Prognathous has published an interesting comparison of Fuji F100fd and F31 crops at matched output size. Crops were compared throughout the ISO range. The comparison was very carefully done and presented. Can the "ultimate F series" Fuji take on the high ISO gold standard small sensor compact, the Fuji F31? Check out Prognathous' comparison here.

Read More......

Call them, and tell them what they have.

Have you seen the beatdown the Fuji S100fs handed the Canon G9 in this DPReview comparison? Sure the Fuji had a disappointing showing on low contrast detail, and no, those tests didn't use files converted from RAW. Quibbles aside, the S100fs walked all over the G9 from ISO 400 and up.

Unfortunately for Fuji, the market for large, heavy, expensive DSLR-like cameras seems to be shrinking as lower end DSLRs continue to fall in price. I personally have no interest in a such a megazoom camera, though I admire the folks at Fuji for continuing to bring out unique products. Certainly there are those who have been waiting for just such a camera, and I don't doubt that it will sell in its niche.

From where I stand, however, all Fuji has to do is get that S100fs sensor into a compact. If Sigma can get an APS-C (1.7x) sensor in a compact with a prime, then Fuji can get their eighth generation, Super CCD HR 2/3" sensor (less than 1/4th the size of the Sigma sensor) in a compact with a good 3-5x zoom lens. They could keep the F100fd as their ultracompact and incorporate the sensor from the S100fs into a midsized camera. It would be the acclaimed return of the Fuji E-series. A version with a 10mm (38mm equivalent) f/1.8 lens would be unreal. They could call it the Klasse D, and it could look just like this.

If anyone at Fujifilm is reading this, please do the right thing.

Read More......

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - High ISO Noise
Part 3 - Dynamic Range

In practical terms, the dynamic range (DR) of a camera refers to it's ability to capture image detail in both very dark and very well lit areas of a single exposure. Using conventional sensor technology, this capability tends to correlate with sensor pixel (sensel) size. Working with RAW files generally allow one to access a greater portion of the DR captured in an exposure, and combining multiple exposures is a commonly-used method for capturing the dynamic range of a scene. For more on DR and the explanation of why pixel size matters, this DPReview article is a good place to start.

With the S3 and S5 DSLRs, Fujifilm implemented a novel sensor technology which incorporates two types of pixels of different sizes. The larger pixels are of the conventional DSLR type, whereas the smaller pixels capture additional "bright area" information. The simultaneous capture using these two different pixel types essentially allows the camera to obtain two different apparent exposures in a single image, and the result is class-leading DR based on additional highlight detail.

To date, no other manufacturer has introduced a production camera with such an effective system for improving the DR capability of a sensor. Instead, the approach taken by others has largely been to underexpose and then selectively map tones to incorporate greater highlight detail without actually increasing the DR. Highlight Tone Priority (HTP), featured on the latest Canon DSLRs, is an example of such an approach. The way HTP works is that the camera underexposes the shot to preserve highlights and then applies a proprietary contrast adjustment to "push up" low and midrange tones. For example, a Canon DSLR set to ISO 200 with HTP engaged will use aperture and shutter speed settings corresponding to those necessary for a proper apparent exposure at ISO 200. Meanwhile, the analog gain applied to the sensor is that of ISO 100 rather than ISO 200. Thus, the actual apparent exposure will be one stop underexposed. However, the in-camera JPEG processing is such that everything but the highlights is brightened as needed to simulate a proper apparent exposure in those areas. The result is that the highlights are properly exposed, and the expense is that the low and midtones are noisier because they represent ISO 100 (analog gain) "pushed" to ISO 200 (equivalent) using digital gain. This application of digital gain results in increased noise as explained in this rather technical thread and demonstrated in these examples from Joe Mama.

It is worth noting that the actual DR captured in a RAW file taken at ISO 200 with HTP enabled is no different than that of a corresponding RAW file taken at ISO 100 set for 1 stop of negative exposure compensation with HTP disabled. Nevertheless, this feature provides great value to the JPEG shooter for scenes prone to highlight clipping and may also benefit the RAW shooter who does not want to invest the time and energy in adjusting levels/curves after the fact (Canon's RAW conversion software will do the manipulation for you on RAW files obtained with HTP enabled). Click here to see Ron Purdy's excellent example of the benefit of HTP. Nikon's approach, termed Active D-Lighting, is also based on underexposure, though the implementation is different.

Fujifilm's press release for the F100fd states the following:

NEW Wide Dynamic Range

Dynamic Range, or the gradations of light that exist between bright and dark in any scene, can be easily detected by the human eye, but not by most cameras. Fujifilm first expanded dynamic range capture functionality on the professional imaging side with its FinePix S3 Pro digital camera. The technology, now perfected in the EISA Award-winning FinePix S5 Pro, has been brought to the consumer in the FinePix F100fd.

Through a combination of advances in Fujifilm’s new Super CCD HR VIII sensor and RP (Real Photo) Processor III, this wide dynamic range dramatically broadens tonal capability and guarantees exceptional rendition of photos with both bright highlights and dark shadows. This expansion of sensitivity captures greater detail, and subtle nuances of brightness and tonality that bring the photo closer to what the human eye actually sees helping to avoid the ‘white sky’ effect caused by the loss of fine highlight detail.

What isn't clear from this press release is exactly how the F100fd achieves "wide dynamic range" despite having tiny pixels (sensels). Does it truly, as they imply, feature a similar technology to that seen in the S3 and S5 DSLRs? Seems doubtful given that Fuji hasn't mentioned anything about different pixel types in the sensor. On the other hand, if it employing the same underexpose/tonemap approach being used by Canon and others, it would seem somewhat disingenuous to bill it as "wide dynamic range." Perhaps they are implementing an entirely novel way to boost actual DR. All they really say is that the wide DR is made possible by advances in the new sensor and onboard image processor. My guess is that the new sensor has implemented slightly lower read noise and that the rest of what we're getting here is similar to Canon's HTP.

Consider the following excerpt from the F100fd manual:


The relevant portions are as follows:
"When dynamic range is set to 200 % or 400 %, some [ ISO] settings cannot be selected. Also, some [ DYNAMIC RANGE] settings may not be selectable depending on the [ ISO] setting."
"Although wider dynamic range settings will allow you to take pictures with good levels of contrast, they will also increase the amount of speckling in your images. Choose the dynamic range setting that best suits the conditions."

So, basically, the use of "wide dynamic range" settings requires setting the camera to higher ISO values (probably ISO 200 minimum for 200% DR and ISO 400 minimum for 400% DR) and increases noise. To me, this strongly suggests that the wide DR function uses a similar approach to Canon's HTP, namely underexpose the whole image and then selectively "push up" everything but the highlights. Note that this approach to tone mapping does not preclude the possibility of other true contributions to improved DR such as measures to decrease read noise.

Let's look at an actual example. The following crops were taken from images provided at http://f100fd.seesaa.net/. Each image in the comparison was taken at a nominal ISO 400, f3.3, 1/100s, and these are 100% crops from the 6MP output mode of the F100fd. Click the image below to view at the intended size.


Don't know about you, but I am impressed. If Fuji is accomplishing this the way I think they are, then the noise we're seeing in the shadows and midtones of the DR 400% crop actually represents ISO 100 noise pushed two full stops. Yet to my eye, it's only barely more prominent than the noise in the native ISO 400 (DR 100%) crop. In fact, the most disturbing noise to me is the subtle pink and green blotching in the flat gray regions, and this is no different between the two crops. The highlight detail has been effectively reclaimed, and the rest of the image is virtually undisturbed with "good contrast levels" just as the manual claimed.

The Fuji F100fd has several strikes against it from the standpoint of a "serious" user, some or all of which may or may not matter to any given photographer. It lacks manual controls for aperture and shutter speed, RAW capability, and a viewfinder. The lens, in exchange for covering a long range, is relatively slow. The high ISO noise reduction cannot be disabled. However, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, there are now a number of full-resolution samples online to demonstrate that the F100fd output is of high quality, up to the standards for "serious" use. Add to that the fact that the high ISO output is unusually low in noise without what I'd consider an obnoxious level of smearing (though this is highly subjective) and that the highlight preservation is rather effective (albeit limited to use at high ISO settings), and I'd imagine that the Fuji F100fd will be the compact of choice for many of the photographers who don't enjoy postprocessing. We'll soon find out. I look forward to learning more with you when the F100fd hits the streets.

Read More......

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - High ISO Noise
Part 3 - Dynamic Range

Many readers of this site are aware that, beginning with the F10 and culminating with the F30, Fuji has offered arguably the best high ISO performance yet seen in a compact camera. Professional reviewers and photographers alike attributed this ability to a combination of Fuji's proprietary sensor technology, the decision to stick with only 6MP, and expert application of relatively heavy noise reduction. Whatever the contributing reasons, the results were compelling. Here is an example of a resized ISO 1600 shot I took of my son in relatively low light (f/5, 1/38s):



With the F50fd and now the F100fd, a number of reviewers, photography blogs, and Fuji fans have complained about Fuji's decision to follow suit in the megapixel hike. Surely they cannot deliver F30-class high ISO performance with the F100fd, which crams 12 million sensels into a small (1/1.6") sensor, right? Yet Fuji claims that with the F100fd, "ultrahigh sensitivity combined with the next-generation of noise reduction captures the moment in beautiful photos like no other compact digital camera." The truth, known to many readers of this site (though not all or I wouldn't be writing this), is that high megapixel counts don't really impact noise performance the way they are commonly believed to do so.

Everyone knows that noise which is apparent when an image is viewed at high magnification is far less apparent when the image is viewed small. Put another way, downsampling an image improves the apparent level of detail relative to noise. Judicious and skilled application of software noise reduction and sharpening during the downsampling process can further enhance this perception of detail/noise. The opposite is also true. When we upsize images, the apparent detail relative to noise decreases. Comparing a 12MP ISO 1600 image from the F100fd to a 6MP ISO 1600 image from the F30, there is no doubt that the one with smaller pixels (F100fd) will have far more noise when both images are viewed at 100% (pixel level); however, the 100% view is misleading. One should take into account that in producing output of equal size whether onscreen or in print, the high MP image will require more downsampling or less upscaling, either of which will improve the apparent detail/noise in the F100fd image relative to the F30 image. A number of individuals, clued in to this concept, have demonstrated similar high ISO results with high MP compacts relative to the "F30/F31 standard." For example, look here for Prognathous' demonstration of a resized, noise-reduced crop from the 10MP Ricoh GX100 compared to the in-camera JPEG output of the F31.

In theory, for two sensors of equal size and technology (same high ISO read noise and light capturing ability), the pixel (more accurately sensel) pitch should not impact high ISO detail relative to noise performance whatsoever at a given output size. For technical discussion, refer to the many posts by John Sheehy as well as those of Emil Martinec on these matters. While the theory makes intuitive sense to me, I have to admit that in practice it doesn't quite work out. Consider the following small pixel pitch vs large pixel pitch comparisons: 1Ds Mk II vs 5D, G7 vs F30, 1Ds Mk III vs D3. In each case the generation of sensor technology is assumed to be reasonably close, and the sensors are of similar size; hence light gathering ability should be nearly matched. As expected, the small-pixelled cameras show far more "per pixel" noise at high ISOs than do the large-pixelled cameras. Resizing both images to the same size output, these differences are greatly mitigated. Yet from the examples I have seen, the large-pixelled cameras continue to hold a slight high ISO edge even after resizing. Some maintain that such differences come down to software processing (NR, sharpening, etc). I'll leave it to folks like John and Emil to clarify those particulars. The main point here is that the pixel-level view is highly misleading and that the commonly held belief that more megapixels means poor high ISO performance is, at least for the most part, unfounded.

Fuji has undoubtedly been working to improve their sensor technology, but even so it is highly unlikely that the 12MP files from the F100fd will be able to match the 6MP images from the old F30 when compared at 100%. Knowing well that the pixel-level view makes quite an impression and that most people want to have their downsampling and noise reduction done for them, they have enabled the F100fd to offer the ability to process in-camera JPEGs as 6MP files (similar to the F30). Unfortunately I do not have the F100fd in hand for testing. However, a Chinese blog at http://f100fd.seesaa.net/ (English translation by Google here) has quite a few 6MP high ISO F100fd images. Click here to see some of their high ISO F100fd samples. To my eye, they look similar to the output of my old F30 and a bit better than I can get from downsampling high ISO images from other high MP compacts. I don't know if the Fuji advantage comes from better sensor technology or more sophisticated on-board noise reduction software, but the results are impressive. Then again, if you're the type who likes to selectively and sparingly use NR, no luck. The F100fd does not offer RAW and won't let you disable NR on in-camera JPEGs.

Addendum: Prognathous has done some excellent side-by-side testing of the high ISO performance of the Fuji F31 and F100fd. You can find his comparison here. It seems that the F31 is still class leading in this area, though the F100fd has a respectable result.

In the final bit of this three-part look ahead at the F100fd, I'll discuss Fuji's claims for wide dynamic range. That disclaimer once again: I have no inside information from Fuji, nor have I had the priviledge to yet test the F100fd. What follows is simply a discussion of the known technology with a measured dose of good-natured speculation.

Read More......

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - High ISO Noise
Part 3 - Dynamic Range

When I shop for a pocket camera, there are three questions I ask.

1) How well does the camera allow me to do my part? This is largely dependent on features such as those that follow:
- Aperture-priority, shutter speed priority, and true manual mode (independent aperture and shutter speed control)
- Focal length range
- Maximum lens aperture
- RAW capability
- Manual focus capability
- Quality of LCD and/or viewfinder
- Ergonomics
- Physical controls
- Operational speed (including autofocus speed, shutter lag, RAW buffer, etc)
- Camera size

2) How well does the camera do its part when I do mine? This consists of the following:
- Lens sharpness, distortion, contrast, bokeh, color
- Sensor ability to capture detail in optimal light
- Sensor detail relative to noise in suboptimal light
- Sensor dynamic range (effect of lens omitted here for discussion)
- Sensor effects on color
- Presence and effectiveness of image stabilization
- Battery life
- Weather resistance

The two categories above are largely what define the "seriousness" of a compact to me. Yet there is another category.

3) How well does the camera do its part if I don't want to do my part? Here we consider such features as face detection, which are of greatest importance to the person who doesn't want complete control over the picture-taking process.

One area which broadly falls under categories 2 & 3 is that of in-camera JPEG handling. There is no doubt that some compact camera photographers prefer to do "serious" work while shooting in JPEG mode, whereas others prefer RAW. For the former group, the in-camera handling of JPEGs is critical and raises the following questions:
- How flexible are in-camera settings for sharpness and noise reduction?
- How flexible are in-camera settings for color and contrast?
- What other operations is the camera performing with regards to tone mapping, and how much control can I exert over these?

What does all this have to do with the Fuji F100fd, and does the F100fd deserve to be called a "serious compact"? The second question is worth asking because the F100fd lacks important features from category 1, namely control of aperture/shutter speed and RAW capability. In this sense, it isn't a very serious compact at all. It is the heir of the F20/F40 more so than that of the more capable F30. Yet, having viewed a number of image samples from the F100fd, it is clear to me that this camera has the potential to produce "serious" results. In fact, despite having left out aperture and shutter speed controls, Fuji is referring to the F100fd as "the ultimate ‘F Series’ digital camera."

Boiled down to it's essence, the F100fd offers the promise of two potentially exciting capabilities. First, it is said to have a 1/1.6" 8th Generation Super CCD sensor capable of both recording 12MP of detail as well as maintaining high detail relative to noise at high ISO values in low light. Second, Fuji claims that "[the wide dynamic range] technology, now perfected in the EISA Award-winning FinePix S5 Pro, has been brought to the consumer in the FinePix F100fd." Before dismissing these claims out of hand, one ought to give Fuji the respect they are due. In terms of detail/noise, Fuji truly brought high ISO performance to compact cameras with the F10/11 and refined this capability with the F30. With regards to high dynamic range imaging, Fuji again successfully pushed the field with their S3 and S5 DSLRs. However, with today's technology, the F100fd's 5x zoom and shirt pocket size means a small sensor size; and while 1/1.6" is larger than most other small sensors, it isn't that much larger. Putting 12MP in a small sensor means a tiny sensel size. Part 2 of this series will address the question, "Can the tiny-senselled F100fd have a detail/noise performance similar to that of the 6MP Fuji F30?" Part 3 will address the F100fd dynamic range claims. Disclaimer: I have no inside information from Fuji, nor have I had the priviledge to yet test the F100fd. What follows is simply a discussion of the known technology with a measured dose of good-natured speculation.

Read More......