, The other two colors are interpolated from adjacent pixels. The only sensor that I know of that actually collects all three colors in each pixel position is the Foveon, and it is not yet really proven…or at least accepted by any of the major camera manufacturers. Bert
My "dream camera" would have a full-frame sensor with about 15 megapixels. The sensor would collect high-quality RGB data in each pixel position, with film-like dynamic range. Such a camera would silence all the digital camera critics who say film is better. Well, it SHOULD silence them, anyway. But it probably would not…:) bert
Bert, they just need something to talk about….everybody needs something to talk about…it’s just human nature. It’s alot more difficult to sit and listen 😉 Either way it really makes no difference to me…i like my digital cameras and who cares what anyone else thinks ? 🙂 Sure film is great but the instant gratification of digital and learning new tricks with old settings is fun stuff 😉
In just a few months you can have most of that and more http://www.phaseone.com/ . Now at $33,000 without the camera body I suspect that even the digital camera supporters will be silence on this one.
Grant, Thanks, but that is just a tiny bit out of my price range. But the way this technology is galloping along, it probably will be available in a low-end consumer-level camera in five years! Bert
Sure film is great but the instant gratification of digital and learning new tricks with old settings is fun stuff
Jodi, I agree. Digital technology has put the fun back into photography for me. My recent experiments comparing digital and film images of the same subjects have reinforced that sentiment, even though the film images were better. For me, the differences were not sufficient to justify the additional cost and effort for the film. As you said, "instant gratification" is neat. Bert
As you know I am one of "film is better than digital" types, but what you don’t know is our views are much closer than you think.
First I agree that film is better than Digital but I also agree that the difference in everyday use is not significant. Second I agree that the instant gratification of digital is a wonderful siren. Next there is a certain degree of convenience with digital, you can change ISO and/or colour balance on the fly (although with some compromises). Finally although I have had experienced lots of frustration with my digital I agree that on balance it has add fun to photography.
Where I don’t agree is in that it is less expensive than film in fact I think it is much more expensive. Let me compare apples to as close to apples as I can; be aware I am talking Canadian prices, but the percentages difference should be the same. I’m more familiar with Nikon so I will use them as an examples. When the D100 came out I was all set to buy it. The total cost with two memory cards and a spare battery was $3800. The D100 is just a digital F80 and the cost of the film version camera is $550. At the difference in cost of cameras and at cost of film (about $3 for a 24 exposure roll) that works out to just under 30,000 exposures.
I have not included processing or printing because a role of 24 exposures processed with 4 x 6 prints cost me less than to print 20 digital exposures. Film processing is $14.95 for double prints plus a CD, while digital is $13.95 for 20 prints plus roughly $5.00 for ink, and this doesn’t even include the cost of a printer. Some people will say "I only print my best so it is a lot cheaper!" and I suspect this is majour difference in our philosophies. I never take a photograph that I don’t intend to print and if I don’t print it I haven’t really taken a photograph it is just a latent image. A side benefit of using a good lab is that the film has an archive life expectancy (50 years) and each frame contains from 20 to 40 Gig of data (depending on what film you use) so it is cheaper than backing up with CDs.
You notice I didn’t include the cost of a computer in my equation because using film doesn’t preclude digital manipulation.
In closing, if I had purchased a D100, the store I deal with would now buy it back for just over $1000 (big hit), and they would buy the F80 for about $300 (little hit). Of course I own neither, as my old F5 is good enough.
For me digital is a want not based on dollars and sense but on desire and yes I will eventually succumb, but not now the cost is still to great.
I cannot agree with you more; digital photography is totally driven by emotion and not by value for money. Unfortunately I cannot help myself on this one. 🙂
I don’t fully agree with your comparison of film vs digital processing. I think you should compare lab vs home based processing, for both camp. Digital home vs film at the lab do not offer the same level of freedom, they are not exactly the same service.
Lab processing for film does not allow the customer to manipulate the pictures during the whole process, from processing to printing. To be objective, you’d need to compare the price for that same service on the digital world. That is, dump the pictures at the lab in their digital form, and get the same service back (prints + CD, or prints alone). No printer, no computer for digital and no chemical processing machine and darkroom for film.
I have not included processing or printing because a role of 24 exposures processed with 4 x 6 prints cost me less than to print 20 digital exposures. Film processing is $14.95 for double prints plus a CD, while digital is $13.95 for 20 prints plus roughly $5.00 for ink, and this doesn’t even include the cost of a printer.
This might be true, but you have no control over the finished product for film, whereas you have all the control with digital (your comparison suggests you print from home since you’ve included the price of ink). Different services.
You notice I didn’t include the cost of a computer in my equation because using film doesn’t preclude digital manipulation.
If you want to compare things equally, then you should either compare in-house or lab processing, on both side, and not mix them up. Having a computer + photo printer at home to print digital is the equivalent of having a home lab for film. Now, I don’t know the price of this equipment, but I’d be interested to know how it cost to own and operate such a thing at home. Especially since printing home is part of your equation. Nowadays, having a computer is not required. One can simply have a digital camera and have no computer and / or printer. Just like we have film based cameras and have no darkroom at home.
ya and another thing….I feel it’s much easier to become a better photographer with digital than with film. Digital gives you the freedom to experiment alot more without worrying about wasting film and money to process the film 🙂 Not everyone can afford to buy 20 rolls of film to experiment with settings, frame balance, lighting, speed etc….and then pay to have the rolls processed. Digital is just better for people like me who aren’t pros and still learning to take a good picture.
I don’t want to be confrontational but I stand by what I say.
I am comparing pricing on a certain degree of convenience and logical work flow based on each medium. If I farmed out all my digital then I loose the advantage of digital, the ability of fast turn around and the immediacy that is such a virtue of digital. If I take all my digital to a lab to have them make prints then what is the point in spending extra to have a digital? If I did all my 4" x 6" film printing at home this too is insane as the amount of work is monumental and labs are geared to do it cheaper. While I don’t know how much the lab I use charges for bulk 4" x 6" digital prints I do know that they charge about 20% more for large digital prints over conventional film.
You are right that by doing digital you are retaining a higher degree of control, but quite frankly 4"x 6" are the proofs. I have just as much control over the larger prints as anyone does; if they are in colour I import my images into Photoshop, if they are in Black and White I print them myself .
As far as the cost of a darkroom …. well I set mine up in about 1968 and it cost about the cost just under $400. That was equivalent to about two cameras bodies. Cruzing thought the used department of my local camera store I can set up the same lab for roughly the same cost. I have all the equipment today and it is in good running order and the only thing I have ever had to replace is lamps. I am thinking of taking my lab down this year because I belong to a club that has a 20 enlarger darkroom and my cost would be only a $25 a year locker fee (I do have to by my own chemicals and paper) As a comparison since I started into computers in 1979 I have purchased 7 printers.
The cost of running a home lab is not as easy to gauge. You should break even if you do small amounts of work, and you should be ahead of the game if you do lots of printing. But, because there is a savings you tend to print much more so in cost go up. When I was doing wedding I found, after I factored in my time, that it was cheaper for me to print black and white and cheaper to farm out colour to a custom lab.
Ray I really like some of the aspects of digital but cost isn’t one of them. The ‘digital is cheaper than film’ is the biggest bull sh*t lie of this whole digital craze. When someone tells you that it is cheap to shoot digital and then say something like "I have shot 6000 shots in the last half year and I could never afford to do that with film" ask them to show you the 6000 photographs.
The cameras I mentioned have a difference of over $3000. Show me where I will save more than $3000 and then I will believe that digital is cheaper.
Grant
P.S. As an addendum I don’t do a lot of home printing (about 100 images last year both digital and film based) but I do know the cost of what I print. I mainly use digital for work on the web and I don’t shoot as much as one may think. I just checked out my shoot to post ratio for my garden pages and on average I post two images for every three I shoot.
You will get no argument from me digital can be a wonderful learning tool as well as a great way to experiment. I don’t believe the advantage isn’t in mainly in the cost but that you have immediate feed back and can alter your shooting style at a twinkling of an eye.
When the D100 came out I was all set to buy it. The total cost with two memory cards and a spare battery was $3800. The D100 is just a digital F80 and the cost of the film version camera is $550. At the difference in cost of cameras and at cost of film (about $3 for a 24 exposure roll) that works out to just under 30,000 exposures.
Grant, Are your numbers Canadian dollars? The D100 came out at US$2000 (box only). Are both your camera prices box only or with lenses? Of course, that was a while ago, and prices have dropped significantly on digicams and memory, and both Canon and Nikon have now released new DSLRs at about $1000…the Canon with an 18-55 zoom lens. The D70 is $1300 with the lens. So…the difference in camera cost is diminshing. Now, about those 4×6 "proofs" that you print. With a digital camera, you don’t have to print them…just upload them to your computer and you can look at an "enlargement." Of course, the ability to review your shots in the field on the LCD is a much-prized advantage of digital by some people. I personally rarely use that. I find the image too small to be useful, particularly in determining focus. I would also question whether many people would agree with your statement that all photos are intended to be printed. I love to make slide shows and put images on my website. I probably do not print more than 10% of my images. Developing and printing all those pictures would be a horrendous waste for me…and a storage and indexing problem if I didn’t just throw most of them away! In the final analysis, though, photography is a hobby, which means that the primary purpose is to give the hobbyist pleasure. So, whether you choose film or digital is really irrelevant. The whole point is to have fun! Bert
You cannot compare the "home cooked prints" to the prints at the store, but you should compare to handprinted images as you individually correct every image you print.
Prices of custom made prints from a professional lab are much higher than in the usual store. I am a pro, so all my negatives were custom printed. Now I do print myself an this way I save at least over $1500 monthly. My break even point is within a year so I have a very good return on investment.
Nevertheless, you will have to spend more money, although what you get out of it is cheaper than what you should have paid for your present quality.
You didn’t at sound confrontational in the least. Even if you ever do have no fear as we have all been sitting around this round table long enough to know each other.
If I were a professional photographer I could easily justify the extra cost of a digital camera. The rapid turn around time, the ability to check lighting, exposure, composition on the fly, would more than pay for the investment … if only in piece of mind. That being said I would still grumble that digitals were over priced.
When it comes to colour I do in fact pay a premium for my negative to be developed and printed. For colour enlargements above 4" x 6" and up to 8" x 10" I print in house. For prints larger than this I have a service bureau that I have been dealing with for years, now with the advent of Photoshop and the computer all my work is submitted "camera ready" I develop and mount my all my own slides. I also develop and print all my own black and white.
You are absolutely right a good hand printed images is above and beyond the over the counter prints. I have seen lots of bad home prints. The big trouble is that purchasing a darkroom or Photoshop doesn’t make you a good printer it is an acquired skill.
Philosophically speaking, I think there seems to be two school of thinking… One in which more experienced photographers (like you, Leen and others I can’t remember their name) go with the thing that they never or rarely miss a shot, thus, have very little need for "forgiving devices". Those in that groups were trained for not missing a shot because it cost money to get it printed. They do make every picture an "event" in itself, artiscally. Therefore, film is really cheaper because you only shoot what’s worth displaying. And enlarge an even smallest number of those. But the pictures that are "lucky" enough to get enlarged are quite remarkable.
The other, in which I am, go with the forgiving device, the 6000 shots (of which 10% would be worth printing and displaying, as per the other groups "criterias") but do keep them all because they all have something special in them, or bring a memory of the moment different from the 5999 others, and stocking them only cost 90¢ (on a CD disc). Those is that camp are casually taking shots, lots of them, for.. the fun of it! Therefore, digital fits our needs because it’s really cheaper, in a sense. We don’t display on paper everything, but we do show all of them on DVDs and/or on the web. This goes with the medium of origin I think. A good example of that is when I hurt my left foot, last year around that time. Each day, I took a picture of my foot as it was healing (first getting reaaaaalllly big, then slowly reverting to its original size). Now, with a film camera, I would have shot a whole lot less pictures. With digital, I was able to shot once a day. Was actually fun seeing the colors getting bigger and the foot changing shape. That’s me, taking pictures because it’s fun, cheap and easy to do!
Now, the question remains… Which group is better? None, all. Different devices for a different market. Like Mac or PC. Which one is better? None, all. Different computers for different users. That’s really all there is.
If I were a professional photographer I could easily justify the extra cost of a digital camera
Grant, The point of my earlier post was that the extra cost is not that great for most people. In fact, most casual amateur photographers…not the serious ones in this discussion…would not buy a DSLR. They would buy a Canon A70 or a Nikon CP 3100 for 300 bucks or less. They might be able to buy an equivalent point-and-shoot film camera for a little less, but the difference would not be great, and all of the "digital advantages" would be immediately available to them. Anyway, digital camera technology continues to gallop ahead, with higher resolution, better sensors, more features, while film camera technology is as stagnant as a cesspool! This whole discussion reminds me of the hi-fi "purists" who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for a vacuum tube audio amplifier because "the sound is warmer." What hogwash! If you want warmer sound from your solid-state digital amp, crank down the treble, boost the midrange and maybe introduce a little harmonic distortion! The same thing applies for those who prefer LP records to digital audio CD’s. Just because it’s older doesn’t mean it’s better. <ducking and running for cover> Bert
Bert, ya you better run and hide…i don’t want to be you when Grant reads your thread…" stagnant as a cesspool"…what a way with words ya got there Bert 🙂
For you I believe Grant is preparing a m³ of fresh concrete. He never explained why he was making that especially for you but from his facial expression I could detect that he loved making it. 🙂
When it comes to any bombing action by Grant, I will be in the passenger seat and will help to point out the target. 😉
Experienced photographers do miss shots. I produce about 300-400 files at a wedding when I need just only about 70-100 printed images. Why? Because I need to catch that expression and you will never know when you hit the target exactly.
That is wheer digital is definitely ahead of film. I used to shoot on film the same way and usually I spend about over US$$ 100 each wedding. Covering about 35 weddings yearly, this saves me over US$$ 3000 each year! The same savings apply to my holiday landscape photography. Instead of shooting 20-30 films each fortnight it is for free and later-like in the old days- I select the ones to be printed.
"With a digital camera, you don’t have to print them…just upload them to your computer and you can look at an "enlargement.""
Sorry Bert you are right … now let me factor in an extra $2000 (Canadian dollars) for a good computer and software … oh that make the price difference more attractive …not.
"and prices have dropped significantly on digicams and memory"
True and this is a good step in the right direction.
"casual amateur photographers … would buy a Canon A70 or a Nikon CP 3500"
No Bert the they buy disposable cameras …. disposable cameras out sell all cameras digital and film combined. You have a point the price difference is closer but you can still by a 35 mm point and shoot for about 1/4 of this price or………… for the same money you can have you pick of all sorts of entry level 35 mm SLR film cameras that will way out perform these two cameras. Remembering that a casual photographer will not shoot as many photos as you do so the "savings" in film will also not be as great.
"This whole discussion reminds me of the hi-fi "purists" "
Are we talking about the same person that spent over $2000 to be the first on his block with the brand new CD technology and a couple of years later a better system could be had for under $300 dollars. My stereo recently gave up the ghost and I had to replace a very expensive, 30 year old, tube stereo with a newer version solid state unit. I spent 1/3 less in actual dollars and got at least twice the sound quality as technology had vastly surpassed my old tube stuff. On the other hand with digital photography I would have to spend almost five times as much to get 1/2 the quality. (i.e. Nikon D70 at $1500 compared Nikon F75 $350) Sorry makes no sense to me.
"I probably do not print more than 10% of my images."
Have I told you about the monkeys, typewriters and the works of Shakespeare. Give an infinite number of Berts an infinite number of digitals and intimating amount of time …….
Bert digital cameras can be fun and convenient but my majour gripe is the lie that they are cheaper than film cameras. In my mind I have no doubt that they will exceed film based cameras in both quality and value, but now is not the time.
Grant, First, let me say that my long diatribe was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and not meant to be taken too seriously. I’m sure you knew that. Your points are well taken. I would only add the following:
I think most people who buy a digital camera already have a computer for which they have many other uses. I don’t think it’s reasonable to lump that into the cost of digital photography. Admittedly, I am an exception to that. I bought a second machine specifically to do Photoshop, but I am working with a lot of images from scanned slides and prints, as well as images from digital cameras. I’m not quite sure I understand your joke about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare. Just because I do not print the images doesn’t mean I am shooting randomly. It just means that I have other uses for the images besides prints. Does your comment mean that you do not recognize that there are other uses? As for the use of disposable cameras (I saw some advertised yesterday at 2 for $2.99)…puhleeze! That’s not photography in my view. Pictures from those things are horrible. I’m talking about people who want to take some decent photos of their family, travel, etc. I was thinking specifically of cameras like the Canon Powershot digitals vs. Canon Sureshot film cameras. The prices are like $300 vs. $150 for comparable quality and features. That’s a significant difference, but not the thousands of dollars you are talking about. And finally, I wasn’t referring to you when I made the hi-fi analogy. I didn’t know anything about your system, but I’m glad you agree with me that the new stuff is far superior. Bert
That is why I said that other programs challenge. The book is the prize for the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre challenge. Since the rules of the challenge was to be tacky and trashy, etc. etc. I decided to lobby the judges with a not very well hidden message that I really wanted the book.
