I wonder if those 12MP pixels are all on the same plane? It's hard to tell if this is really a 6MP camera that interpolates up to 12MP like the previous S2, or if this is really a 12MP camera. With it's crop factor it doesn't seem like a true 12MP camera . . .

Fuji is doing some cool things.  I kind of wish they would stop fudging their resolution numbers though.

I hope Fuji has thought more about their users with the S3.  We use several S2's, and both image quality and mechanical features are fine for our needs.  However, the small buffer and failure to generate thumbnails for LCD review can be really problematic.  If those issues aren't addressed in the S3, there is no point in laying out several thousand dollars for a slight gain in image quality.  Instead I'll buy more S2's now that they are cheap, and wait through a few more marketing cycles beforee replacing them.  

It's time for all of us to get past the sensor semantics game and return to shooting.  If all the manufacturers realize we aren't listening to their blather, perhaps they will start listening to us!

I have one fear for the S3, and that is software quality.  In the UK, Fuji do not even supply the dreadful hyper utility raw software with the S2 - it has to be purchased seperately.   Fuji have to rethink this with the S3, where I imagine using Raw will be essential to make the most of the improved dynamic range.

Quentin

Here's the official news:  

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020503fujifilms3pro.asp

I'm intrigued, but waiting to find out about the fps and frame buffer. Also, the sync speed. Obviously, we'll find out about those things either in the next few days or next week at PMA. You going to PMA Michael?

It can get confusing, but in terms of microlenses, it's a 6mp camera with interpolated 12mp output.

Possibly, being the latest iteration of the super CCD design, and with those secondary sensors, it may improve on the resolution of the S2 slightly.

I think it is commendable that Fuji are not at this stage chasing pixels but are concentrating on dynamic range.  I just wish we'd see a better body than the mediocre N80 used as its base.

Quentin

Sadly, everybody's pixels counts are fudged in some ways, compared to the implicit idea that each pixel is a full three colour description from a certain location on the sensor; Fuji and Sigma are counting photo-detectors; Fuji on the basis that their extras give the benefit of more dynamic range, Sigma on the basis that their extras give more resolution. It would be nice if they both kept to using the correct jargon of photo-detectors that each has used in their more cautious moments.

  I suppose that tested counts of "line pairs per picture height" overcomes most of the fudging, even if it is still a rather rough indication.

  The whole silliness might go away if most customers could be expected to compare a few suitably large prints before spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a camera partly on the basis of its resolution claims!

I have, surprise, surprise, a Sigma SD10. This camera really teaches us the point that pixel quality is more important than pixel count. This quality, granted, is not great in really low light, but in all other circumstances produces images that really blow me away!

I am kind of hoping that the Fuji S3 could be for me the 2nd camera for low light, delivering similar great quality pixels and give me the ablity to use some great Nikon glass.

See my post with links to SD10 images
on this forum at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin....4;t=451

Please understand, this is an argument for pixel quality, not an advertsiement for one brand over another: whoever delivers the quality gets my vote!