A test I'd like to see: Fuji Natura 24/1.9 vs. Fuji F30s (ISO3200) digital

[Bill58]

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the low/ no light side-by-side results?

 

[Pherdinand]

it's not a fair test. These are two different category/purpose cameras.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Well I by chance have some Ilford Detal 3200 shots from the Natura S somewhere and I own the F30


So if you really want it ... I can supply samples; but your going to have to wait for a little while

and the samples won't be of the same subject

 

[markinlondon]

You're not going to get 24mm equivalent or f1.9 with an F30 either.

 

[Bill58]

it's not a fair test. These are two different category/purpose cameras.

I beg to disagree. They both (albeit same Mfg.) tout their low light capabilities. That's the only thing I wish to see compared. Obviously, their focal lengths are quite different.

 

[Bill58]

Well I by chance have some Ilford Detal 3200 shots from the Natura S somewhere and I own the F30


So if you really want it ... I can supply samples; but your going to have to wait for a little while

and the samples won't be of the same subject

Amazing--one guy w/ both. What a fortuitous situation. I think many of us would luv to see your results when you get around to it.

Thanks!

 

[x-ray]

My Fuji pro rep was in the studio last year and showed me one of the pocket Fuji's. I was one of the cheaper ones but the image quality was excellent. I was thinking about buying a pocket digital and finally wound up buying a F10. The f30 wasn't out at the time and I think the F10 was the top of that line. I can only say the noise at top ISO is amazing. I haven't compared it to color neg of the same speed but feel it will probably have less noise than the comperable color has grain. Another pro friend has the F30 on my recommendation and he absolutely raves about the image quality.

 

[Nachkebia]

Oh please not! I bought Fuji F30 just to play around, I had it for couple of weeks, yeah quality is good but wide angle is not enough for me, besides that its not that really good in low light, lens is also very very slow on long end, so I gave it to my mother as a present, to take family shots, I don`t think if I had Fuji Natura 24/1.9 I would give it to her 😀

 

[Nick R.]

It's a weird comparison. You're comparing a digital sensor and its accompanying electronics, which is unique to a certain camera, to a film which can be used in multiple cameras.

 

[Pherdinand]

Well, Bill-
I'm also touting my photography all around the Globe, but I still can't be compared to Robert Capa 😀

 

[Bill58]

It's a weird comparison. You're comparing a digital sensor and its accompanying electronics, which is unique to a certain camera, to a film which can be used in multiple cameras.

Hmmmmmm. They both take pictures don't they? I am only interested in the results under the same conditions.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Alright here we go

not sure how well this helps

but here is an Delta 3200 shot (Natura S) with the only light source being a small fire at f1.9

and the ISO3200 shot is my book shelf only lit by a clamp light (pointed away) at f2.8 at 35mm (equiv)

note: I generally run the F30 at -1 ev ... this shot was at 0 EV

no contrast or brightness boost

only resized ... bicubic ...

Edit: I would light the book case like the portraits... but I figure lighting a fire in my study wouldn't work so well

 

[Pherdinand]

Bill: What I did mean, and what I did not understand, how can you compare a film camera (you did not even specify a film!) to a digital one with a small sensor. Maybe if you said, Delta3200 or Tri-x pushed to 3200, I would see a reason to compare. But i don't see how the 24/1.9 lens would influence the result.
Anyway. I did not mean to offend you or something.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Actually ... before I sold the Natura I managed to take shots with Ilford 3200, Tmax 3200, Neopan 1600, Superia 800, T400CN, Reala 100

so technically I could do the whole comparison.... but not today

 

[Issy]

Non-sensical unless you specify what film. (e.g. load up the Natura with an old roll of Kodachrome 25, and compare) -- forgetting about the 24 vs 35mm equiv field of view.

I will say this, though.... when the internal noise algorithm kicks in on the F30 at high ISO, the effect is almost like "stained glass", or "melted plastic".

Assuming a compare with high ISO film (1600/3200), I would rather have large, well defined grain ("pebbles"), than the "muddy" look (all other things being equal)

Case in point: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GuuP&tag=

 

[IGMeanwell]

Issy,

Look up at post #12

Delta 3200 compared to ISO 3200 ... right there for ya

Non-sensical unless you specify what film. (e.g. load up the Natura with an old roll of Kodachrome 25, and compare) -- forgetting about the 24 vs 35mm equiv field of view.

I will say this, though.... when the internal noise algorithm kicks in on the F30 at high ISO, the effect is almost like "stained glass", or "melted plastic".

Assuming a compare with high ISO film (1600/3200), I would rather have large, well defined grain ("pebbles"), than the "muddy" look (all other things being equal)

Case in point: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GuuP&tag=

 

[Issy]

Yep. My first comment was to the original post.

Referencing your images in #12, though, IMHO I still prefer the grain vs stained glass.

What did you rate the Delta at? 1000? 1600?

 

[IGMeanwell]

Yep. My first comment was to the original post.

Referencing your images in #12, though, IMHO I still prefer the grain vs stained glass.

What did you rate the Delta at? 1000? 1600?

Rated at 3200 ... the print was a bit dodged though

 

[ampguy]

I think any kind of comparison is going to be apples to oranges, but would also even be difficult controlling with 2 film cameras due to development and scanning variations.

I have the F30 and have taken some photos at 1600 equivalent that have similar facial grain to the one in the left photo (natura?), but also 1600 photos on the F30 that don't show it so I think the same subject and exposure conditions are a critical factor that needs to be matched.

And yes, the lens on the F30 as it extends, does increase the min. aperture, making shallow DOF photos much more difficult than with a film camera or DSLR with < f2 aperture.

I really like the F30 having used it only 3 or 4 times, but it's a different type of beast than a film camera or even DSLR. See my review in my blog.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Still looking forward to seeing some F30 pics from you ampguy

your holding out on me 😛

I think any kind of comparison is going to be apples to oranges, but would also even be difficult controlling with 2 film cameras due to development and scanning variations.

I have the F30 and have taken some photos at 1600 equivalent that have similar facial grain to the one in the left photo (natura?), but also 1600 photos on the F30 that don't show it so I think the same subject and exposure conditions are a critical factor that needs to be matched.

And yes, the lens on the F30 as it extends, does increase the min. aperture, making shallow DOF photos much more difficult than with a film camera or DSLR with < f2 aperture.

I really like the F30 having used it only 3 or 4 times, but it's a different type of beast than a film camera or even DSLR. See my review in my blog.