The Fujifilm Finepix S200EXR ~ strange sensor alchemy from 2009

The Fuji Finepix S200EXR was released in 2009. It features:

  • A 12 megapixel SuperCCDEXR sensor,
  • A big optical zoom that starts at 30.5 mm and ends at 436mm (F2.8 to F5.3),
  • DSLR-like styling and external buttons,
  • A largish, by bridge camera standards, 8x6mm (1/1.6th inch) sensor,
  • And a 200 000 dot electronic viewfinder.

In many ways, it feels modern, though the speed of processing is definitely of the 2009 variety. Still, I can save in both JPG and CCD-RAW, unlike previous Fujifilm bridge cameras.

The old red lighthouse – Fuji Finepix S200 EXR

The octagonal pixels that Fujifilm packed into these old sensors might seem odd by today’s standards, but the tech produces photos said to contain extra highlight information. It’s not terribly easy to verify this, as I’m still trying to work out the weird digital alchemy that results in:

  • Strange cross-hatch image artifacts in some 12 megapixel images,
  • 12 megapixel TIFF files that can only be created from RAF files in an aging program called S7raw – built almost exclusively to read CCD-RAW files from these later Fuji cameras,
  • JPGs and RAF files that are 12 megapixels in any of the PASM modes and High Resolution EXR mode, or 6 megapixels in the Dynamic Range or Low Noise EXR modes.

It’s a lot to digest and also explains why some people describe this camera as a JPG machine ~ they clearly have better things to do with their time than mess with TIFF and RAF files. This makes it a complex camera on the inside. And as much as I like that the S200EXR offers classic Fujifilm JPG recipes – Provia, Astia, Velvia, and BW – the menu organisation also reflects the complexity of options available.

Ahoy Captain! – Finepix S200EXR

The seperate EXR option on the dial offers three special modes: 12 megapixel High Resolution photos that use all of the sensor pixels, 6 megapixel Dynamic Range photos that preserve more detail in shadows and highlights, and 6 megapixel images in the High ISO Low Noise mode. Weirdly, the regular PASM functions don’t offer any of the three EXR special modes and create regular 12 megapixel photos that use a different kind of dynamic range preservation technology.

Rails and pipes – Fuji Finepix S200 EXR – plenty of detail in the shadows, even in this 6 megapixel image

I’ve found that importing the RAF files into Lightroom is the most convenient option in all cases. The imported 6 megapixel images from RAF files recorded in two of the EXR modes seem to be the darker of two exposures – or at least the darkest part of whatever data lives in the mystical RAF files. It seems likely that Lightroom is throwing away some of the data from the smaller octagonal pixels that preserve extra highlight information. A RAF file recorded in any of the PASM modes results in a 12 megapixel image, and Lightroom imports them just fine – this is my preference going forward.

Balls balls balls – Fujifilm Finepix S200EXR

It seems that the EXR line of cameras represented the pinnacle of Fujifilm’s longstanding SuperCCD sensor technology. Not too long after these premium bridge cameras and their strange alchemical sensors, the company moved to CMOS and their X-Trans technology. Despite the complexities of the camera, I find the images very pleasant.

Behind the plywood wall

More photos from the Nikon D200

In my previous post, I sang the praises of the Nikon D200 – first released in 2005. Back then, I could barely afford a decent digital point ‘n’ shoot, let alone a premium DSLR like the D200 ! Even RAW photos from this Nikon feature similar contrast, punch, and compressed dynamic range to those from the Olympus E1yet another widely respected antiquarian among cameraphiles and CCD sensor enthusiasts. I’ll not expand fervently on that in this entry, as I’ve done previously! Just some more photos from the hefty and reassuringly solid Nikon D200:

A rusty old shed somewhere – Nikon D200 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 lens
The green shed – Nikon D200

Notice the old tin shed theme so far? I won’t deny that lonely sheds make for some nice pictures, especially when they’re decaying into the sun-beaten soil.

The yellow shed – Nikon D200

Seriously, I was going to post something other than a shed, I really was, but I couldn’t help myself! Back to another angle of the yellow shed you saw in my last post. Looking at these photos, I can’t help but wonder again about the image quality perfected in some of these old cameras. Makes you also wonder about the role of marketing and what we believe.

A sunny day with the Nikon D200

The Nikon D200 was released to market in 2005 – a long time ago in the world of digital cameras. Everything about it screams digital retro – the hulking black body, the 10.2 megapixel CCD digital sensor, 11 auto-focus points, and 5 frames per second shooting speed. Anyone who reads this journal regularly, knows that megapixels aren’t everything. Also, I’m a sucker for old and slow technology that does a good job and has a good feel.

Yellow shed – Nikon D200 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8

I’ve kind of concluded by now that the best of the CCD sensor cameras produce punchy and colourful images. Even the RAW files look nice and punchy. I know that some people put it down to a thicker Color Filter Array above the photosites, and this may certainly be part of it, but I also think that the limited dynamic range of the sensor and the tonal response tuned by the engineers produces photos with extra contrast. Modern CMOS sensors have a much wider dynamic range and tend to produce flatter files for editing. You’ll find that shadows can be lifted more and highlights retain greater detail. In cameras like the D200 and the Olympus E1, the limited dynamic range of the CCD sensor results in less shadow and highlight detail, making for files that have compressed tonal range – more contrast.

The output from the Nikon D200 is reminiscent of the output from the Olympus E1 – a 5 megapixel beast I regard very highly. Of course, the lens makes a difference too, and the Tamron 17-50mm is a nice fast walk-around lens that balances well on this Nikon. It’s a bit on the soft side at 17mm in the corners, but at F8 and around the 35mm mark, it produces sharp images across the frame in my experience. It’s a great fit for the old D200.

Sand and sky and mangroves – Nikon D200

Just as with the Olympus E1, I’m not doing much editing at all with the RAW files from the Nikon D200 – minimal contrast boost if required, sharpening, and only a little vibrance for all of the photos on this page. In use, it’s a solid camera with all of the external control buttons you could ever want. This was a camera with pro features at the time, for sure. The magnesium-alloy skeleton and deep hand grip makes it feel secure and reliable, providing enough weight and heft for balancing longer lenses. Next to modern Nikon mirrorless cameras though, the D200 is an antiquated hulk! It makes the Nikon D70 seem like a cheap piece of plastic.

Shipping containers, a shed, and a caravan – Nikon D200

I received two original Nikon EN-EL3a batteries with the camera. I’d charged both of them before going out, but one of them drained to zero within minutes of fiddling with menu settings. I know the D200 had a reputation for poor battery life, but I think that particular battery may be done for! The other battery seems to have plenty of juice though. I’ve ordered some third-party replacements anyway, as Nikon don’t manufacture the official batteries anymore.

0000 – 9999 – Nikon D200

The Nikon D200 was the last Nikon camera body to feature a CCD digital sensor. The Nikon D300 featured a CMOS sensor, which enabled the use of higher ISO settings and low light photography with less noise. I’ve never used the D300, but I know it’s considered one of Nikon’s best early digitals. In my opinion though, the D200 remains a great camera and certainly scratches the retro digital itch – one of Nikon’s best cameras in the market transition between film and digital.

You can see more D200 photos in my follow-up post here.

Some street photos with the perfectly excellent Nikon D40

Having been very connected to my Olympus E-1 lately, I decided it was high time to take out another old digital camera in the Nikon D40. I don’t always get the chance to engage in street photography but when I do it can be a lot of fun. It does require a different approach though – being on the look-out for likely scenes and waiting for the right moment. The D40 isn’t exactly a classic street machine but it’s also small enough not to be much of a bother unless a big lens is attached, like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I decided to go with!

Reaching for the stars – Nikon D40, ISO 200, F 2.8

I find that the D40 makes really nice photos, but the CCD sensor technology isn’t so great when you have to pull details out of heavy shadows during editing. The RAW files are flexible enough, but the heavy shadow areas can be a bit thin. These older sensors also aren’t so great at retaining highlights either, so you have to make the choice – expose for shadows or highlights when the lighting creates dynamic range that’s outside of the scope of the camera. This is similar to slide film.

Framed by yellow – Nikon D40

Even though there’s noise in shadow areas when you pull up the exposure during editing, the digital noise pattern isn’t objectionable. This is one area where CCD sensors had a clear advantage over their CMOS counterparts at the time – lower noise and a finer noise pattern. We seem to have come a long way since those early digital days, but cameras like the D40 still make perfectly excellent photos! How far have we really come, one might wonder?

Free hugs – Nikon D40

There’s also another nice advantage to using an old camera like this – 6 megapixels pairs really well even with a kit lens that doesn’t see a lot of love. The old 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens is much maligned but is nicely sharp on an old camera like this, since it out-resolves the 6 megapixel sensor. My Tamron looks even better and seems to pick up plenty of primary colours wide open. Still a perfectly excellent camera.

Green machines, rusty bolts, and dynamic range

The clouds are slowly dissipating after several months of grey days. This weekend provided an opportunity to drive around the vibrant towns of the Murray River. I packed my bag with the Olympus E-1, Nikon Z5, and the Sony RX100.

I continue to be impressed with the output from the old E-1, but dynamic range is limited, and careful consideration of a scene is required before clicking the shutter button, I’ve discovered.

Shadows on emerald metal – Olympus E-1

Window of opportunity

Every digital sensor (and film, of course) has a limited performance window within which it can optimally render the dynamic range of a scene. If the dynamic range (brightest and darkest areas) of a scene exceed the window, then an exposure decision must be made: crush blacks or burn highlights? Modern sensors have a bigger window, so provide more latitude. The E-1, not so much.

Scenes with plenty of mid-tones and minimal strong highlights / deep shadows are good for this camera. Evenly lit scenes are great too. With excessive tonal ranges, I usually crush blacks because it’s less distracting for the eye, but it depends on how numerous the extreme tonal ranges are and the composition I’ve decided on.

Unused, catching dust and webs – Olympus E-1

The onboard tonal response of the Olympus is contrasty. Again, great for evenly lit scenes that could use a contrast bump, but not so great for extreme tonal ranges where pushing them further causes distracting visual elements. The more I use this camera, the better I get at evaluating scenes before picking the camera up. And if I can frame a scene and limit the extreme tonal ranges, I’ll do that. I also commonly dial in some negative Exposure Compensation to protect highlights but only when I want to preserve better gradation of tone over areas where distracting highlights could be a problem. Evenly lit scenes don’t need it unless that’s the look I’m going for.

Beneath the old machine – Olympus E-1

Calibrated for the old film pros?

It’s clear to me that the RAW files from the Olympus E-1 are different to the RAW files we get from modern cameras, but I don’t think this is a CMOS or CCD issue. The native tonal response of the E-1 produces files that are already contrasty and punchy. The images on this page are essentially the RAW output with barely any editing at all.

Some people might say I should use OM Workspace to get the colour goodness from this camera, but the software remains awful to use. And the few RAW files from the E-1 I’ve loaded into OM Workspace produce much the same initial result as the Adobe Standard profile in Lightroom, though my testing isn’t extensive enough to warrant strong views.

So, back to my speculation on the punchy files from the E-1. In 2003, when the camera was released, digital photography wasn’t mainstream. It’s entirely possible that early cameras like this were internally calibrated to produce images that were as close to certain film types as possible in terms of punchiness and also required less editing in software. Remember,  there wasn’t a lot of RAW editing software around at the time.

None of that means these old cameras make filmic photos, but it may explain why there seem to be differences in output compared to our modern cameras. I think this is less about the inherent properties of a CCD sensor and more about what kinds of photos the film companies wanted us to see from their cameras via internal calibrations. Now that photo editing programs are numerous and commonplace, modern cameras that have more dynamic range than the E-1 are calibrated to output flat RAW files that can easily be edited. Just speculation, of course.

Around the emerald machine – Olympus E-1

A few more from the Olympus E-1

The Olympus E-1 is quickly becoming one of my favourite cameras. There’s a certain solidity to the photos from it. The mid-tones are strong and the tone curve applied in-camera produces really attractive images. If there’s anything to the CCD versus CMOS sensor argument, the E-1 is likely one of the best arguments for CCD being inherently superior. None of this is to suggest that modern cameras can’t produce amazing images, of course.

Crystal Lake – Olympus E-1

With my time currently limited, the fact that the RAW files from the E-1 require far less editing than expected is a big positive. And I still think that people are overpaying for cameras like this. It may be a really nice camera, but it lacks many of the niceties we’ve become accustomed to on our modern cameras. The limited dynamic range can be a problem in difficult lighting conditions and there’s no Histogram or highlight blinkies to check exposure. This does lead me to more carefully consider the tonal range of a scene and whether I use ESP or Spot metering, so it’s a good thing for learning, really.

Mine also has a few issues – a missing eye-cup and the mode dial is stuck in either Program mode or Manual mode. The eyepiece is not an issue but the mode dial is frustrating. I can live with it though. It does serve to remind me that this is an old camera now and it won’t last. Yet another reason not to overpay for old tech!

Table for Three – Olympus E-1

I’d also taken out the Finepix S5600 along with the E-1 in my camera bag, but once I opened up the Finepix files at the end of the day, I was disappointed. If I hadn’t been using the E-1 all day, the Finepix would likely have pleased me enough. But looking at those photos side by side, the E-1 completely blows the Finepix out of the water.

I feel a sense of melancholy when I use the E-1 though. Olympus isn’t the company it used to be, with the imaging arm now sold off and owned by OM Digital Solutions. The E-1 is every bit a lovely camera from a different time. It was a time when digital photography wasn’t quite yet mainstream and venerable companies like Olympus were putting every effort into the new digital market – enticing film shooters with the promise of not having to pay for film development.

I can’t help but feel that the E-1 contains as much technical mojo as Olympus could pour into it. The collaboration with Kodak represents the shared vision of two traditional companies focussed on surviving in a rapidly changing photography landscape. Ultimately, neither company managed to escape a brutal market where smartphone cameras defined the new rules, with severe decline causing them either to be sold off piece by piece or handed over to new owners divorced from company tradition.

Antiques – Olympus E-1

Editing Olympus E1 files – What’s happening here?

It seems that every weekend is cloudy lately, but that’s not a bad thing when you have an old camera that doesn’t handle high dynamic range scenes well. I took out the Olympus E-1 recently and found it a really interesting device – it feels great and has the gentlest shutter sound I’ve ever heard. I had another opportunity to use it yesterday and set it to record RAW and JPG. The results surprised me.

Old Methodist Church – Olympus E-1

I’ve questioned the idea of CCD sensors rendering colour differently to their CMOS counterparts, but ultimately I couldn’t be entirely sure there was nothing going on. There really shouldn’t be, as digital imaging sensors themselves are colour-blind and it’s only the Colour Filter Array atop them that could influence colour, apart from usual suspects like White Balance and lens quality.

Imagine my surprise when I found that the RAW files from the E-1 look almost identical to the JPG and TIFF outputs, apart from some extra sharpening. Normally, you’d expect RAW files to look flatter and less saturated when contrasted to processed JPGs from the same camera, but this is not so with the E-1.

Strictly No Parking – Olympus E-1

I know that Lightroom applies a colour profile to each import, of course. I know that it does some sharpening and processing up-front to create a workable image. But what I’m finding with the E-1’s RAW files is that I don’t actually need to do much additional processing at all. The RAW files already look good and don’t look as flat as you’d expect a demosaiced file to look. So, what’s happening? Why do the E-1’s ORF files (Olympus’ naming convention for RAW files) look so similar to the processed JPGs?

Keep Clear – Olympus E-1

I have a theory – I think the E-1 is not doing much JPG processing at all, apart from some sharpening. Where we’d normally see a flat RAW image and a punchy JPG file, I suspect the E-1 is converting the ORF and applying minimal processing. This may be why the files look similar.

Please bear in mind that none of this is scientific. I’ve not sat for hours and tested side-by-side photos. I also know that processors like Lightroom make substantial changes when importing photos. I write all this knowing that it’s simple first impression and could be an error in my perceptions/technical set-up. This is a journal and sometimes my thoughts meander, so please be kind!

Restricted – Olympus E-1

Back to Kodak Colour Science

I have my doubts about CCD sensors and their supposed inherent colour superiority. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of old junk CCD cameras out there too, so it may not be a property of the CCD sensor at all. Yet, I can’t help but think that there’s something interesting happening inside the Olympus E-1. There’s no doubt that in the right lighting conditions it can produce superb images.

So far, and I may be completely wrong here, the Olympus E-1 is the only digital camera I have that even comes close to the output of my Sigma DP2 Merrill camera (now with a sticky leaf shutter, sadly). That’s high praise, considering the Sigma uses a Foveon sensora very different image recording technology. Of course, when I say close, the E1’s photos are still not really like the Foveon produced images, but the E1 does have the feel of needing to be treated like a camera with old slide film loaded, where you have to really look after wide tonal ranges.

Old town waterways – Olympus E-1 with Zuiko 14-42 mm kit lens

It’s not as though my E-1 sports a spectacular lens that makes the photos look great. It’s the old Four-Thirds system Zuiko kit lens – 14-42 mm 3.5 to 5.6. Not that Zuiko lenses are poor at all, as even the so-called kit lenses are truly respectable. So, is there some Kodak colour science happening here? At the very least, it looks like a tone curve is being applied to create a punchier image and this is translated to the demosaicing process. I really don’t know what it is, but I’m certainly happy to keep using this camera. It may not replace my faulty Sigma, but it’s very satisfying to use.

First time out with the Olympus E-1: Kodak Colour Science?

When the Olympus E-1 was introduced in 2003, it was the first time a company had designed a camera exclusively for digital photography from the ground up. And the Olympus E-1 was, in every way, a camera designed for the pro digital photographer. Not only is it the best feeling camera I’ve ever held, it also features a dampened shutter sound that has been described by some as a soft hug. The sweet mechanical kiss of the, clearly over-engineered, shutter mechanism adds positively to the experience of using this chunky and well-made device.

Beyond grassy edges – Olympus E-1

Kodak Colour Science?

There’s some thought that the Kodak-made CCD digital sensor in the E-1 has some magical properties that produce amazing photos and amazing colour. It’s hard to comment on that, as I haven’t enough experience with it yet. However, I’m pretty certain that Olympus tweaked the on-board software to make some great looking photos so as to appeal to the professional film shooters of 2003 who were stubbornly holding onto their film stocks.

The photo above does look good after editing the TIFF file in Lightroom, and I didn’t need to do a lot of editing at all. You’ll see that highlights are easily burned out, so using negative Exposure Compensation to protect those highlights is a must-do in certain kinds of light. I recorded in-camera to TIFF format just to see if I could recover more detail from shadows and highlights. I was certainly successful at recovering plenty of shadow detail so it’s best to expose for the highlights and recover the shadows later.

Mostly in shadow – Olympus E-1

The Olympus E-1 is a very satisfying camera to use, and that’s mostly down to the ergonomics. Sporting a weather-sealed, thick magnesium-alloy body, the E-1 absolutely feels like a pro camera. Mine came with the old 14-45mm kit lens and it’s certainly a pretty good performer. They really don’t make cameras like this anymore!

It’s clear that Olympus threw everything at this camera and likely hoped it would attract the pro film crowd over to their Four-Thirds digital system. This makes me wonder what we’re really paying for these days when we spend thousands on a camera body and it’s not even built to the same specifications as this old E-1! Not that this camera was cheap at the time.

Built to the edge – Olympus E-1

Is the magic real?

In some ways, it doesn’t much matter if the Kodak sensor has some inherent superior colour properties or not. The E-1 is just a joy to use. That’s as long as you don’t mind limited dynamic range, and the need to protect highlights and do some editing. The camera does churn out some great looking photos and I look forward to trying it in many more scenarios. And lastly, no other shutter sounds this gentle!

The Nikon D40 – a perfectly small classic

In the days between film and the mainstream take-up of digital, traditional companies like Nikon were doing what they could to persuade people to finally make the jump to Digital SLRs. We’re now a long way from the days of the Nikon D40 – featuring 6.1 megapixels and an APS-C sized sensor – but it can still surprise with excellent image making. And after going out with a number of Finepix cameras recently, the D40 feels fantastically Nikonian, which is to say that the ergonomics are comfortable and familiar.

Dodge and polished chrome – Nikon D40

Note the lovely reds of the car body and the blue of the chrome preserved in the above photo. Plenty of detail with this old sensor too. I was using the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 Nikkor kit lens, version 1. Plastic feel for sure, but decent optics, especially for a 6.1 megapixel sensor, where any shortcomings of the glass aren’t a deal-breaker. It turns out that the shutter mechanism isn’t faulty at all, as I thought last week, just my inability to note that the Exposure Compensation goes in reverse on these Nikons! That’s some good news at least, and rather makes up for the Finepix 602z I recently purchased, with a bent CF pin and non-working EVF. At least it was cheap!

Garden of colour – Nikon D40

I was fortunate to have some great sunlight late in the day. These old CCD cameras definitely love the light, and I’m looking forward to also receiving my Olympus E1, even if it does have some usability issues. I’d heard a lot about the colour of the D40 and it doesn’t disappoint in this kind of light. I won’t say there’s something magical about CCD colour, like others do, but these photos do make you wonder whether image making has really advanced as much as we’re told?

As the leaves catch last light – Nikon D40

My Nikon D40 settings: JPG Fine, base ISO of 200, Exposure Compensation often set to -0.3 or -0.7, and Vivid picture mode. There’s barely any noise at 200 ISO and reputation has it that noise is not much of an issue up to 800 anyway. Old forums also suggest that the D40 has a tendency to overexpose, so I did often dial in a touch of negative Exposure Compensation just to preserve highlights.

The above photo was one that I made in Nikon’s native NEF Raw format. The Raw files from the D40 definitely have more latitude than the JPGs and it’s easier to tame highlights and shadows, but there’s certainly less editing potential in these files compared to the NEF files from modern Nikons. Nevertheless, the photo is pleasant, and working with NEF does provide the option to use a different White Balance setting and fine tune any sharpening.

The D40 was one of Nikon’s most popular early consumer cameras and I can understand why. I like that it’s so small and fits easily in a smallish camera bag. I’ll have to seek out the G version of the 50mm 1.8 lens for it, as the D version requires a screw drive motor, and the D40 lacks this feature. Really, the D40 proves that picture quality wasn’t a problem for digital cameras even in 2006.

A cloudy few hours with the Finepix S6500fd

Previously, I admitted to having developed a thing for the old Fujifilm Finepix bridge cameras from yesteryear. I didn’t have the money to buy them back when they were new and I’ve often heard good things about Fujifilm cameras in general. Given the recent fetish in the more feverish and magical corners of the internet with CCD cameras of a certain vintage, I think it’s a good time to explore their capabilities and features.

Blossoms – Finepix 6500fd

Where the S7000 is a bit clunky and shows its age, despite some amazing image making capacity for the time, the S6500 feels more modern and sleek. Start-up time is quicker, menus are cleaner and more responsive, and the nice histogram that overlays on the, slightly disappointing, EVF when the Exposure Compensation button is pressed is really useful for looking after highlights and shadows.

I set it to JPG Fine and the Chrome picture mode. This pushes contrast and boosts saturation, especially in greens. Unfortunately, the day was thick with cloud cover, but the Auto White Balance did an admirable job when photographing flower blossoms on the side of the road. Even in this grim light, there’s lots of detail.

Speaking of detail, can you believe that the above photo was made with a small sensor bridge camera from 2006? Even under heavy cloud, there’s amazing detail in the foliage and on the sign. I set Soft sharpening in-camera, preferring to sharpen up in Lightroom. At ISO 100, there is no discernible noise. Unlike the JPGs from the S7000, where pushing them even a little during editing shows plenty of digital noise and tonal fragility, the JPGs from the 6500 preserve a lot more noise-free detail in shadows. The photo above was pushed to +30 in shadow areas! Apart from that, there were small boosts to mid-tone Contrast and Clarity.

Machinery in the yard – Finepix S6500fd

More than megapixels and sensors

The quality of these photos is not just about the sensor. Though the sensor is the same one that’s in the much-loved Fuji F31fd camera, a great lens also makes a big difference. A quick trip out under heavy clouds and rain isn’t ideal for testing a camera, but just looking at the detail in the foliage from a 6.3 megapixel Super CCD sensor and lens combination from 2006 is something of a revelation.

Beauty on the side of a back-road

I think this camera is worthy of setting to record in native Raw file format at some stage, just to see how much detail can be pulled from shadows and highlights. What’s clear is that the Super CCD sensor in the S6500 handles higher dynamic range scenes much much better than the older and clunkier S7000. Two years of digital camera advancement makes a big difference, and I can only imagine how thrilled I would have been to have had this camera way back when!