new camera testing for faults

J

JonClarke

Messages
386
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I have just purchased a brand new s5 pro and there appears to be a dozen white dots in the image.

what is the best way to check for shutter count, dead pixels and other faults there could be?
 
They be be dead/stuck pixels, they be :( The software can be mapped to ignore them, but if it's straight out the box then send it back. Was it new or a Fuji refurb?
 
brand spanking new

the guy who served me insisted on getting it all out the box at the counter to make sure it was all ok which i thought was a bit odd.

has anyone had any experience of taking cameras back to jessops? i hope they can swap it there and then.

also what programe can i download to view the shutter count? i've looked in the flickr exif but its not showing.
 
JonClarke said:
brand spanking new

the guy who served me insisted on getting it all out the box at the counter to make sure it was all ok which i thought was a bit odd.

has anyone had any experience of taking cameras back to jessops? i hope they can swap it there and then.

also what programe can i download to view the shutter count? i've looked in the flickr exif but its not showing.
Click to expand...

Jessops always take the stuff out and show it to you/check it. Doesn't stop them selling damaged or faulty goods occasionally though. I've never had a problem taking anything back to them, they'll either swap it or give you your money back there and then.

I'm still debating where to buy my S5 from - Calumet are cheaper than both Fuji and Jessops but Jessops said they would match the price - the 28 day return policy might just be worth the going to Jessops for...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Jessops always take the stuff out and show it to you/check it. Doesn't stop them selling damaged or faulty goods occasionally though. I've never had a problem taking anything back to them, they'll either swap it or give you your money back there and then.

I'm still debating where to buy my S5 from - Calumet are cheaper than both Fuji and Jessops but Jessops said they would match the price - the 28 day return policy might just be worth the going to Jessops for...
Click to expand...

thanks thats good to know. im going there tomorrow to sort it out

hope it go's well
 
thanks

i've just tried shooting in jpeg+raw

jpeg - has a load of hot pixels and noise
raw - when opened the hot pixels are visable in blue for a second then they dissapear.

once saved in tiff and then converted to jpeg there are no hot pixels and look a lot cleaner.

stange.
 
i have just done a quick test.

original jpeg file. 5.41 mb
notice the hot pixels scattered around the image. and the lack of detail.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2953241740_441a4169a5_o.jpg

converted TIF from original RAF file. 17.7 mb
no hot pixels
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2952410635_74a8cb3d85_o.jpg

converted jpeg from original tiff file 3.74 mb
no hot pixels
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/2953241724_5555b63609_o.jpg

All done using cs3 camera raw

im confussed. should i take it back?
 
As you used CS3 for all tests and the TIFF and RAW are OK, I would start to consider that it's the in camera processing that's causing the problem.


Try one more test, this time letting the camera produce the largest JPEG it can. The problem may be with the interpolation of the data within the camera. Producing a larger JPEG may clear this up. Also do the TIFF and RAW options as well.

There is obviously something wrong.So you should consider returning the camera. The question is will another one be any better. If it's a characteristic of the model then you'll probably have the same problem. Personally I'd take it back.
 
JonClarke said:
this was taken with the lens cap on. not stars in the sky :(

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2951763547_b2e7d67b8c_o.jpg
Click to expand...

This was a ten second exposure, which is sure to generate noise, which can manifest as hot pixels, particularly in a very dark image. Try the shot again with long exposure noise reduction switched in - youmay well see a big difference.

Looking at the others - all are shot at 6 seconds. I've a feeling that with normal exposure values, and viewed at normal size, these artifacts will be all but, if not invisible.

Pixel peeping can lead to paranoia:thinking:
 
Don't want to confuse things but unless you've altered the black pic since your original post cant see any white spots or any other for that matter. It looks noise free to me. Any chance you could draw a coloured circle where you are seeing the spots.
Perhaps it's your monitor....or mine
 
frank said:
Don't want to confuse things but unless you've altered the black pic since your original post cant see any white spots or any other for that matter. It looks noise free to me. Any chance you could draw a coloured circle where you are seeing the spots.
Perhaps it's your monitor....or mine
Click to expand...

He'd be drawing circles for ever, it looks like a black dug with a lot of dandruff :LOL:
 
frank said:
Don't want to confuse things but unless you've altered the black pic since your original post cant see any white spots or any other for that matter. It looks noise free to me. Any chance you could draw a coloured circle where you are seeing the spots.
Perhaps it's your monitor....or mine
Click to expand...

They are still there dude, might need to make the pic 100% to see them though
 
Sorry about my post, never noticed my Huey had switched itself off and also got my wife to point them out. Fired up the laptop which is only a few weeks old and the white spots are more prominent on that screen, looks like a problem after all...maybe for me too. Wish I had'nt read your post now :LOL: maybe it's time for a better monitor. :crying:
 
JonClarke said:
this was taken with the lens cap on. not stars in the sky :(

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2951763547_b2e7d67b8c_o.jpg
Click to expand...

i have just run it through a dead pixel test and it come back with 123 hot pixels and 0 dead :eek:

0 dead and 0 hot on the tiff file.

sure it was taken at 10 seconds at iso 500 but 123 is shocking

10 seconds isn't that much of a test. i would expect 10 hot at the very most

if it was going for 30 minutes at iso 1600 i could understand.

my in camera processor must be seriously messed up.

the images also look very soft viewed at the original size, even my d40 looks better.

i'll be taking it back on Saturday for a full refund and i think i'll pay the extra for a D300
 
JonClarke said:
brand spanking new

the guy who served me insisted on getting it all out the box at the counter to make sure it was all ok which i thought was a bit odd.
Click to expand...

No they do have a habbit of doing that. When I got my D3 and 70-200 they took them both out to show me them. And I know the D3 was new because it was just after release day and I got the only one that was delivered that same morning.
 
JonClarke said:
i have just run it through a dead pixel test and it come back with 123 hot pixels and 0 dead :eek:

0 dead and 0 hot on the tiff file.

sure it was taken at 10 seconds at iso 500 but 123 is shocking

10 seconds isn't that much of a test. i would expect 10 hot at the very most

if it was going for 30 minutes at iso 1600 i could understand.
Click to expand...

The S5 Pro doesn't do any dark noise subtraction, so you can expect some hot pixels without Long Exposure NR at 10 seconds.

123 does sound somewhat excessive though :LOL:

But I suspect you didn't have that many in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top