[benson_wmt]

i want buy A1...coz Anti-Shake...
But too Expensive...
--------------------------
Olympus 50660 only 4X... >__<
-------------------------
SO i choice Fuji S7000z ~!
coz 6M ~!!!!!!! & 6X~!!!!!!! & us 799~!!!!!!!

[ninekit]

um.... i don't think they are same grade at all.

subjectively, i think A1 wins the others handsdown, AS and 28-200mm coverage.

i personally won't take s7000 as a 12M pixel DC, I am sure its going to be a fine 6M pixel performer, but nothing more than that, it lacks the 28mm coverage and anti-shake A1 offered.

[kaiming184]

A-1

[drunkard]

A-1的時滯情況如何?

[路基亞]

三部選，我都係選A1
真係勁好多..............

[ninekit]

Yes of course we should count S7000 as 6M pixel DC.

Fuji is very smart to be able to squeese out a bit of vertical and horizontal resolution by rotating the CCD diagonally, however, I think no one will object the picture quality of the interpolated high resolution image is far from the REAL things, and its more a marketing gimmick than practical in my opinion. Though I always think its not right to quote s7000 or S2PRO as 12M DC as its misleading in my opinion, but I appreciate their picture quality is very outstanding when the picture is reduced back to their native pixel counts, i.e. 6M pixels.

So what award its given by the respectable 'CHOICE' magazine?

For SCCD HR, besides we can have higher pixel density for a given size of sensor, I really cannot think of what benefit it will give users especially if fit in a non-compact camera body, but the cons are potentially higher noise and even less control on DOF.

So I really don't see a point why S7000 can be of the same class as the A1.

[timothyfan]

fat chai wong 好題。
三部機都是我考慮構買與留意的，各有千秋。olympus與 fuji在還原色彩均屬上佳品牌，今次fjui 7000是2pro之後的一個絕佳半專業出品，fjui一早就應該出這機種。而5060有27mm與lcd monitor 的多角度轉動，均回應了用家的要求。
A1則有28-200mm與特色的防震功能，操作上較7hi亦有了大躍進改良。若一機走天涯，我絕對會選A1。

[winson531]

i think A-1 is the best,
but it cost about 8k
and S7000 cost about 5-6k.......
for C5060, i am afraid that 變型would be very serious
and i dun think 1 mm sinify if 變型 is serious, 4 C5060, y not Coolpix 5400???

[winson531]

I'm sry that i can't agree wtih u ninekit
I just wanna say that 12M resolution is not formed by interpolated.
All the pixel are from by the signals collected from the CCD, just like traditional CCDs.
The difference is Fuji's Super CCD*from generation III on can make the distance between each pixel smaller and closer, thus it's able to produce more pixel;However, since all the pixel are not in a straight line vertically, thus the 12M pictures give a lower quality than those with real 12M CCD.
On the other hand, such as F410, although it's effective is 3M and recorded pixel is 6M, it can't reach the quality of 3M but 4M.I think this has alrady been a good reason enough 4 choosing Fuji.

[ninekit]

may i ask if the 12M recorded pixels are all captured from distinct CCD light sensor, there should be 12M pixels on the sensor chip. Then why they still want to quote their effective pixel count as 6M and then recorded pixel count as 12M?

fact is fuji twisted the rectangular matrix of the CCD sensors 45 degree, and then a 2 by 2 matrix becomes a 3 by 3 matrix if viewed from the un-twisted x and y axis with pixel pitch reduced by a factor of sqrt(2). then its not difficult to tell the 5 recorded pixels out of the 3 by 3 matrix are "calculated" ( if you don't like the word "interpolated"), instead of "captured" by traditional CCD.

pro is its resolve more details right on the x and y axis but has no effect on diagonal resolution, plus the error induced in the calculations make a clean cut edge rough. this can be easily noticed when viewed at 100% crop.

[ninekit]

to illustrate,

tradition CCD, 2x2

x x

x x

super CCD arrangement, 2x2

x
x x
x

super CCD output, 3 x 3

0 x 0
x 0 x
0 x 0

so the x is the real CCD captured pixel, but 0 are the calculated pixel to fill the gaps and make up the expanded output.

so the goodies is if there are two black lines fall right on the x axis like this,

| |
| |
0 x 0
x 0 x
0 x 0
| |
| |

the SCCD can capture the difference right away and recorded in the picture 2 descrete lines,

but the traditional CCD cannot, and will record as 1 thick black line.

this is extremely favourable in shooting resolution test charts, but in my opinion little benefit in real world objects.

e.g. a worst case scenario, a black and white dot grid where all the black dots fall on the real twisted CCD sensors "x", and white dots fallen on the gaps "0", then the camera will mistaken the scene as a whole black scene, these kind of error make the quality in expanded mode worse than a sensor with real effective pixel counts.

[ninekit]

oops, the format spacing ruin my drawings, hope you still get what i mean.

[winson531]

I think u still have something wrong
in fact, CCDs can capture 1 colour on each pixel only , either red, green or blue.
All the pixel are calculated and not really " recorded".Maybe sigma can really record it in 1 pixel.
Each output pixel maybe of different colour cuz 3 pixel near by on CCD will compare the brightness of each colour , red blue and green.Thereafter,a pixel or "real" colour of the object is output (calculated).
In the end, a pixel is recored in memory card or flash memory.

...| |
...| |
0 x 0
x 0 x
0 x 0
...| |
...| |

super CCD arrangement, 2x2

. x
x x
. x
is it ur picture?

[winson531]

..| |
..| |
0 x 0
x 0 x
0 x 0
..| |
..| |

. x
x .x
. x

[winson531]

4 ur example, can u really make such smaller grid???
i dun think this is possible