Digital Cameras - Fuji MX1200 Test Images
(Original test posting: 10/29/99)
We've begun including links in our reviews to a Thumber-generated
index page for our test shots. The Thumber data includes a host of
information on the images, including shutter speed, ISO setting, compression
setting, etc. Rather than clutter the page below with *all* that detail,
we're posting the Thumber index so only those interested in the information
need wade through it! ;) |
|
|
Outdoor portrait:
(610k) Wow! Excellent color, great resolution! This
was the first image from this camera that we "put under the microscope"
in preparing our analysis, and we were literally startled by what we saw:
The color is exceptional, literally some of the best we've seen on this
shot (October, 1999). Detail, tonal range, and shadow detail are excellent
also. The default exposure (607k)
was rather dark, and it took 3 steps of EV adjustment to a total exposure
compensation of +0.9EV to arrive at the version we selected for our main
shot (610k). We shot this test using both automatic
and daylight white balance, saving only the daylight versions for presentation
here. The difference was subtle, with the auto version just slightly cooler
in hue. The table below shows a range of exposure compensations, from 0
to +1.2 EV, all shot with the Daylight white balance setting. Exposure Variations:
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Closer portrait:
(593k) As usual, this shot requires less exposure
compensation than the test above, because the model's face fills more of
the frame. We chose as our main shot (593k)
the one with only +0.3 EV of exposure compensation. Again, excellent color
and tone, but the MX-1200's performance in this shot is hurt a bit by its
somewhat wide angle, fixed focus lens. We couldn't completely fill the frame
with the model's head, due to the close-focus limitation of normal focus
mode, and the wide-angle lens tended to distort her facial features as well.
(This is true of any wide-angle lens. Portrait photographers usually use
a longer focal length, to de-emphasize the subject's nose.) As before, we
preferred the Daylight white balance setting for this shot. The table below
shows a range of exposure compensations, from 0 to +1.2 EV, all shot with
the Daylight white balance setting.
Exposure Variations:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Indoor portrait,
flash: (580k) Only one shot here, as
there weren't really any variations to try. (Actually, we could have tried
a shot with the slow-synchro mode enabled, but overlooked it in our testing
frenzy.) The basic flash exposure worked very well though, with a nice tonal
balance, and good color. The overall color is slightly "warm",
probably a result of the strong incandescent lighting in this scene. The
result (580k) is far from
objectionable though, and also cleans up very well in Photoshop(tm) with
an "auto levels" adjustment. Overall, a very good performance. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Indoor
portrait, no flash: (594k) This shot
is a very tough test of a camera's white balance capability, given the strong
yellowish color cast of the household incandescent bulbs used for the lighting.
The MX-1200's auto white balance system wasn't strong enough to remove the
color cast, producing rather yellowish results, as shown here
(593k). The Incandescent white balance
setting (594k) did fairly well though, leaving
a little bit of the warmer coloring, but an overall pleasing shot, with
good color. We did find though, that the camera require a lot of exposure
compensation to produce good results here, as we went all the way to the
maximum adjustment of +1.5EV to get our main shot. The table below shows
a range of exposure compensations, from 0 to +1.5 EV, all shot with the
Daylight white balance setting.
Exposure compensation series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
House shot:
(719k) Always a tough test of camera resolution, the
MX-1200 performed well here (719k),
showing resolution about typical of other 1.3 megapixel cameras we've tested
in the past. Corner sharpness suffers slightly relative to the center, but
again is about typical of the results we've seen with other cameras in its
resolution range: Better than some, not as good as others. Overall a fine
performance. The table below contains samples of all the resolution/quality
modes: Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot versions of this image in the largest/highest-quality mode, testing the three "sharpness" settings. The results are in the table below: Sharpness Series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Far-Field shot:
(705k) This image is shot at infinity to test far-field
lens performance. NOTE that this image cannot be directly compared to the
other "house" shot, which is a poster, shot in the studio. The
rendering of detail in the poster will be very different than in this shot,
and color values (and even the presence or absence of leaves on the trees!)
will vary in this subject as the seasons progress. In general though, you
can evaluate detail in the bricks, shingles, and window detail, and in the
tree branches against the sky. Compression artifacts are most likely to
show in the trim along the edge of the roof, in the bricks, or in the relatively
"flat" areas in the windows. Another tough resolution test, but a very sharp image (705k), well within the mainstream of 1.3 megapixel camera offerings, impressive given the MX-1200's low price. (The angle on this shot will be a bit different that that for other, zoom-lens-equipped cameras, since the wide-angle fixed focal length of the MX-1200 required that we move in closer to take the shot. The result is that the shot is taken from below, looking up at the house more than is the case with some cameras.) The table below contains samples of all the resolution/quality modes: Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot versions of this image in the largest/highest-quality mode, testing the three "sharpness" settings. The results are in the table below: Sharpness Series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Lens Zoom Range (new): We've
received a number of requests from readers to take shots showing the lens
focal length range of those cameras with zoom lenses. Thus, we're happy
to present you here with the following pair of shots, showing the field
of view with respectively, the normal shooting mode, and with the "digital
telephoto" option engaged. Note that both images here are shot in low-resolution
mode, to ease download times. In normal shooting mode, the larger image
size is also an option, but in digital telephoto mode, only the smaller
file size is possible.
|
||||||||||||||
|
"Musicians"
poster: (671k) Another good performance
from an inexpensive camera, with the MX-1200 showing good color and resolution.
We chose the shots taken with the white balance set to Automatic as being
the best here (671k) though
it was a bit of a toss-up between those and the ones we shot using the Sunny
setting. The auto white balance shots were a bit warm in hue, the sunny
white balance ones a little cool. (See the white balance series in the table
below to compare for yourself.) Overall, a good showing. The table below
shows the results obtained with all resolution/image quality setting combinations: Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot versions of this image in the largest/highest-quality mode, testing the three "sharpness" settings. The results are in the table below: Sharpness Series:
Here are versions of this image shot in the small/high-quality mode, testing the three "daylight" white balance option: White Balance Series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Macro shot:
(673k) We were initially confused by the "beta"
documentation we received with the MX-1200, which gave the closest focusing
distance in Macro mode as 2.5 inches. Try as we might, we couldn't get the
camera to focus well that close, the best we were able to achieve being
a little under 4 inches. Lo and behold, writer-gal Stephanie discovered
elsewhere in the docs that the correct spec was actually 3.9 inches (10
cm). At that distance, the MX-1200's images are reasonably sharp, and the
coverage area respectable, if not microscopic. The minimum subject area
is 2.8 x 3.7 inches (71 x 95 mm), as shown here.
(673k) The flash throttles down well for macro shooting,
as shown here (658k), although
glare from the silver dollar resulted in an overall underexposure. Finally,
the Digital Telephoto option also works in Macro mode, with results as seen
here. (162k) As always
with digital telephoto options, the viewing area is reduced, but so is resolution. |
||||||||||||||
|
"Davebox"
test target: (289k) In this test, the automatic
white balance option won out by just a hair: All white balance variations
produced a somewhat yellowish cast, although color was otherwise good. Tonal
range is very good, with detail being preserved quite deep into the shadows.
The table below shows the results obtained with all resolution/image quality
setting combinations: Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot versions of this image in the largest/highest-quality mode, testing the three "sharpness" settings. The results are in the table below: Sharpness Series:
We shot versions of this image in the small/highest-quality mode, to show the three "daylight" white balance options. The results are in the table below: White Balance Series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Low-Light Tests Well, at some point, we expected to find an area where the MX-1200 didn't fare as well as cameras costing hundreds of dollars more, and the low light test turned out to be it. The combination of an ISO rating of 125, a maximum aperture of f/4.5, and a maximum exposure time of 1/4 second should mean that the camera would only be able to capture usable images down to a level of what we've been calling EV11, more properly 16 foot-candles, or 175 lux. In fact, our testing revealed that it did quite well down to a level of EV9 (4 foot-candles, 44 lux), and produced a picture we'd consider usable at EV8 (2 foot-candles, 22 lux). Better than it's specifications, but still not the camera to use for snapshots by moonlight. In order to get these low-light pictures though, we found it helpful to adjust the manual exposure compensation to +0.9EV. The table below shows the results we obtained at a range of illuminations, from 8 foot-candles (88 lux) down to 1 foot-candle (11 lux).
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Flash Range Test (New) (This test was added in August 1999, so cameras tested before that time won't have comparison pictures available. As we go forward though, all the new models will have similar tests available.) Fuji specifies a maximum range for the on-board flash of 2.5 meters, or about 8 feet. We found that the flash was indeed brightest at that distance, but felt it could be considered usable to at least 10 feet. One thing we did notice in some of our shots was an artifact we've observed in other cameras in which the flash tube was mounted very close to the camera lens, as it is in the MX-1200. In some of our shots (such as this (M12FL09.HTM) one), you can see what look almost like water spots on a piece of furniture: Ghostly blobs floating in mid air. These are almost certainly images of dust particles very close to the camera, illuminated by the flash. The air in our studio is relatively clean, but in a dusty environment, flash shots with the MX-1200 could be problematic. (This problem doesn't seem to occur in cameras with greater separation between the flash tube and camera lens.) The table below shows the results we obtained with the MX-1200's onboard flash, at distances ranging from 8 to 14 feet. (All shots were taken using the digital telephoto mode, to avoid including the messy details of our studio in the wide-angle field of view of the MX-1200's lens.) Flash Range/Distance:
|
||||||||||||||
|
ISO 12233 ("WG-18")
resolution target: (586k) Although our other
test images looked quite sharp, the MX-1200 showed resolution somewhat less
than the best we've seen in other 1.3 megapixel cameras. We judged the "visual
resolution" to be about 600 lines per picture height in both vertical
and horizontal directions, although some aliasing was evident, particularly
in the vertical direction, starting at frequencies as low as 420 lines per
picture height. Good enough, as evidenced by our other, "real world"
shots, but not the best we've seen. The table below shows the results obtained
with all resolution/image quality setting combinations, other than the digital
telephoto option, which is shown here (157k): Resolution/Quality Series:
We also shot versions of this image in the largest/highest-quality mode, testing the three "sharpness" settings. The results are in the table below: Sharpness Series:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Viewfinder accuracy/flash uniformity target:
We found the optical viewfinder on the MX-1200 to be probably the most vexing
aspect of the entire camera, although in fairness, it may not bother casual
users as much as ourselves. (Accurate framing is much more of an issue with
many of our shots than it ever would be for normal picture-taking.) Fuji
specifies the optical viewfinder's accuracy as 80% frame coverage, but we
actually ended up with a measured accuracy more like 87%, as shown here
(157k). (We perhaps worked a little harder to see
what was at the edges of the viewfinder frame than Fuji intended most folks
to do, resulting in the higher accuracy figure.) Note that many digicams
have viewfinder accuracies of 80% or even lower: What we found frustrating
in the MX-1200's viewfinder was that there wasn't a clear, abrupt "edge"
to it, the image instead sort of trailing off, with the result that we could
see more or less of the subject depending on how we positioned our eye.
We'd much prefer viewfinders with sharply defined edges, even if the coverage
is somewhat less. By contrast, the LCD viewfinder was quite accurate, showing
about 97% of the final image area, as seen here
(154k). We now routinely measure lens distortion as part of our camera testing. The MX-1200 actually did quite well in this respect, showing only modest barrel distortion of 0.6%, and very little chromatic aberration. (We estimated the latter at about a half-pixel, or 0.04%, based on the slight color fringes around objects at the edges of our resolution test target.) |
Back to Fuji MX-1200 Review
Jump to Comparometer(tm) to compare with other cameras
Or, up to Imaging Resource Cameras Page.
Follow Imaging Resource: