Sanity check and opinions please. Am I just expecting too much?

[dmr]

To make a long story long ...

Some of you may remember that back in 2012 I bought an almost-new Fuji HS30 {d-word} camera. I got it for a very good price and considered it to be very "ok" but nothing high-end by any means. I've been using it off and on for casual work and it's been performing OK. I've never printed anything from it larger than 8x10.

About a week ago I got a new printer, a Canon Pixma Pro-100 and I've been playing with it, mostly with 8.5x11 prints from current and recent work, and I noticed that some (most?) shots from the Fuji appeared to be somewhat soft and "mushy" compared to what I get from scanned film shots, even the batch lab scans.

The other day (warmer, actually) a neighbor was out playing with his hotrod in the driveway and we started talking cameras and printers. I said I would take a couple shots of his "baby" and show off the new printer. I grabbed the Fuji and did just that.

Unfortunately, the prints were somewhat disappointing, to me anyway. He called them "fantastic" but I was not proud of them by any means! "Soft" and "mushy" are the best terms I can use to describe them. I then started looking into the "why" in depth here ...

I would appreciate some second, third, fourth ... opinions on this, particularly am I thinking on the right track ...

This first image is what I'm used to, and what I expect. It's a small detail from a .tif from a scanned negative that I used to print a stunning 13x19 print on my old HP printer a while back. It was taken using the Olympus Stylus (P&S film camera) using generic Fuji 200 and scanned at max res. on the K-M Scan Dual IV.

This is just a wee bit of the full image. The film grain is there, but the details are sharp and the edges are distinct.

The original image is here if anyone cares:

http://www.demare.me/gallery/index.php/loco1

Anyway, this next image is a similar-size (of the print) detail of one I took of the car the other day ...

As you can see, the details are just UGLY! There's a lot of crap in there, to use the word I think is very appropriate for it. It's not clean film grain stuff, it's distorting the edges badly!

I started googling and found that this is actually typical of the .jpg images coming from this camera, and they (the ubiquitous "they") were all saying that the "fix" was to use the raw image (.raf file) instead of the .jpg for larger prints. Fortunately I had the camera set to do both .jpg and .raf of each shot.

I then set out to find a raw converter.

"They" recommended ufraw, and I downloaded it and tried it but my results were NASTY! Worse than the .jpg! Lots of color mottling and not much real improvement in detail.

I finally zeroed in on the Fuji converter, a stripped-down version of Silkypix. The camera I got did not have any software with it, so I downloaded the latest version from the Fuji support site.

Here is a similar detail from the converted .raf image:

Much better, in my not so humble opinion, and the print looks CONSIDERABLY better, but still soft and not as crisp as I would like.

Futzing around with the settings in the raw converter and playing with the unsharp mask in Gimp mostly gave an artificially sharpened look.

Am I just expecting too much from the Fuji HS30?

I would THINK that it would be able to produce an image equal to or better than one from a 1990s vintage P&S film camera, but I'm really no expert on this.

Any opinions, please?

TIA, gang!

 

[mdarnton]

If the Fuji has an anti-alising filter, and I bet it does, there is no way aroud that the results will be crap when you pixel-level view them. I was always disappointed with my Nikon D300, so I swore there would be no AA filter on the next camera. I got a D7200, and at the same 12Mp setting as the D300, the results blow away the D300 so much that I never use 24Mp on the D7200. AA filters are the devil, and your results look like his work to me,

 

[dmr]

If the Fuji has an anti-alising filter, and I bet it does, there is no way aroud that the results will be crap when you pixel-level view them.

Thanks! I didn't even think of this. I'm sure it has such a filter, but a google (well, DDG) search did not give a definite answer.

I swore there would be no AA filter on the next camera. I got a D7200, and at the same 12Mp setting as the D300, the results blow away the D300 so much that I never use 24Mp on the D7200.

I got a surprisingly good bonus this year and I've been toying with (the YOLO factor here) getting a very high end DSLR. LOL, it's that or a European cruise. One I have been looking at is the Canon 5DS and 5DS-R, with the "R" variant having some kind of a filter that replaces the usual low-pass filter. I'm assuming this is kind of like your D7200.

I definitely want a full frame! Yeah, I know it's picky, but that's just me!

AA filters are the devil, and your results look like his work to me,

I admit that the images just plain suck when viewed at the pixel level! I don't know any other way to put it. Before last week the largest prints I ever (had) made from that camera were (Fuji/Noritsu) lab 8x10 prints, which actually look quite nice.

I'm really very surprised in the apparent sharpness difference between the 8x10 lab prints and the 8.5x11 prints from the Canon Pro-100. The "ickies" (what I call those squiggly mushy details, for lack of a better term) are obvious in the slightly-larger 8.5x11 prints but not at all in the 8x10s. Now the 8.5x11 prints from film scans, both my own and lab scans, are quite good, no "ickies" at all!

Thanks again.

 

[Godfrey]

The photos look pretty good for a 16Mpixel 1/2" sensor camera (format 6.4x4.8 mm) with an ultrazoom lens. Even low resolution 35mm film scans make better prints than any such small sensor cameras in my experience.

I gave up on small sensor cameras because of this. An APS-C sensor with 6 Mpixels (like even the one in an old, 2004 Pentax *ist DS) trounces that print quality.

Sensor size does matter.

 

[Addy101]

That AA-filter isn't that important - it is the sensor size. Yes, a non-AA-filtered sensor is sharper at the pixel level, but that is hardly important for your prints.

You do expect too much, on these small lenses falls a lot less lightwaves then on a bigger sensor. Not everybody sees it, but I can see the difference between a full-frame and APS-C sensor. Look at the huge difference in sensor sizes:

Source: Wikipedia

The 1/2" sensor isn't mentioned, but the slightly larger 1/1.8" is, look how much smaller it is then the "sensor" inside your film camera.

 

[jcb4718]

I can relate to the comments made here. I use standard Kodak 200 print film and have two camera systems: my older Olympus OM system with a variety of lenses (including a 28mm f3.5 lens) and a Leica IIIf with a 50mm lens and a Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 lens. I also have a Canon S110 (i.e. one with a small sensor). I have the film 'developed and scanned'. I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED if I really want to have a go at a negative. There's absolutely no doubt that the scanned film images look better than the S110 images. The colours look better and there is more dynamic range (i.e. I'm less likely to blow highlights). The S110 images can look sharper on a micro-level but I think that's in-camera sharpening. The point is you have to look for a difference in sharpness but the superior colour rendering and dynamic range of film is apparent in any print. It's the reason I keep with film. Out of curiosity I have shot the same scene using film and digital and compared them. I've tried to get the digital image to look like the film image. It's not easy and the digital image always falls short. One's perception of colour is amazingly subtle! Why do I have a digital camera? It's great for mixing flash and ambient light, it's great in low light situations (where it's a case of an S110 image or no image) and it's great for 'grab' shots. With the S110 I tend to shoot more photos but with a film camera I'm always looking for a 'good' shot. I'm pleased with both my film and digital cameras, they both have a place.

 

[sepiareverb]

Not that it would help a lot, but there is some color fringing on that Fuji image, so addressing that in the raw converter might improve it some. What lab do you use? as my recent experience with lab scans has been as equally frustrating as your Fuji.

 

[emasterphoto]

Here is a similar detail from the converted .raf image:

Much better, in my not so humble opinion, and the print looks CONSIDERABLY better, but still soft and not as crisp as I would like.

Futzing around with the settings in the raw converter and playing with the unsharp mask in Gimp mostly gave an artificially sharpened look.

Am I just expecting too much from the Fuji HS30?

I would THINK that it would be able to produce an image equal to or better than one from a 1990s vintage P&S film camera, but I'm really no expert on this.

Any opinions, please?

Your camera can definitely do better. From the crop, it looks like there's a bit of motion blur in the photo to start with, but despite that, it's mostly down to the converter you use and how good you are at processing the RAWs. Here's a couple of crops from some sample RAWs I found from a review of your camera that I did a quick run through Lightroom. No arguing it's a bit noisy even at the low ISO these were shot at, but it's still far better than what you've got above. I would try Lightroom and see what you get from it, though editing experience with any software is a big part of it in the end.

Your camera's far from stellar, but you should still be getting better results than you are.

 

[emasterphoto]

If the Fuji has an anti-alising filter, and I bet it does, there is no way aroud that the results will be crap when you pixel-level view them. I was always disappointed with my Nikon D300, so I swore there would be no AA filter on the next camera. I got a D7200, and at the same 12Mp setting as the D300, the results blow away the D300 so much that I never use 24Mp on the D7200. AA filters are the devil, and your results look like his work to me,

With all respect, this is a bunch of hokum. AA filter-less will give a slight increase in sharpness, but not nearly as much as most folks think, and definitely nothing that can't be achieved with proper post-processing. Likewise, though it depends greatly on the camera, most AA filters have a negligable effect on image sharpness and certainly nothing that can't be accounted for in post-processing.

This is a 100% crop from my D7100, which is AA filter-free same as the D7200.

And this is a 100% crop from my D3, which has an AA filter and is also only 12mp.

And this is a 100% crop from a D300 RAW sample image from a review.

There is very little, if any, difference in sharpness or detail at the pixel level between any of these despite the filter difference, and they're all using excellent lenses - 50mm f/1.8G on the D3, 35mm f/1.8G DX on the D7100, and 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S on the D300. Certainly, none of these are what I'd call a crappy result by any means. Whatever poor results you got with your D300 had nothing whatsoever to do with the AA filter in any way, so please stop spreading misinformation.

 

[mdarnton]

There's no shame in making one own comparisons, comparing apples to apples, and oranges,which no one has yet offered in support of their views. Try D7200 vs D7000 here or the comparison of your choice. There is a reason they are making cameras without AA filters. Put
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/12

 

[emasterphoto]

There's no shame in making one own comparisons, comparing apples to apples, and oranges,which no one has yet offered in support of their views. Try D7200 vs D7000 here or the comparison of your choice. There is a reason they are making cameras without AA filters. Put
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/12

Definitely agree, there is nothing wrong with making one's own comparisons - it's how we decide what works and doesn't work for us. With that, let's look at these samples from the comparison widget in the DPR website you linked to. In order to eliminate as many variables as possible, I picked a test shot from a Nikon D800 and also one from a D800E. Since both cameras are identical apart from the AA filter, this comparison should best show the effect of an AA filter, or lack of one, on a camera's output.

This is from the D800E, which has no AA filter. This was just imported into Lightroom using the default settings and no additional PP work done. It is indeed quite sharp.

This is from the D800, which does have an AA filter. This too was imported into Lightroom, however I made a minor sharpness and detail increase in order to match it to the D800E's sample. It's basically identical at this point. Note however, that while it's not completely absent, the moire and color artifacting in the D800E's sample above is substantially reduced in the D800's sample. This is the benefit of an AA filter, and it's not negated even at the high resolution produced by these two cameras. It also is a result that I would call far from being crappy, which is what you had stated originally as the only possible result of having an AA filtered camera.

I'm sorry if I come across as contentious or overly blunt, but when someone states something using overly strong words and phrases like "crap" or "AA filters are the devil", and I know that they are most certainly incorrect, I can't let misinformation like that pass as it can be detrimental to others who might base their own opinions on such info.

Simple fact is, AA filters have relatively little, if any, negative effect on a camera's image that can't be compensated for easily in post processing, and AA filterless cameras have a much higher potential for artifacting, color errors, and moire that can be very difficult at times to remove, depending on the image and its contents, of course. Manufacturers sell AA filterless cameras now mainly due to a) we've finally reached sensor resolutions where artifacting and moire are less prone to occur than before, and b) marketing, as many folks have the erroneous notion that they are somehow superior to AA filtered cameras.

That's all. Anyone's free to use whatever they like, and I've got AA-less and AA filtered cams I use regularly and interchangeably, but I will never tell anyone one is preferable over the other due to the filter and poor results from it, because it's simply not true.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The OP is expecting a lot from a camera with a 1/2" sensor, AA filter or not.

 

[emasterphoto]

The OP is expecting a lot from a camera with a 1/2" sensor, AA filter or not.

Can't argue with that, there's only so much you can wring from it before you need to move on if you're not getting the results you need or want. Even so, I wanted to OP to see that there's a bit more performance available to him from it if he tries a better RAW converter and ups his PP skills a bit maybe. It's what he has a the moment, so might as well get as much as he can out of it until he upgrades.

Myself, I gave up on tiny digital P&S's a fair while back. I like my Canonet better and the results are more satisfying in the end.

 

[dmr]

The OP is expecting a lot from a camera with a 1/2" sensor, AA filter or not.

I think the comment about some camera movement may have been in play here too. Since I posted the original, I have made two 13x19 prints from shots I did with that camera that came out quite sharp.

I also went back to some early reviews of it, and one had some blow-ups of sections of test photos and they confirm that the camera is capable of sharp images.