From: David J Taylor on
ASAAR,

It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.
However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
manufacturers it.

The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
excellent tool for the OP's job.

David


From: ASAAR on
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
> on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.

If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
"see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
ground.


> However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
> never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
> those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
(though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.

Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
certainly much more o



>
> Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
> driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
> should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
> manufacturers it.
>
> The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
> acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
> the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
> excellent tool for the OP's job.

From: Robert Coe on
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, "Bob Donahue" <bobmgtd(a)comcast.net> wrote:
: I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to date,
: have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't see the
: curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no shading! Cars
: that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market for a new "point
: and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix
: F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models are advertised as
: having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for
: avoiding washed out highlights?

You're describing overexposure, and that can occur from using the wrong
metering mode. In Canon parlance the standard mode is "evaluative", and it
measures the average brightness of the entire image. If the intended subject
is much brighter or dimmer than the rest of the frame, you'll get overexposure
or underexposure, respectively. Try using "centerweighted average" metering
(again Canon terminology, YMMV) instead, and capture the measurement with the
subject in the center of the frame.

Some DSLrs (the better Canons, for example) will let you bias the metering to
a selected one of its autofocus points, but it doesn't sound as though the
camera you're using is that sophisticated. If you actually are using a
high-end camera, check your manual for relevant functionality.

It's conceivable that your camera just has a crappy metering algorithm.
Remember that as the camera sees it, white is just a combination of red,
green, and blue and that many objects reflect only one or two of those colors.
If all the metering algorithm does is separately average the red, green, and
blue content of the image and add the numbers together, it's not taking into
account the fact that a significant amount of the measured intensity falls in
the same part of the picture (the white object). In such a case, you *have* to
limit the measurement to the intended subject or (as others have suggested)
change the exposure compensation manually.

Bob
From: Alan Browne on
Bob Donahue wrote:
> I take a lot of pictures at car shows. The digital cameras I've had to date,
> have trouble rendering white cars in direct sunlight. You can't see the
> curves of the body panels, they come out pure white with no shading! Cars
> that are not white come out beautifully. I'm in the market for a new "point
> and shoot" camera. I've narrowed my choice down to the Fujifilm FinePix
> F100fd or the Nikon CoolPix 610. Both of these models are advertised as
> having special "dynamic range" modes. Which one would be my best bet for
> avoiding washed out highlights?

That Fuji camera does not employ the high DR sensors of Fujifilm fame
(aka Super CCD SR II and similar).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD

The SR types have an additional low sensitivity sensor for highlights.

For example, the Fuji S3/S5 have extended dynamic range on top by using
these sensors.

Most digital cameras top out at about 2 stops brighter than middle grey.

The Fuji S3/5 top out an additional 2 stops (~) higher. So you conserve
the same shadow detail while not blowing out the high end.

These cameras take most Nikon lenses.

If you shoot still subjects, you can always shoot two shots from a
tripod at a couple stops apart and then merge them later.

Note of art: if you are concerned enough to want to capture the subtle
curves of a white car in bright sunlight, then it seems to make sense
that you get the right camera. To me that would be the Fujifilm S3|S5.
Good news is you can find a lot of Nikon lenses (used or new) for it.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
From: ASAAR on
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Rats! This is a continuation of the prematurely posted reply that
this laptop's keyboard has a tendency to produce . . .

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:29 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> It does not concern me that we disagree, and am happy to stand my ground
> on any technical argument, and to learn from others who know more.

If only that was true. You gave no technical arguments based on
facts or observations, only assumption based opinions that I
demonstrated were false. Instead of trying to defend your very weak
arguments, or show why mine might have been mistaken, you choose the
"see no evil, hear no evil" lack of concern and happily stand your
ground.


> However, many aspects of image quality are subjective, and there will
> never be 100% agreement. You see similar disagreements in audio as well -
> those who prefer the "vinyl" sound.

I'm well aware of those disagreements, and probably share your
opinions here as opposed to those with "golden ears" that never seem
to be able to convincingly pass blind A/B tests. I actually recall
(though not many specifics, such as the magazine or the reviewer's
name) that many years ago a critic was taken to task when his
hyperbolically glowing review of some very expensive audio gear was
later shown that it was outperformed by some very modest equipment.
His defense was that he never actually provided distortion figures
or other measured data, but only said that the high end gear had
something like, IIRC, a luxurious, liquid golden sound.

Your mistake here is that the reviews I referenced did not provide
subjective opinions. The did their own tests and showed the
results. Not in quite the detail DPReview is known for (which
hasn't yet tested either of the cameras the OP asked about), but
certainly with far more objectivity than stating that due to an
implausible high ISO mode, neither the camera's quality nor the
manufacturer could be trusted. As I said, Panasonic (and others)
are also marketing driven and their cameras have high ISO capability
that is far worse than what Fuji delivers, yet you have an
extraordinary fondness for most products Panasonic.


> Personally, I tend to trust something less if it appears to be marketing
> driven, rather than if it is engineering driven, and hence I feel that one
> should be wary of any small-sensor camera which offers ISO 12800, whoever
> manufacturers it.

You're just choosing a figure that you don't want to believe and
using it to tar an entire line of cameras. Nobody has said that the
results at ISO 12,800 are fabulous, just usable as a last resort to
get images that other cameras would have to pass on.



> The OP should check the results for themselves, and judge whether that are
> acceptable. I do like the idea behind the Fuji dual-sensor CCD, and If
> the results at lower ISOs offer what is needed, then the camera may be an
> excellent tool for the OP's job.

But you did everything you could to make sure that they should
share your opinion that the camera and other Fuji products can't
really be trusted. As usual, when your absurd statements are
pointed out, rather than apologize for hasty ill founded statements,
you ignore that you ever made them and hide behind reasonable
sounding platitudes that you are likely to soon abandon. To recap.:

> Does the F100fd offer 12MP at ISO 12,800? If so, I would expect the
> results to be completely unusable, and hence I would have considerable
> reduced trust in a camera (or should it be the company?), which has
> unusable settings?

Your expectations are wrong. ISO 12,800 clearly isn't going to be
used by anyone to produce anything approaching gallery quality
images. But that's NOT what very high ISO shots from ANY camera are
used for. For use in extremely low light, it will produce small
4"x6" snapshots of usable, if not good quality. Based on your own
statements, the failure to back them up, and the way you continue to
ignore points that you can't defend, *everyone* in these newsgroups
should have much less trust in your opinions than in manufacturer's
marketing hype, that is rarely if ever as off base as your opinions.
This is truly sad, as I'm quite sure that you, unlike some others
here, really know better.