Why did Fuji abandon the SuperCCD sensor?

Bruce wrote in
:

[The D300 also offered excellent low noise performance that was (and
still is) the best of any APS-C camera, although it has almost been
matched by the new 16 MP sensor in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5 and
Sony A55.]

Huh? That is totally false. The D300 pixels have a read noise of about
1.0 12-bit ADU at base ISO; the K5 has about 0.9 *14-bit* ADU, about 22% as
much read noise per pixel, slightly less per image with more pixels
(19.4%), and the quantum efficiency is higher, too.

There is nothing that compares to the Nikon D7000, the Pentax K-5, or the
Sony A55, for APS-C DR, and only the FF D3X touches them, as far as DSLRs
go (slightly higher noise floor, but slightly less photon shot noise).

Bruce wrote in
:

John Sheehy wrote:
Bruce wrote in
m:

[The D300 also offered excellent low noise performance that was (and
still is) the best of any APS-C camera, although it has almost been
matched by the new 16 MP sensor in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5 and
Sony A55.]

Huh? That is totally false. The D300 pixels have a read noise of
about 1.0 12-bit ADU at base ISO; the K5 has about 0.9 *14-bit* ADU,
about 22% as much read noise per pixel, slightly less per image with
more pixels (19.4%), and the quantum efficiency is higher, too.

There is nothing that compares to the Nikon D7000, the Pentax K-5, or
the Sony A55, for APS-C DR, and only the FF D3X touches them, as far
as DSLRs go (slightly higher noise floor, but slightly less photon
shot noise).

Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?

On 1/10/2011 7:14 AM, Bruce wrote:
John wrote:
wrote
Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?


I note you were unable to answer the simple question I asked.

Perhaps we should set up a new newsgroup for people like you,
something along the lines of "alt.measurbators". Note there is no
mention of "photo" in that title.

In the meantime, welcome to my kill file, and don't bother replying .


Hey, take it easy on John. At least he's not talking about banding in
the 5D II.

On 1/9/2011 8:10 PM, John Sheehy wrote:
wrote in
:

John wrote:
wrote in
:

[The D300 also offered excellent low noise performance that was (and
still is) the best of any APS-C camera, although it has almost been
matched by the new 16 MP sensor in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5 and
Sony A55.]

Huh? That is totally false. The D300 pixels have a read noise of
about 1.0 12-bit ADU at base ISO; the K5 has about 0.9 *14-bit* ADU,
about 22% as much read noise per pixel, slightly less per image with
more pixels (19.4%), and the quantum efficiency is higher, too.

There is nothing that compares to the Nikon D7000, the Pentax K-5, or
the Sony A55, for APS-C DR, and only the FF D3X touches them, as far
as DSLRs go (slightly higher noise floor, but slightly less photon
shot noise).

Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?


Careful. As soon as you call Brucie on anything, he claims to ignore
what you say.

--
Peter

On 1/10/2011 7:14 AM, Bruce wrote:
John wrote:
wrote
Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?


I note you were unable to answer the simple question I asked.

Perhaps we should set up a new newsgroup for people like you,
something along the lines of "alt.measurbators". Note there is no
mention of "photo" in that title.

In the meantime, welcome to my kill file, and don't bother replying .


As predicted.

--
Peter

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2011 7:14 AM, Bruce wrote:
John wrote:
wrote
Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to
make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?


I note you were unable to answer the simple question I asked.

Perhaps we should set up a new newsgroup for people like you,
something along the lines of "alt.measurbators". Note there is no
mention of "photo" in that title.

In the meantime, welcome to my kill file, and don't bother replying .


As predicted.

--
Peter

A pity - I have a lot of respect for John Sheehy's contributions.

Cheers,
David

On 1/18/2011 2:14 AM, David J Taylor wrote:

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2011 7:14 AM, Bruce wrote:
John wrote:
wrote
Do you ever take photographs, or do you just waffle on about pet
theories and paper specifications?

What difference would that make? What I said is completely true.

People who ask if people take pictures when they make technical
statements are morons, grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to make
people to stop writing or saying things that remind them of how little
they know.

I suppose you would prefer incorrect information?


I note you were unable to answer the simple question I asked.

Perhaps we should set up a new newsgroup for people like you,
something along the lines of "alt.measurbators". Note there is no
mention of "photo" in that title.

In the meantime, welcome to my kill file, and don't bother replying .


As predicted.

--
Peter

A pity - I have a lot of respect for John Sheehy's contributions.

So do I and I think most of us who think.
Brucie claimed he took the predicted action.

--
Peter