 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2006Fuji vs Nikon
I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the S3. Any thoughts on this? Thanks Bill in Lake Charles The S3 is a very good camera capable of an astonishing range of tones compared with most other DSLR designs. Unfortunately the operation of the camera is still as clunky and slow as its predecessor, the S2. I use an S2, and I love it for its ability to produce accurate colours and very high levels of sharpness, however the focusing is slow (especially in poor light) and the number of shots that can be taken before the buffer fills up and freezes the camera is only 7. The Nikon D200 is definitely the camera with the more rapid focusing, better focus capability in low light, and the capability of storing more images before its buffer gets filled up. >I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 > Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the > S3. Any thoughts on this? > Thanks > Bill in Lake Charles thanks for your quick reply and good advise, Nigel. Where in Britain do you live? I used to live in Lincolnshire and went to school in Bury St. Edmunds Bill > The S3 is a very good camera capable of an astonishing range of tones > compared with most other DSLR designs. Unfortunately the operation of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > better focus capability in low light, and the capability of storing more > images before its buffer gets filled up. Nigel, Does the S3 output 12 megapixel images? I am confused by the explanation I read, which seemed to be saying that the fuji utilizes two types of pixels, essentially one for creating image detail, and another for recording highlights. It looked like the second set didn't actually add to image resolution, thus the camera was really a 6 MP camera in terms of image output.  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Nigel, > Does the S3 output 12 megapixel images? I am confused by the explanation I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resolution, thus the camera was really a 6 MP camera in terms of image > output. It would appear that it does output 12 MP images, but not very sharp ones. Here is a side by side with the 20D. The S3 image is larger but the 20D seems to be capturing more detail. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page21.asp Scott >Does the S3 output 12 megapixel images? I am confused by the explanation I >read, which seemed to be saying that the fuji utilizes two types of pixels, >essentially one for creating image detail, and another for recording >highlights. It looked like the second set didn't actually add to image >resolution, thus the camera was really a 6 MP camera in terms of image >output. Fuji also uses a rotate sensor layout, which requires 12 Mpixel output files from what is essentially a 6 Mpixel sensor (you are supposed to get more resolution in the horizontal and vertical directions and less on the diagonals). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >Does the S3 output 12 megapixel images? I am confused by the explanation I >read, which seemed to be saying that the fuji utilizes two types of pixels, >essentially one for creating image detail, and another for recording >highlights. It looked like the second set didn't actually add to image >resolution, thus the camera was really a 6 MP camera in terms of image >output. Exactly right. The extra sensors offer increased dynamic range, but not additional pixels in the final image. It is a 6 MP camera. The additional dynamic range over the D200 is only one stop, and the D200 has 10 MP. Sounds like a no-brainer to me, unless you shoot weddings, when that one stop extra DR might be worthwhile. For me, I would rather have the extra resolution. The N80 body (base of Fuji S2 and S3) is obsolete, the D200 is a new design and is far better. One of the N80 problems is that the viewfinder is inaccurate. The S2 I have at work the centering is slightly off, have heard this complaint from others who have used this camera. It is fine for general shooting, even weddings and studio, but for scientific, macro and commercial where you have to have your subject placed where you place it in the viewfinder, its a problem. That said the viewfinder on the D200 is great, the body build is excellent. The sensor is better than the S2 (not by much) but doesn't have the dynamic range of the S3. I have heard from more than one source that the ideal midrange DSLR would be the D200 body with the S3 sensor. But a few more MP wouldn't hurt either. If you shoot commercial, a lot of macro, or scientific imaging I'd get the D200. Weddings and fashion I'd seriusly consider the S3, but would end up with the D200. Tom > I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 > Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the > S3. Any thoughts on this? Not sure but aren't the Fuji models only useful in bright light? No high ISO capability? Thanks to everyone for their replies. Sounds like the D200 is the way to go. I have an F4 tha I've used for about 15 year and it's just about bulletproof, which is, for someone as clumsy as me, essential. I also use flash a lot and it sounds as if the D200 is superior in that respect. Thanks to all for helping me make the right decision. Bill in Lake Charles > > I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not sure but aren't the Fuji models only useful in bright light? > No high ISO capability? > Thanks to everyone for their replies. Sounds like the D200 is the way > to go. I have an F4 tha I've used for about 15 year and it's just about > bulletproof, which is, for someone as clumsy as me, essential. I also > use flash a lot and it sounds as if the D200 is superior in that > respect. Yipes, I completely forgot to mention the flash issues; glad somebody else covered it. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not sure but aren't the Fuji models only useful in bright light? > No high ISO capability? Wrong. When I got it, late 2002, the S2 was the champion for low noise at high ISO (perhaps excepting cameras costing more than three as much; I didn't look at them carefully). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon >> D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not sure but aren't the Fuji models only useful in bright light? > No high ISO capability? If by "high ISO" you mean 3200, then no. But 1600 is quite high enough for most purposes. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >If by "high ISO" you mean 3200, then no. But 1600 is quite high enough for >most purposes. What DSLRs, if any, actually have a real, amplification-based 3200? Most stop at 800 or 1600, and just use arithmetic and metering biases to achieve higher ISOs. This is rather unfortunate, as it seems the manufacturers may not be actually experimenting, but limiting themselvs based upon misapplied theory. The theory seems to be that it is not worth having amplification greater than that in which one electron is more than one RAW level. Personally, I think this is nonsense, as the noise in the shadows of most DSLRs is partly readout noise, especially banding artifacts (horizontal and vertical pattern noise), and this actually *DECREASES*, relative to absolute signal levels (as does other readout noise), as the camera approaches the highest gain-based ISO setting. With most recent Canon DSLRs, the absolute_signal-to-noise ratio is lowest at ISO 1600. Here's the 20D's blackframe noise: ISO Std_dev normalized (proportional to electron charge) 100 2.1 2.1 200 2.2 1.1 400 2.5 0.6 800 3.2 0.4 1600 4.7 0.3 3200 9.4 0.3 I find it very hard to believe that 3200 wouldn't be less than 9.4 if amplification were used for it. These figures are for general noise; the banding component of the noise increases in similar proportions. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< So you think ISO 3200 is useless? >>If by "high ISO" you mean 3200, then no. But 1600 is quite high enough for >>most purposes. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > amplification were used for it. These figures are for general noise; > the banding component of the noise increases in similar proportions. >So you think ISO 3200 is useless? Yes and no. For JPEG, it really doesn't hurt to use 3200, as the highlight losses in RAW at 3200 as opposed to 1600 are lost in JPEGs, anyway, and using 1600 pushed to 3200 in JPEG posterizes the image and doubles the shadow JPEG artifacts in intensity. For RAW, I have only used 3200 when I want it to affect the metering, and the lost stop of highlights was not expected to be used, anyway. Dialing in 3200 preserves the continuity of flash exposure ratios and the full range of exposure compensation. I do think that 3200 is generally implemented poorly, however, even for an arithmetic push. Rather than metering for 3200 but amplifying for 1600 and doubling the RAW values, as most cameras seem to do, it would be better not to double the RAW values at all, so that an extra stop of highlights is maintained. That would allow the continuity mentioned above, without the loss of highlights. It really makes one wonder if bunny rabbits are sitting in the R&D chambers at these companies. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 > Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the > S3. Any thoughts on this? > Thanks > Bill in Lake Charles The S3 has substantially lower resolution, a slower frame rate, less sturdy body (granted, this is perhaps irrelevant to you), much worse (in my opinion) ergonomics, a smaller buffer, a worse viewfinder, slower AF, a smaller LCD, and probably other things I didn't mention. The S3 does, however, have a larger dynamic range and a (reportedly) better JPEG engine. According also to some people, it has better colours (although such things can be tweaked either in postprocessing or by creating custom curves and uploading to the D200 or much any camera). Whether or not the larger DR, better jpeg (must admit I have never shot jpegs in my limited experience with the S3, and almost never with my D200)and of course lower price are enough is something you must decide; but it seems to me that there is no basis for saying that the S3 offers more (as a blanket statement), since in most objective (at least) criteria it doesn't. Actually, probably the best thing to do is try both of them out, or at least try to hold them, and see which you prefer after that. Just keep in mind the specification mismatch between the two. > I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon > D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 > Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the > S3. Any thoughts on this? I upgraded from the Fuji S2 Pro to the D200. I didn't give more than half a second's thought to the S3 Pro. So far as I can see it has little or nothing better than the D200, while the D200 has *many* advantages compared to the S3. The D200 is a pro-grade body, with all that implies (tougher, better sealed, faster and better auto-focus, better support for AI[S] lenses). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon >D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 >Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the >S3. Any thoughts on this? >Thanks >Bill in Lake Charles They are not in the same class. S3 Pro is the class with Nikon N80. Michael >I want to buy a new dslr and initially I was leaning towards the Nikon >D200. However, I've heard quite a bit about the Fujifilm FinePix S3 >Pro. At face value it seems as if you get more for less money with the >S3. Any thoughts on this? The great strength of the FujiFilm FinePix S3 is its dynamic range. When introduced, the S3 had the best dynamic range of any DSLR. It is still the best, but the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 5D run it very close. At most, there is only one stop between either of them and the S3. When you consider the advantages that the other two offer, the S3 is a poor choice. It has only 6 million pixels, is based on the old Nikon N80 film SLR and doesn't meter with AI(S) manual focus Nikkors. The Nikon D200 offers 10 megapixels. The Canon EOS 5D offers 12.7. Unless you desperately need that extra stop of dynamic range that the S3 offers, for example for wedding work, it would not be a good choice against either of these two. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.