NEWS: Fujifilm S3 Pro Brings Dynamic Range Adjustment, Film Simulation

GEEK: Fujifilm S3 Pro Brings Dynamic Range Adjustment, Film Simulation

With the introduction of their top of the line Digital SLR - the FinePix S3 Pro - Fujifilm hopes to solve a fundamental problem in current digital SLR (single lense reflex) design: the lack of “dynamic range” in the sensors that capture image data.

Photographers who have made the transition from film to digital can agree on one thing: digital sensors do not behave the same way as film, most noticeably in the way that each handles highlights. Without getting overly technical, film has the ability to smooth over the brightest areas of a photo, giving it a more natural appearance - but today's CMOS and CCD sensors act in a more linear fashion and will typically lose detail in the high-lit areas of an identically-exposed scene. So where the fine embroidery in a wedding dress may be captured perfectly on film, the same scene shot digitally may lose all the detail because the high-lit portions are blown out.

The FinePix S3 Pro debuts their 12 megapixel Super CCD SR II sensor, which has twice the number of pixels occupying the same area as a normal 6 megapixel sensor - one layer of "s-pixels", and one layer of "r-pixels". Fujifilm claims this design will produce dynamic range approximately 400% greater than conventional single-pixel CCD sensors. Additionally, users will be able to mix the balance between these two layers to get a desired effect. The camera will also ship with a number of "Film Simulation Modes," which will allow users to utilize everything from a conventional CCD look to something more akin to film.

This camera continues in the design philosophy of the FinePix S2 - it uses a Nikon mount, with a 1.5 crop factor and the usual features you would expect from a top-of-the-line SLR.

Editor’s Note: While the S3 Pro was announced prior to the press release published today, the unit’s ship date and some of its features, such as dynamic range adjustment and film simulation, were not previously announced. You can catch a review of the upcoming SLR, with some content sliced from the press release, over at DP Review.

Ever played the "If I had a million dollars...." game? It's fun, and yet depressing at the same time.

Wow! So, you mean for more than twice the price, plus major storage hassles, I can get 1/4th the picture quality of a pro 35mm SLR instead of the 1/16th to 1/8th I could get a couple years ago? Eureka!

Every step in the "digital revolution" in photography has been hyped all out of proportion. This sounds like more of the same. Call me in a decade.

A nice dose of anti-prop:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html

Give me Canon Eos 1Ds any day.

Yawn.

Thats not anti-prop, or even agitprop. Its just plain old prop. Once you take away the rank distortions, bombast and factors that even two years worth of technology have rendered moot, you're left with a hyperbolic dilettante who prefers a different format.

Sure it would be wonderful to walk around with $50,000 worth of vintage, medium format rangefinders and lenses. They still won't do what a DSLR will do, nor will a DSLR do what they do. They're different cameras.

Spare me from silver spoon 30 year olds lawyers with "18 years" of 35mm photography "experience".

i read a review of this in, i think, last months macformat (uk) and they said it didn't make any noticable difference. apparently the theory behind it is something to do with making it work the same way as cones and rods in the human eye, which in theory works, but just isn't working very well yet, so all you\re getting is a really expensive 6mp camera

Speaking of hyperbole...

One hardly need spend 50K to beat digital in numerous ways. To get sharper lenses, MUCH wider dynamic range, MUCH better low light capability, the availability of film equivalent in resolution to 16 megapixels, and all the resulting increased print quality, a simple used Pentax K1000 and three lenses will do the trick. Approximate cost: less than $500. If you want most of the same whiz-bang features, autofocus, motor drive, matrix metering, and so forth you get with a DSLR, plus even better lenses, a used Nikon F4 and 3 lenses will run you around $1000 or so.

I realize that digital has its advantages. They are mostly about convenience and avoiding mechanical processing hassles though. I've been watching advance after advance in digital image quality trumpeted over the past few years, but for making prints, it still hasn't caught up to the K1000 I started with in most ways. For display on monitors, none of the advances make for much improvement over a $100 1 Megapixel camera.

For me, the ultimate deal-killer for digital is that it is still worthless for taking available light photos in low-light situations. My cheap Nikon FG and a 50/1.4 allow me to shoot handheld in light up to 4 stops lower than digital can manage. If I can't take a picture in a normal indoor lighting situation without a flash, I'm not interested.

Those definitely look good as small jpegs.

ISO 9600? How? How are you getting rid of the digital noise?

Interesting. Are we talking a D1x here, or could I get results like this with a D70 or D100?

I am definitely interested in the D70 now. If it performs anything like what you suggest, I may just sell my Hexar to offset the expense of getting one.

My misconceptions had more to do with a lag of almost two years since I seriously looked into digital. I had given up on low light color some time ago, because pushing color film is so screwy.

As far as lenses go, since I already have several good Nikkors, that isn't an issue. For low light, I don't think there is anything weak about the MF 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4 - not to any extent that would matter for low light off a tripod. Maybe I don't know what your criteria for weakness are.

I've never really used any AF lenses. Manual focus is definitely slow and perhaps clumsy, but noisy? I've never even heard Leica people complain about manual focus noise.

No zooms for me either. If the Canon autofocus lenses are that much better, I suppose that's something to consider. I may succumb to the lure of the automatic. All my used Nikon stuff can still be sold for a large fraction of what I paid, but once I get a digital body, I'm stuck with it.

Ahh. No split prism screen. That means I'm looking at having to get new lenses altogether, it sounds like. I guess I'll have to wait until I can get to a big camera shop and annoy the sales guy by playing with all his expensive gear.

It seems hard to imagine that working with my giant 85/1.4. I guess I'll just have to go see the stuff in person.

Thing is, those lenses you mentioned aren't that expensive in the larger scheme. For me, a system is basically a body and 3 lenses., So, if I was really hot on the Canon, I could get the lenses too, then just have 2 systems. Dumping my Hexar and a couple of old Nikkors I never use would cover about 1/3 the total cost.

If you're shooting fast primes off a tripod you'll have absolutely no problem with the D70 (or the Rebel for that matter, although you've got a glass investment). Below was shot, handheld, very low light with five or so different CT sources (thats not color shift, the light really is green) @ straight 1600 ISO and the wide end (27mm equivalent) of the kit zoom.

Basically, its a snapshot I used to see how the camera behaves out of the box in bad light. While there is visible grain in the dark areas of the original its also considerably sharper with no discernible noise or aliasing.

Idjiit,
Sorry if this has been asked of you on this subject, and I didn't read the promo, (call it ADD) but does the D70 have the one downfall as most SLRs? Do you lose focal length in the lens? This is one of the huge selling points for me on the Canon 1Ds system, no loss of focal length, and their highly versitile range of lenses.

As for Dig v. Film I would rather use a 4x5 view camara since I have some strange fetish for the dark room. Their are advantages and disadvatages to both, just a matter of what you are willing to sacrifice for each.

From what I saw of your work, you do use a lot of low light, as do I. However yours would be very difficult to do in the larger formats as there is a lot of motion. My work tends to be stills, where low light just takes more time and patience. I love the versitility of the high end DSLRs in that they can give you the quality, in mid-range ISO, of medium format with the feel of a 35mm.

Damn it has been too damn long since I have been in a darkroom. All this talk has me smelling Dectol.

And its a tank, but remember its that full frame sensor is what costs the extra $4000. You can buy an awful lot of primes to compensate for the fl conversion for that kind of money. Its also not as fully featured as even the newer prosumer cameras and the megapixel boost is an exponential reduction so you only get ~30% more value.

Too True, I am just hoping they come out with a little more fully featured version soon. The 1Ds has been on the market for a while now, and it is still holding its own. Methinks the Mad Scientists at Canon are cookin up something cool. Oh yeah, you are also paying quite a bit for the name here too.