-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Fuji Finepix F11 - review from an A95 user (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter RedBishop
- Start date
Timedrifter
Well-known member
Sorry Henky, I wasn't sure! But one thing is for sure, the Fuji is a brilliant cam in bad lighting, it's where it really comes into it's own.Henky said:
Timedrifter
Well-known member
RedBishop said:
Following on this discussion, I decided to dust off my new A95 and make some comparison test shots. I too found the very odd discrepancy in the apparent ISO settings although not quite as marked (but within a third of a stop). Having read the following extract from the dpreview of the F10 I am inclined to believe the A95's ISO ratings are not very accurate:
"Here for visual comparison are six identical shots taken at 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600 ISO settings in our studio. As you can see the level of noise doesn't rise noticeably until you hit ISO 800, and even then it is lower than most standard CCD cameras at ISO 400. Even the ISO 1600 setting produces noise that would be considered normal for the ISO 400 setting on many a 5MP standard CCD camera. Note also, that the indicated ISO values seem to be very close to correct (we got exactly the same exposure values from the EOS 10D we use for our product shots)"
For anyone who may be interested I went outside on a very dull day this last week and took some test shots. I attach below a couple of 100% crops from both cameras. To simplify matters the A95 was set at ISO 400 and the F11 at ISO 1600. The EXIF gives exposure time for the A95 as 320th sec at F8 and the F11 as 640th sec at F8. Both cameras were on their Fine settings (see edit below) and with identical focal lengths (8mm). If anyone is interested I will email them the full size files including EXIF info if they via personal mail send me their email address. Bear in mind the EXIF on the A95 does not include ISO speed and therefore you will have to accept my word that it WAS ISO 400. I should of course have added, in case it isn't obvious that both cameras were set on aperture priority and focused, and therefore centred, on the same spot.
IMPORTANT: I have just come to use my F11 for (I think) the first time since taking these test shots. I discover that the quality setting is Normal not Fine, and as the EXIF doesn't distinguish between the two I can't be certain which setting was used. It is possible therefore that the F11 shot could be even better quality than the shot given here.
Attachments
Last edited:
digitalbirdy
Well-known member
Hi Timedrifter. Very interesting crops. The Canon looks slightly sharper, but the Fuji result for iso1600 is stunning.
Out of interest, the other day I accidentally - when in a panic to get a photo on a very sunny day, had my F10 set on iso800 (I meant to use iso100). There was 'almost' no noise at all - in many of the shots.
After studying many of the photos, it would appear that noise in the F10 depends on a few different factors: The image Colour, Brightness and the Subject matter, all seem to play a part.
I attach an image from that almost fatefull iso800 F10 session. It has been resampled 50% in photoshop and cropped to make it suitable for posting here, but has not yet had any other processing.
PS. Please what is the bird?
Out of interest, the other day I accidentally - when in a panic to get a photo on a very sunny day, had my F10 set on iso800 (I meant to use iso100). There was 'almost' no noise at all - in many of the shots.
After studying many of the photos, it would appear that noise in the F10 depends on a few different factors: The image Colour, Brightness and the Subject matter, all seem to play a part.
I attach an image from that almost fatefull iso800 F10 session. It has been resampled 50% in photoshop and cropped to make it suitable for posting here, but has not yet had any other processing.
PS. Please what is the bird?
Attachments
Timedrifter
Well-known member
digitalbirdy said:
Hi digitalbirdy!
We are obviously both fans of the Fuji. I agree with what you say about the various factors governing the noise potential, but to a degree I think that's true of most cameras. What isn't in doubt though, is that the way Fuji have these cameras wired, certainly produces exceptionally good high ISO results. Re my two images; I should have said that they were both hand held, and although I was in both cases supporting my right elbow on a bench, it's possible that camera shake did play a part. What I was really trying to show however was the capability of the F11 in low light situations in comparison to the A95, particularly the shutter speed and noise characteristics.
I believe your bird is a Bar Tailed Godwit, but three of the most important differentiation points are unfortunately not clear because of the angle. But I am NOT an expert and I'm sure that someone else will give you a positive ID. Where was this bye the way?
Regards TimeDrifter
digitalbirdy
Well-known member
Hi Timedrifter
- Firstly I would like to thank RedBishop for starting this Fuji F11 test thread and although I realise my comments are based around the F10 and not the F11, I hope they will help people make informed judgements with any purchasing.
The photo was taken at Topsham near Exeter, UK a few weeks ago - as was the photo attached below - which is a bit better and was also taken with the Fuji F10 set at iso800.
I am so impressed with the little Fuji I am considering getting a spare, probably the F11 version, as long as someone can confirm the lens quality appears to be as good as the F10 predecesor.
PS. I don't know if any more identification points are showing to confirm ID?
- Firstly I would like to thank RedBishop for starting this Fuji F11 test thread and although I realise my comments are based around the F10 and not the F11, I hope they will help people make informed judgements with any purchasing.
The photo was taken at Topsham near Exeter, UK a few weeks ago - as was the photo attached below - which is a bit better and was also taken with the Fuji F10 set at iso800.
I am so impressed with the little Fuji I am considering getting a spare, probably the F11 version, as long as someone can confirm the lens quality appears to be as good as the F10 predecesor.
PS. I don't know if any more identification points are showing to confirm ID?
digitalbirdy
Well-known member
lachlustre
Should be recording bird song
Two of the cameras I have been most interested in have been the Panasonic Lumix FX9 and the Fuji Finepix F30. As per dpreview, I noticed that successors to both have been announced. Both press releases emphasize high ISO performance: 1600 for the Panasonic, 3200 for the Finepix. However, it is interesting how they address the perceived limitations to both lines:
Fuji F30 adds an update to their sensor. Still 6.3MPixels, but apparently even better ISO performance (already the strong point of the F10/11). However, how about the lens, the weakest point in the F10? From the tech specs on the Fuji web site, the F30 is described as having a 8.0-24.9mm Fujinon zoom lens with 6 elements in 5 groups with 2 aspeherical elements. Unfortunately the specs for the F10 are not as detailed: just an 8-24mm lens. Maybe a change? Since they don't advertize it, I guess its not going to be major. Not emphasized at dpreview is the fact that "picture stabilization" - some sort of anti-shake technology - is included. No idea what tech lies behind this, but one annoying thing from the picture on the web-site: the anti-shake feature seems to be a mode, as in you choose anti-shake OR aperture control. Hope I'm wrong.
The Panasonic now has 1600 ISO capabilities. Given the noise problems at moderate ISO's on existing Panasonic cameras, you might hope that this means an improvement in noise... But even the press release suggests that the 1600 ISO will only be good enough for taking shots that you would otherwise have missed, and that the photo's will only be good enough for 4 by 6 prints. When the marketing people are saying that... you have to wonder (the Fuji press release makes their camera sound like the most earth-shattering revolution in photography for decades).
So we'll have to wait to hear about the noise. On the other hand, Panasonic boast about the speed of start-up, and auto-focusing, already a strong point for them, I think.
So... my ideal camera would some combination of the Panasonic FX-9 and Fuji F11: the lens, anti-shake technology, speed, and manual control abilities of the Panasonic, and the sensor with its ISO capabilities of the Fuji. It looks like both companies are making steps in the right direction, but seem more pre-occupied with improving their strengths rather than addressing their weaknesses. Maybe its because they're two of the less known digital camera manufacturers, and feel they have to stand out... but its a shame.
Fuji F30 adds an update to their sensor. Still 6.3MPixels, but apparently even better ISO performance (already the strong point of the F10/11). However, how about the lens, the weakest point in the F10? From the tech specs on the Fuji web site, the F30 is described as having a 8.0-24.9mm Fujinon zoom lens with 6 elements in 5 groups with 2 aspeherical elements. Unfortunately the specs for the F10 are not as detailed: just an 8-24mm lens. Maybe a change? Since they don't advertize it, I guess its not going to be major. Not emphasized at dpreview is the fact that "picture stabilization" - some sort of anti-shake technology - is included. No idea what tech lies behind this, but one annoying thing from the picture on the web-site: the anti-shake feature seems to be a mode, as in you choose anti-shake OR aperture control. Hope I'm wrong.
The Panasonic now has 1600 ISO capabilities. Given the noise problems at moderate ISO's on existing Panasonic cameras, you might hope that this means an improvement in noise... But even the press release suggests that the 1600 ISO will only be good enough for taking shots that you would otherwise have missed, and that the photo's will only be good enough for 4 by 6 prints. When the marketing people are saying that... you have to wonder (the Fuji press release makes their camera sound like the most earth-shattering revolution in photography for decades).
So we'll have to wait to hear about the noise. On the other hand, Panasonic boast about the speed of start-up, and auto-focusing, already a strong point for them, I think.
So... my ideal camera would some combination of the Panasonic FX-9 and Fuji F11: the lens, anti-shake technology, speed, and manual control abilities of the Panasonic, and the sensor with its ISO capabilities of the Fuji. It looks like both companies are making steps in the right direction, but seem more pre-occupied with improving their strengths rather than addressing their weaknesses. Maybe its because they're two of the less known digital camera manufacturers, and feel they have to stand out... but its a shame.
lachlustre
Should be recording bird song
oh... one thing I forgot: The new Panasonic has a different 4.6-16.8mm focal length lens (28-102mm 35mm equivalent). The previous model (FX9) had 5.8-17.4mm (35-105mm 35mm equivalent). Does anyone know how this is likely to impact digiscoping?
I am very interested in the low noise sensor technology of the Fuji cameras as shutter speedd is very important with long magnifications . I'm still not seeing great digiscoped photos being taken with this camera though and wonder whether the lens is not the greatest. I'm seeing better images coming out of the Sonys in the new generation of cameras.Neil.
digitalbirdy
Well-known member
Replying to lachlustre & Neil
Hi Guys
Just a few comments:
lachlustre - I think the Fuji Anti blur feature just chooses wide open shutter for a faster shot, which a high ISO will allow.
Neil - I am getting some very good photos from the F10, the lens is pin sharp. If it has any failing at all, it is that there tends to be 'very slight' chromatic abberation in the corners in extreme conditions - but I am being very fussy here. My birding shots are suffering a little in most conditions due to a very low end scope (£200 new including the eyepiece), but I am saving for a high end 'ED' scope.
The example below was a quick grab through the office window this week, handholding the F10 through a £12 pair of Meade binoculars. The crop is half size. The fairly noisless high ISO allowed a fast shutter speed, otherwise this phto would have been very blurred.
Hi Guys
Just a few comments:
lachlustre - I think the Fuji Anti blur feature just chooses wide open shutter for a faster shot, which a high ISO will allow.
Neil - I am getting some very good photos from the F10, the lens is pin sharp. If it has any failing at all, it is that there tends to be 'very slight' chromatic abberation in the corners in extreme conditions - but I am being very fussy here. My birding shots are suffering a little in most conditions due to a very low end scope (£200 new including the eyepiece), but I am saving for a high end 'ED' scope.
The example below was a quick grab through the office window this week, handholding the F10 through a £12 pair of Meade binoculars. The crop is half size. The fairly noisless high ISO allowed a fast shutter speed, otherwise this phto would have been very blurred.
Attachments
digitalbirdy said:
The photo you posting early in this thread was pretty good and better than I thought the scope could do. You will see a big improvement with a top line scope. I'm hoping the F11 has an equal or better lens though and am looking forward to seeing the results. The attached photo is taken at wide zoom on the Olympus 7070wz and Swarovski scope. I'm looking for a camera that will give equal or better results with no vignetting. We may be getting very close with the Fujis.Neil.
Attachments
Neil said:
I think it is just a matter of (lack of) awareness. The Fuji F10/11 seem to be highly regarded as a backup camera among pro photographers, just because of its great image quality. This review http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Fujifilm-FinePix-F10-Digital-Camera-Review-.htm claims that the Fuji lens and the HR sensor can record more true resolution than many 7Mpix cameras.
Some reviews have reported very small CA with the F10/11, but it is totally meaningless compared to the CA coming from a non-ED scope or some TCA-prone eyepieces.
Regards,
Ilkka
Timedrifter
Well-known member
Neil said:
Hi Neil!
I'm not sure exactly what you want to see, but attached below is 200% crop from a shot I took yesterday of a greenfinch. It was taken with my F11 attached via a universal adaptor to my TSN3 scope with the 30x Wide eyepiece. ISO setting was 400, shutter speed 50th sec at f5 and I used a cable release. This shot is straight from the camera with no alteration whatsoever. I imagine this could be even better with a top class scope, but I think it's good enough to show the potential; what do you think?
Regards
Timedrifter
Attachments
Last edited:
Timedrifter said:
Looks like good detail. Something is wrong though if at iso 400 your only getting 1/50th sec shutter speed. The light must have been very poor in which case we are still not seeing the best the camera can do ( a subject at 20 feet in bright late afternoon sun and iso 100 ). I'm looking forward to seeing more.Neil.
Timedrifter
Well-known member
digitalbirdy said:
Hi digitalbirdy!
Sorry I'm late on this but I didn't realise a second page had been started!! I concur that the bird is a black tailed godwit and well done.
I haven't done any 'proper' comparison tests between the 10 and 11 but if I do I'll let you know the result immediately. I have to admit to sort of putting it off because I didn't really want to find the 10 was better! The reason being that aperture priority of the 11 really is useful, and I imagine this will become even more evident when light conditions improve.
Regards
Timedrifter
ianmlittlewood
Member
Question re fugi's
See you guys are Fugi digiscopers, can you tell me, are the Fugis able to accomadate remote release cords? and what method of acaptors do you use?
Regards Ian
Timedrifter said:
See you guys are Fugi digiscopers, can you tell me, are the Fugis able to accomadate remote release cords? and what method of acaptors do you use?
Regards Ian
SFo
Member
Timedrifter said:
Hi all,
Just a quick comment on the identification of the mystery bird as I haven't noticed a response from anyone else. I'm pretty sure it is a Black-tailed Godwit rather than a Bar-tailed. Although wing and tail patterns are not visible the plain dark upperparts and very long legs look like classic Black-tail to me.
All the best
SFo
PS Ooops! Sorry, I didn't notice second page either. Still wearing my BirdForum "L-plates"
Last edited:
Timedrifter
Well-known member
ianmlittlewood said:
Hi Ian!
I use a bracket type similar to the one pictured at this address:
http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/photo/bracket.html
In my case the base is tightened between the camera base and universal adaptor that I use. This adaptor is of necessity set up permanently on my scope and I do all viewing via the camera screen. I intend to have made up dedicated bracket I have designed, which will allow the camera to swing quickly back and forth to allow normal scope use. This will also have the advantage of screwing directly to my scope body so the weight of the adaptor and camera are supported by the scope and not the eyepiece.
Regards
Timedrifter
