help with a new Camera

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I didn't know that. With the lens-based IS systems of Nikon and newer Canon lenses, there is a switch that allows the camera to pan. It senses the direction of motion and shuts off IS in that direction. If you pan horizontally, it stabilizes vertically. If you pan vertically, it stabilizes horizontally. If you pan diagonally, it just turns off.

With the S3 it *just* allows horizontal panning, and you specifically have to turn it on in the menu. Having the camera sense what direction it's panning is probably something that's out of reach (cost-wise) for a P&S.

 

[Anewman]

What I don't like about Juji's "stabilization" is that although their cameras have definitely got a better high ISO than any other P&S, it's STILL noisier at ISO1600 or ISO3200 than at ISO100 or ISO200. I've seen lots of comparison pics between Fuji and Canon/Sony (NOT low-light pics; the Fuji's rule, there) where the Canon/Sony were less noisy simply because the ISO remained low thanks to good IS....

I'd like to see such a comparison - say, between an S3/H5 and a S6000fd. (Same megapixels, and the big-sensor Fuji.) Frankly, I don't buy it.

1600ISO FUJI S6000fd ---------------400ISO Canon S3 IS----------------400ISO Sony H5

 

[Groucho]

The Sony actually looks the best to my tired eyes in that comparison.

Anyway, my point was, going from ISO 200 to ISO 1600 (as LPZ said in his message) is a full three stops. That's "best-case scenario" for IS, probably most of the time it'll be more like 1 or 2.

And the specific point I questioned was "I've seen lots of comparison pics between Fuji and Canon/Sony (NOT low-light pics; the Fuji's rule, there) where the Canon/Sony were less noisy simply because the ISO remained low thanks to good IS...."

I'm not sure that I'm convinced that the Fujis are guaranteed to dip into high noise territory any time the competition needs IS. I think that most photos, daytime or night, close or long zoom, will always come out better on the Fuji.

 

[Anewman]

The Sony actually looks the best to my tired eyes in that comparison.

Anyway, my point was, going from ISO 200 to ISO 1600 (as LPZ said in his message) is a full three stops. That's "best-case scenario" for IS, probably most of the time it'll be more like 1 or 2.

Well as you can see I was unable to find ISO 200 samples so I used ISO 400 for the IS capable models, which is a 2 stops difference.

I'm not sure that I'm convinced that the Fujis are guaranteed to dip into high noise territory any time the competition needs IS. I think that most photos, daytime or night, close or long zoom, will always come out better on the Fuji.

I think that is simple exposure math. If 2 stops are required for proper exposure, the camera needs to adjust in what ever means is still available. If the Fuji does not dip into higher ISO when shutter speeds get slow enough to require IS on the other models, you would obviously run into camera shake issues.
Plus the Canon S3 already gives you a more light since it has F3.5 max aperture at full zoom while the Fuji is F4.9(sony is f4.5), so you may find that the FUJI actually needs to dip to a higher ISO before the S3 needs IS.

 

[Groucho]

But that's only valid when it's dark enough that the ISO is already at danger levels. I don't think that average daytime photography will require getting into "noisy" ISO levels on the Fuji even at the shutter speeds necessary to keep the camera steady at long zoom.

If one were really picking nits, one could also point out that the S6000fd encourages proper SLR holding, ie right hand on the body, left on the lens, which gives a more stable and steady hold than the grip you'd get one the "fat PnS" style of most long-zoom PnS cameras.

 

[YEKCIM]

I may be wrong, but I think the Fuji supports in-camera watermarking...

~YEKCIM

 

[Anewman]

But that's only valid when it's dark enough that the ISO is already at danger levels. I don't think that average daytime photography will require getting into "noisy" ISO levels on the Fuji even at the shutter speeds necessary to keep the camera steady at long zoom.

Agreed, I just don't know what what constitutes "dark enough" or "average", I do not own one of those ultra zooms or IS lenses. I know with my non-IS lenses I move to ISO 800 on cloudy days, but it is mostly for sports which I prefer to have higher shutter speeds for anyways.

I guess I just did not agree with your previous post where you say that photos will "always" be better on the Fuji, I always felt the consensus was that ultra zooms really needed IS.

Maybe I am not missing out on anything since my camera lacks in-body IS

 

[handicap18]

Of course, I can't find it now ... but, regardless of how good a Fuji's ISO1600 is ... it's still noisier than an ISO200 on other cameras (just about any other camera).

I realize it's not an apples to apples comparison, but that's also my point. The stabilization of the Fuji forces higher ISO to get higher shutter speed. The lower the ISO, the better the pics from any camera looks....

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that it is a fair arguement to be making. Just about any camera's highest ISO is going to have more noise than any other camera's ISO 200. Thats more than not comparing apples to apples.

Would you make an arguement that Nikon dSLR's ISO1600 have more noise than the Canon or Pentax dSLR's ISO 200?

How does the Fuji compare at 200 to the other camera's at 200.

 

[Anewman]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that it is a fair arguement to be making. Just about any camera's highest ISO is going to have more noise than any other camera's ISO 200. Thats more than not comparing apples to apples.

Would you make an arguement that Nikon dSLR's ISO1600 have more noise than the Canon or Pentax dSLR's ISO 200?

How does the Fuji compare at 200 to the other camera's at 200.

If one camera has IS and the other does not...

Depending on available light, the camera with lower noise at ISO 200 might also be the one with the blurry pictures.

Nobody can honestly argue that any other PnS camera can compete with FUJIs noise levels, but it is a fact that it lacks IS. Which in some maybe rare cases would be preferred.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

How does the Fuji compare at 200 to the other camera's at 200.

Based on everything I've ever seen, they're about the same. Most P&S's are just fine at ISO200 and below, and most can stretch to ISO400 and still get a good pic. It's after ISO400 that the Fuji's really shine.

However, that's not my point.

My point is that with the IS of other brand cameras (either Sony or Canon as seen in Anewman's comparison pics), I'll be able to keep my camera at a lower ISO and get a stabilized image while the Fuji (probably) needs to shift to a higher ISO to speed up the shutter.

On the same overcast day or indoors, I can keep shooting at ISO200 while the Fuji might be shifting to ISO400 or ISO800 to get fast enough shutter speeds. My ISO200 is cleaner than Fuji's ISO400/800, even if my ISO800 is crap compared to theirs.

The issue is IS vs. clean high ISO, not ISO vs. ISO.

If the Fuji cameras had IS, they'd certainly be the 'king of the hill' as far as P&S cameras go; luckily for Canon and Sony they don't.

 

[Master Mason]

That only works until you subject starts moving, then your theory goes a little south...

 

[boBQuincy]

That only works until you subject starts moving, then your theory goes a little south...

Down here, when things don't go right we call it "going North".

 

[Master Mason]

Down here, when things don't go right we call it "going North".

lol... well when south is LA you can understand why that would be synonomus with FUBAR

 

[Groucho]

I'm not sure if I said that the Fuji will always have better photos, but I think it will almost all the time, and I'm quite confident that even daylight low-ISO photos will be sharper. (It's rare to ever get a really sharp photo out of my wife's Canon SD600 with 6mp 1/2.5" lens, exactly what the S3 is packing.)

This page has side-by-side shots of the S6000fd vs the Sony H2 at low ISOs.

Although the S6000fd's output has a little of the classic 'Super CCD' artefacts look to it and is a touch over-sharpened, there's no denying that it is outperforming the Sony - which is fairly representative of the other 6MP super zooms on the market - by a considerable margin. Edge-to-edge detail is excellent, colors bright but natural and contrast excellent.

The next page compares ISO 400:

Again, the S6000fd's output at ISO 400 isn't that 'clean' - there are visible artefacts, but it is significantly better than the conventional CCD-based H2, which has visible noise and has lost a lot of fine detail to noise reduction.

Also...

...at ISO 200-800 the S6000fd retains far more detail (than the other superzooms).

The DCRP review also shows the difference between an ISO 1600 JPG from the S6000fd and the same image taken in RAW mode and put through a third-party noise filter - which produced very nice results indeed.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I'm not sure if I said that the Fuji will always have better photos, but I think it will almost all the time, and I'm quite confident that even daylight low-ISO photos will be sharper. (It's rare to ever get a really sharp photo out of my wife's Canon SD600 with 6mp 1/2.5" lens, exactly what the S3 is packing.)

I guess this is the point at which we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of what makes a "better" picture. But, I also disagree with the reviewer's comment, "there's no denying that it is outperforming the Sony."

Looking at the comparison, I prefer the H2 in every picture except the wine label and the film canister. The H2's colors look smoother and more natural, and the transitions between colors are smoother, too (to my eyes, especially in the playing card and the Bailey's label).

The Fuji looks *too* sharp to me, to the point where the edges are "jumping out" and seeming unnatural. I'm sure the effect is muted when you're not looking at a 100% crop, but it's still going to be there. It works to the Fuji's advantage when there's a lot of fine lettering, but I think it works against it in the other instances.

 

[Groucho]

Well, ultimately, the Fuji has a sensor that is, I believe, more than 50% larger than the ones in other superzooms. That extra space can only translate into pulling down more detail no matter the circumstance.