Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by photography555 View Post
    I'll have to disagree about the idea that the F40fd is still better in low light than the F50fd. If lowering the megapixels on the F50fd doesn't resize them, what does it do? It certainly doesn't crop them to 8 mp.
    If you downsize a photo, it will be sharper and less noisy, since the noise is smaller and not as easy to see.
    I'm confused at what you were trying to say. Did you mean that you disagree with the idea that the F50 will be better than F40, or that you disagree with the idea that the F40 will be better than the F50?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    Quote Originally Posted by misterjuju View Post
    I'm confused at what you were trying to say. Did you mean that you disagree with the idea that the F50 will be better than F40, or that you disagree with the idea that the F40 will be better than the F50?
    He's saying that there's no reason not to get the F50 based on low-light noise issues...which I agree with in principle, although his rational for how he comes to that conclusion may not be technically correct. Bottom line...you should be reasonably happy with an F50fd (just remember...nothing is perfect...especially cameras!).
    Some Gear: Nikon D700; Nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 G; Nikkor AF-S 24-85 3.f/5-4.5 G ED; Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC; Nikon SB-800; Velbon Maxi-F; Canon Pixma Pro 9000; Canon S3IS, Canon SD500; Epson 4990; Epson P5000; Wacom Intuos 3

    Main Software: Capture NX2; Adobe PhotoShop CS2; Corel Paintshop Pro X2 Ultimate

    Sold: Canon XT/350D, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-200 OS; Canon ET EF 25II; Kenko Pro 300 DG, Canon 430EX, Canon BG-E3.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,425
    There is a review here. There are many sample images that you can download and print so you can decide.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf50fd/

    and also here.
    http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...view-16019.htm
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by JTL View Post
    He's saying that there's no reason not to get the F50 based on low-light noise issues...which I agree with in principle, although his rational for how he comes to that conclusion may not be technically correct. Bottom line...you should be reasonably happy with an F50fd (just remember...nothing is perfect...especially cameras!).
    I was saying that I still hold my original opinion that the F50fd is better in low light than the F40fd.
    I was saying that I thought if you switch a camera to a lower resolution, it would resized the photo, not throw away the extra pixels.
    The F50fd has image stabilization, which will also help in low light.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,173
    Quote Originally Posted by photography555 View Post
    I was saying that I thought if you switch a camera to a lower resolution, it would resized the photo, not throw away the extra pixels.
    Resizing the photo requires throwing away pixels. If you have a sensor that is 4000x3000 pixels it will always take the initial image with all those pixels. If you set your resolution at 2000x1500 it has to decide which pixels to throw away. It can't just throw away every other one, some software algorithm has to decide which to keep, which to merge, and which to throw away. If there is noise in the original image, that noise will affect the final image.

    IS is a nice improvement and will help in some shots. But reducing the MP is not a way to improve image quality.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,425
    Quote Originally Posted by photography555 View Post
    I was saying that I still hold my original opinion that the F50fd is better in low light than the F40fd.
    I was saying that I thought if you switch a camera to a lower resolution, it would resized the photo, not throw away the extra pixels.
    The F50fd has image stabilization, which will also help in low light.
    One crude way to test this is to resample an image (of same ISO) from F50 to 8MP and compare it side by side with one from F40. There are sample from the link I posted above.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    23
    Thanks for pointing that out, David. There's an article about noise at the DPreview website: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...g/Noise_01.htm

    Based on the reviews I read so far, it seams that the F50's IS isn't as effective as other cameras. The high-ISO photos from this site don't look that good either. If you want good low-light performance, you should:

    a) Get the Fuji F40 (F30 if you can find it)
    b) Get a camera with effective IS (A570, A720, etc.) and hold the camera REALLY steady.

    I find that having an optical viewfinder helps steadying the camera. Push your elbows toward your upper-stomach area and rest the camera on your forehead and nose. Use the optical viewfinder to frame your shot. I got some blur-free photos with this technique even at a one second exposure! On the other hand, you could just get a tripod.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    82

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by David Metsky View Post
    Resizing the photo requires throwing away pixels. If you have a sensor that is 4000x3000 pixels it will always take the initial image with all those pixels. If you set your resolution at 2000x1500 it has to decide which pixels to throw away. It can't just throw away every other one, some software algorithm has to decide which to keep, which to merge, and which to throw away. If there is noise in the original image, that noise will affect the final image.

    IS is a nice improvement and will help in some shots. But reducing the MP is not a way to improve image quality.
    I thought it merged all of them (oops).
    It doesn't really matter anyway now, because I found out the F50fd can't shoot in 8 megapixels, the closest setting to 8 is 6.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    18
    Okay thanks for all your help guys. I really appreciate it :]

    I'm probably going to go with a camera from the Canon A Series. It's just a matter of which one is better.

    Is the Canon SD850IS good?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by misterjuju View Post
    Okay thanks for all your help guys. I really appreciate it :]

    I'm probably going to go with a camera from the Canon A Series. It's just a matter of which one is better.

    Is the Canon SD850IS good?
    It's much smaller than the Canon A cameras, doesn't have manual controls but has great picture quality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •