* update 2009.06.14 / 25b. Fuji F200 EXR and image quality (updated twice on the same day)
* update 2009.03.15 / 25.Conclusion - small update to comparison against Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3
* update 2009.03.01 / 5.Contrast and metering - about the contrast curve of F100fd vs Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3
* update 2009.03.01 / 25.Conclusion - comparison to other cameras
* update 2008.09.10 / pink band example with firmware v1.02
* update 2008.08.30 / Image quality section, blotching (fix example) and pink band (fix example) updated
* update 2008.08.24 / DR 200% and 400% and blotching updated
* update 2008.08.17 / conclusion updated and DR 200% and 400% updated
* update 2008.08.13 / Some small additions to text in 15. Image quality (differences to TZ3)
and link to Neatimage noise profiles in 26a. My post processing workflow
* update 2008.08.09 / chapters of the text organized to a more logical order
* update 2008.08.08 / text about post processing F100fd images

Fuji F100fd review and user report

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Introduction
2. Cons, annoyances and missing features of the Fuji F100fd
3. Pros and nice things about the Fuji F100fd
5. Contrast and metering
6. Dynamic range 200% and 400%
7. Macro mode
8. Chrome color
9. CA and PF
10. Image stabilization
11. Focusing
12. White balance
15. Image quality
15a. Blotching
15b. Pink band
19. Image quality of F100fd vs F30 and vs F50
20. Compared to Fuji F30
25. Conclusion (and comparison to Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3)
25b. Fuji F200 EXR
26a. My post processing workflow
26b. B&W conversion in post processing
27. Fuji F100fd image gallery

Introduction ^
This is a review of the Fuji F100fd, which is a compact camera with 1/1.6" size sensor and a 28-140mm zoom lens. The camera provides sensitivities of ISO 100 to 3200 with full resolution and ISO 6400 and 12800 with 3MP resolution. I will try to keep this review as concise as possible, as most of the people reading this text will have basic information about the camera and photography in general. Some of the text in this review (like post processing workflow) has been copied and modified with small alterations/updates from my earlier F30 review. If you are interested in looking at the Fuji F30 review (some comparison to DSLR at ISO 100 etc), click here. Be noted, that the following observations come from someone, who uses and likes to use post processing programs to improve images. I don't want the camera's output image to be ready for print, I want it to be the kind that can be tuned in to the best possible with a *little* work. So, if you want to use your camera for happy snap-shooting, without worrying about post processing at all, there may be some text that you want to skip. First, we'll begin this review by talking about what the camera should be and what it isn't.

Cons, annoyances and missing features of the Fuji F100fd ^
Fuji announced this camera as "the ultimate ‘F Series’ digital camera", "the most accomplished model in the range yet", "one of the most sophisticated compact digital cameras Fujifilm has ever produced", "the perfect camera for the serious photographer looking for a no-compromise compact digital camera that is well above the average model". This is misleading and very very close to lying (and can be seen depending on point of view as outright lying). As Fuji markets the camera as the ultimate F- series camera, I'm going to pay a little closer attention to what is missing here. Also, if someone is willing to translate this review to japanese and read it to the Fuji F- series project manager, I'd be delighted. Just drop me a note if you do so!

- Reduced features
Compared to F30/31, Fuji has removed the EV-button and Aperture and Shutter speed modes and the Aperture iris. The camera auto selects from two possible aperture "holes". This clearly limits the camera's functionality.

- Lack of a histogram
One of the most serious shortcomings of the camera is the (STILL) missing histogram. There is no live or display histogram, which is frankly unbelievable in this time and age of the digital camera. The F100fd's LCD has a poor dynamic range - it clips the highlights and the shadows and this makes determining proper exposure hard. Combined with the missing histogram, it makes one of the most important aspects of photography - achieving correct exposure - unnecessarily challenging. There is also no exposure bracketing mode, which is also a shame.

- Handling
The usability of the camera is below average. There is no dedicated EV button, which is a shame and serious limitation. The exposure correction setting needs to be accessed from the menu-button via a 2 second push. Then you need an additional push of the same button and then you get to change the value. This is unnecessarily slow. Also, after and image is taken, it is impossible to acces the menus while the camera is writing the photo to the memory card (a few seconds). So, after you take a picture it takes about 4-5 seconds before you can take another photo with a different exposure! It is frustrating in a situation where you need to take several photos because of challenging exposure or after you find that the image has been over- or underexposed.

- Lack of a menu wheel
Instead of a conventional menu wheel (where you can select the shooting mode, movie mode, night mode, etc) the Fuji F100fd has a "virtual menu wheel" that is displayed on the LCD. A conventional, manual menu wheel would be MUCH more convenient and faster to use! Using a manual wheel you can access most common features fast - like the movie mode, instead of shufling through the menu list.

- Continuous shooting
Continuous shooting mode is turned off, when the power is turned off. The exposure compensation value and white balance setting are kept in memory after swithcing the camera off, but the continuous shooting mode is not. It needs to be switched on every time (this is something that has made me say "arrrrggh!" several times...) *IF* it was necessary to reset one of those settings, it should be the other way round - the WB should be reset to Auto WB and the Continuous shooting mode should be kept in memory! I can't see a reason for automatically switching it off. In practice, the contiuous shooting mode is not very handy (competing brands usually feature better continuous shooting modes). It can only take a series of 3 shots OR a long (slower) series, where focus is set differently for each photo.

- Megapixel madness
I admit that this is something of a contagious disease in the digital camera business, but nevertheless it should not mean that camera performance is getting worse compared to previous models! 12 megapixels is unnecessary. High ISO quality (ISO 800 and up) has decreased since F30/F31 cameras because of increased pixel count. At pixel level, I often get the feeling that the images are not as sharp as the F30 images, but the resolution of the F100fd is still equivalent to the F30 (or better), as the images have a little more detail and look a little sharper than the F30 images when resized to 6 megapixels. This is true at lower ISO's of 100- 400. At ISo 800 and up the F30 images start to look better, because they have less noise.

- Limited shutter speed
The longest available time of exposure is 1/4 seconds in modes besides the Night mode.

- Night shooting mode
The low light shooting of F100fd really has been screwed up, because of restrictions to shutter speed and ISOs available. The ISO can not be manually selected in night shot mode, it is automatically set between 100-200. In night shooting mode the exposure can not be set manually for shorter than 1 second exposures (the camera auto exposes for 1/4 to 1 second exposures). For exposures longer than 1 second, the exposure on the other hand MUST be set manually. Auto exposure is available for night shots of under 1 second, but then the exposure value (EV) can not be changed! There is no manual shutter speed setting for shots shorter 1 second. Also (this is important) there is no dark frame substraction, which results in many bright pixels in long exposures. The Night shot mode is a strangely crippled feature. What a shame.

- Flash
The flash is underpowered. Not that I use the flash ( I almost never do), but those that do use it may be interested in knowing, that in EVERY situation that I've tried the flash, it fails to give enough power.

- Lack of manual focus
No manual focus possibility. Why?! This should be an easy addition to the menus and it would make taking quick snaps of Night Scenery, photos with critical timing, etc etc so much easier and faster.

- Lack of an exposure lock button
There is no way to lock exposure and recompose the image (set focus and exposure on different areas). This is something that a camera intended for _photography_ should have.

- No iris diaphragm. No shutter speed or aperture modes
I already mentioned this, but let's think this over more closely. This results in limited control of Depth Of Field or Shutter speed. Compact cameras mostly have very limited possibilities to control the DOF, but when taking pictures of people the photographer still usually want's to minimize DOF and this is now impossible. Where the DOF is most visibly controllable by the photographer, is the macro mode. In the macro mode (or just close up shots - macro is commonly referred to photographs with 1:1 magnification) it is in my opinion most important with a compact camera to have control over DOF. The macro mode gives the shortest DOF and here the user often want's to mimimize OR maximize the DOF, depenging on the subject being photographed or the effect desired. With the F100fd, it is impossible to control the DOF and the camera autoselects the aperture from (only) the two aperture holes available.

- Lack of adjustable image parameters
There is still no possibility to change sharpening / contrast / saturation settings (no F-series Fuji camera has this option).

- Errors with 8G Micro SD cards
There are read/write errors with 8GB Class 6 Micro SD cards and they have been widely reported, but Fuji has not announced incompatibility with any 8GB cards, nor has it released a firmware fix to resolve this! I have also personally found the errors with Class 6 8Gb Micro SD cards to be true. This is just unacceptable behaviour from Fuji and is something that will not build Fuji's reputation as a camera manufacturer.

- Sensor overheating (pink band)
Last, but maybe not least, a shortcoming that is perhaps the most discussed on the forums: left side sensor overheating. Well, at least I presume the phenomenon is related to sensors over heating, faulty connectors or something like that. Anyway, the result is a visible, transparent magenta hued glow of approximately 100-200 pixels of width on the left hand side of the image. It does not trouble all images - it is usually rare to see the pink band in everyday photography, but then again it depends on what kind of situtations you use the camera in. Most commonly the pink band seems to appear, when shutter speed is 1/4 or near that value with ISO's of 400 or higher. But sometimes the pink band can also appear with the lower ISOs (to lesser extent) and with faster shutter speeds with the higher ISOs. There's more about the pink band later in the text.

Pros and nice things about the Fuji F100fd ^
There's a lot missing from the F100fd, but if detailed and noise-free images (compared to other compact cameras) are your biggest concern, at least here the Fuji delivers.

+ Image quality
The image quality is good with ISO 100 - 400. Optical quality is good, there is very little CA and purple fringing - a visible improvement to F30. There is less noise than with other (current) compact cameras. Very good ISO 100. Overall image quality is very good for a compact camera. The images are not oversaturated. In-camera sharpening is done just right, as it was with F30/F31 cameras. There is no need to sharpen in post processing for most uses. There are also no disturbing sharpening halos to be seen - most competition does worse in this respect.

+ Size
The camera can be carried in the front pocket of jeans and still it has better lens than previous F-series cameras. It's small enough for me.

+ Versatile lens
28mm - 140mm in a very compact size is pretty good. Also, at least this camera has a passable image stabilization, although it is worse than competion (Canon and Panasonic).

+ Exposure and focus accuracy
Exposure is usually pretty accurate and focus is accurate and fast.

+ Battery
The battery is not the best there is, but it's actually better than it's reputation. I get 400-500 shots with a single charge, which is more than I've seen stated. Two batteries get you through a day of shooting, which is pretty good for a battery of this size. Not that I don't wish for the battery to be better - the F30's battery perfomance was simply incredible.

contrast and metering ^
(updated 2009/03/01)
Metering in general is reasonably accurate. Sometimes there is the need to apply extreme positive exposure correction, but besides that, the metering seems pretty reliable. Dynamic range is not bad for a compact camera, but now that I've compared to Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10, the contrast curve on the F100fd is stronger than in the other two. Dynamic range is not worse than average of digital cameras or the Fuji F30.

There seems to be surprisingly little difference in the "Multi" and Average metering modes. It is usually hard to tell the difference bewtween the modes in practice, but when photographing high contrast scenes, the Multi metering mode seems to be more reliable (and results in less burning of highlights). In ordinary daylight shots, the exposure is usually pretty accurate, but in some situations (like backlit subjects or scenes with lots of white, etc) the images are easily underexposed a bit more than usual. In some situations the F100fd tends to underexpose so severely, that the exposure should be corrected by more than the available +2 EV. In a way, the camera does not let the user overexpose the shots, which is limiting, because sometimes the image just needs to be overexposed!

Contrast curve of the F100fd
How you feel about the contrast depends on what you are comparing to, really. Compared to compact cameras in general, contrast is on a reasonable level. Compared to advanced cameras like Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3, the contrast curve is a bit high and actually seems to affect shadows and midtones more than hilights. If you don't want to post process images and manage to expose the F100fd image properly, it will look good and probably better then G10 or LX3 out of camera, because of the higher contrast. Then again, if you wan't to post process images and want well balanced exposure and want to retain shadow detail, then the G10 and LX3 will have the advantage.

After comparing F100fd images to Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3, it looks that low key and otherwise dark toned images from F100fd are 1/3 stops, maybe 1/2 stops less exposed in general than images from the other two. In these cases the F100fd gives the impression of having a less sensitive sensor than some other cameras. This is probably due to two factors: 1) Most importantly in regards to exposure, the camera has quite a strong contrast curve, which darkens shadows and and even midtones more than for example Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10 and on the other hand brightens highlights. 2) on the other hand the camera's tendency to underexpose to avoid clipping highlights may make the effect a bit stronger in practical photography situations (for example scenes with strong light sources).

For example: With high key images the exposure seems to be pretty well matched with for example LX3, but contrast is a bit higher on the F100fd image. In a low key image (with information concentrated on the 2/3 left side of the histogram), the F100fd may well appear to 1/3 to 1/5 stops underexposed in comparison to a LX3 image, even though exposure is exactly the same.

In practice, when trying to match the general exposure to match other cameras, the F100fd would have to be exposed for a a bit longer period. In post processing, when trying to get a properly balanced photo with good shadow detail, the shadows have to be brightened. When applying a +1/3 to +1/2 EV direct exposure correction, the F100fd image is usually on the level of LX3 or G10 when looking at shadows or midtones, but the highlights (upper third of the histogram) may be overexposed. Naturally a curve or shadow/hilight feature (or some variant) should be used instead to retain the hilight detail).

That said, the contrast curve does leave room for post processing without producing overly flat images, but I wish that the camera had a user adjustable amount of contrast. G10 and LX3 will often have more post processing latitude because of a less steep contrast curve. In practice, because of the nature of F100fd's metering system and the way it's dealing with exposure and hilights, the highlights are usually preserved quite well, but on the cost of some shadow detail. It really is a shame that the camera does not have a histogram, because it would help in many cases increase exposure and get some more shadow detail and further help avoid overexposure. You should always "expose to the right" as much as possible (without clipping highlights) with compact cameras for best image quality (and least noise) and a histogram would help a lot. The LCD of the camera (actually LCD of ANY camera at the moment) is nowhere near good enough to judge exposure, especially in more demanding photographic situations - photographing towards light source, highly reflecting surfaces, light shining to the LCD, etc etc.

dynamic range 200% and 400% ^
This feature increases ISO to either ISO 200 or ISO 400, while trying to increase dynamic range of the captured scene. This option may be of some use, when photographing scenes that need the best possible dynamic range, but in practice this feature is only worthwhile when trying to get just more highlight detail from the scene - it is not very useful for trying to get more shadow detail. Shadow detail is compromised using the dynamic range option because of the increased ISO, but highlight detail is better preserved to varying extent. On the other hand, in many images a negative exposure compansation produces even better results than the dynamic range 200% or 400% option, because you can keep the sensitivity at ISO 100 and thus get less noise. The side effects of the Dynamic range feature are that noise is increased and details are decreased, because the feature uses either ISO 200 or ISO 400. Highlight colors may be distorted a bit when using the DR option (those highlights that would be normally clipped, but have been saved with the DR option).

Looking at the test target photo, it is evident that the DR 200% option reduces contrast and increases DR in that way. Some other tricks for optimizing DR may also be at work (I can't understand why the ISO would have to be increased otherwise). With the DR 400% option, the camera has decided to reduce the exposure of the image by about 1/3 stop, but this may be a coincidence in the set up photo. The DR 200% option might turn out to be a usefull compromise between the benefits and negatives of this feature. It is a shame, that Fuji couldn't just give the possibility to adjust the amount of contrast through image parameters - that would work with every ISO.

In a photo taken in sunlight, the the same findings apply. The following image represents the whole image area and the red square represents the 100% crop area.

The image is of a wooden roof in direct sunlight. The DR100% image is the sharpest, but the hilights are washed out. The DR200% image again looks like it has less contrast and it has retained more highlight information, but noise is starting to creep in and there is slightly less detail than in the DR100% image. The DR400 has more higlight information than the other two images, but noise is already obvious and shadow areas have less detail than in the DR100% image because of noise, even though the camera is obviously trying to save the shadow information with the DR-option. As a conclusion about the DR-option, I'd settle in using the DR200% in some scenes with high contrast or just decrease exposure and lift the shadows in post processing.

macro mode ^
The macro mode of the F100 gives the biggest magnification at the widest focal length and this makes the macro of limited use. The macro cannot be used very well to isolate objects. Also, the very close distance to the objects tends to distort proportions. On the other hand, the 28mm macro mode has some interesting uses - but I wish the camera would give better magnification at longer focal lengths. What SEVERELY limits the use of the macro mode, is the lack of aperture control: the macro mode gives the shortest DOF and here the user often want's to mimimize OR maximize the DOF. With the F100fd, it is impossible to control the DOF and the camera autoselects the aperture from (only) the two aperture holes available.

chrome color ^
Chrome color increases saturation and changes the Dynamic Range setting to Auto. It also appears to increase contrast. This mode usually oversaturates images and is not useful for someone who post processes images. If post processing the images, even increasing contrast with curves and levels makes the image easily look oversaturated when using in-camera boosted staturation. I stay with Standard color and increase saturation in post processing if necessary (actually pretty rarely). For someone that _never_ post processes images, this might be useful.

CA and PF ^
CA and purple fring are not a problem with this camera at all. Purple fringing and CA are such rare occurrences, that I'm half thinking there must be some in-camera processing going on to eliminate them. Something that the big brother camera S100fs would have desperately needed (it has a notoriously bad performance in regards to CA). What ever the case with the F100fd, at least the end result with PF and CA is very good. Compared to F30, there is very little CA and PF. I'm actually surprised, that this has so much improved, when so many things have gone the opposite direction compared to the older models. All this with the new lens that covers a greater focal length range, too.

this is the kind of fringing that you don't see in F100fd images (a detail from an F30 image)

image stabilization ^
Works and seems to be useful, but not as useful as competition. Other camera manufacturers like Canon and Panasonic provide image stabilization systems that work better.

Focusing ^
In most situations the camera focuses quite swiftly and accurately. Better performance than many compact cameras.

White balance ^
Auto White balance is in most situations perfectly satisfactory. Daylight and low light shots come out true to the scene, but as is usual, indoor lighting is more challenging and you may need to fiddle with the WB presets or custom WB at times. Indoor WB performance is not worse than average of compact cameras (but for example the Panasonic TZ cameras produce a better Auto WB result).

On the still life test image, Auto WB gave a pretty warm result. Selecting Manual white balance straight from the scene resulted in the image temp going way too blue. When I placed a white paper in front of the camera (really, most any white object is sufficient, you don't necessarily need any pro "white card") for the manual WB metering, the image was rendered with almost perfect white balance, if a bit cool.

Of course, the question is: was the scene REALLY to my eyes like it was for AWB or was it like Manual balance with white card is showing it? For many shots, I don't wan't the colors to be perfectly balanced, in fact I would probably prefer a warm, yellow cast if that was what it really was like in the scene to my eyes. On the other hand, for set up "studio" ;) shots I would probably prefer the properly balanced colors.

In the tungesten lit set up photo above you can see, how the Auto WB renders the image quite too warm. The incandescent preset (Tungsten in Exif data) rendered the color balance very well, with natural appearance and that would have been the best choice in this kind of indoor lighting.


Fuji F100fd, 1/4s f/3.3 at 6.4mm iso200

Image quality ^
As you have undoubtedly found out, I have a lot to complain about the F100fd. Image quality as such is not one of those things, though. If we just forget the rarely occurring pink band, the F100fd bears comparison to just about any compact camera available at the moment and at ISO 100-400 it presents the best available quality (update 09/03: Panasonic LX3 has as good or a bit better image quality and at ISO's of up to 400 the Canon G10 is as good but worse at ISO's of 800 and up). Then again, every camera has certain peculiarities and weaknesses when it comes to image quality. So the F100fd has shortcomings in image quality too and I will try explain the nature of F100fd's images thoroughly in this review. This doesn't mean that the F100fd has more image quality flaws than other cameras (pink band aside). I just try bring to light the noteworthy things, so the camera's users can better understand how the camera works and what might be done to improve the images further.

Images are sharp corner to corner at all focal lengths. There is visible barrel distortion at wide angle (6.4mm) and a little barrel distortion still at around 14mm that can be fixed with PTlens. F100fd is bit sharper at wide angle compared to tele (or middle way focal lengths). There is slightly more CA at full tele. Overall very little CA.

F100fd tends to underexpose at times. In practice, there seems to be little difference between average metering and matrix metering. Auto white balance is not very good indoors, the results are too warm images in incandescent light.

At ISO 100 there is some luminance noise, but it is quite even and can be easily further smoothed out in noise reduction programs, without leaving pathces of actual high frequency noise. Low contrast detail (texture) is quite well preserved. The images are very sharp at ISO 100. Overall images are quite smooth. Be noted though, that even at ISO 100, shadow areas of images are slightly affected by in-camera noise reduction and there the detail is slightly muted compared to other areas. The noise reduction perfomance is better than other compact cameras besides Panasonic LX3 though.

At ISO 200 there is a little more luminance noise, but the images are still quite smooth. Low contrast detail is still preserved quite well.

At ISO 400 the luminance noise is further increased and the noise is a little more uneven. Even still, the low contrast detail holds up surprisingly well. The images still appear quite smooth, a lot more so than Panasonic TZ3 images at ISO 400.

At ISO 800 the luminance noise takes a jump and begins to be visibly degrading to image quality. ISO 1600 is something that I personally in most situations draw the line at, because from there on the noise is getting so heavy. Much worse than the predecessor camera F30.

Following will be 100% crops at each ISO from ISO 100 to ISO 3200, taken from the this target set up. The focal length used was 14mm for all shots (also for Panasonic comparison photos).

The original 100% crop is on the left. On the middle is a version that has been treated with Neat image and on the right is a crop from the exact same setup photographed with Panasonic TZ3 that I happen to have around for comparison. As a side note it is worth mentioning, that the difference with the newer Panasonic TZ5 and older TZ3 is, that the TZ5 has more detail, but the images also have more noise and the flat areas (areas void of detail) are not as smooth with the TZ5 as they are with the TZ3. I used the TZ3 for the comparison to F100fd, because I have that camera at hand and can produce direct comparison shots.

The following crop is taken from the head of the mechanical chicken.

The next crop series is taken from the pencil container. You can see the raster print detail in the F100fd's ISO 100 and ISO 200 crops and they have pretty much blurred in the ISO 400 image. Panasonic couldn't catch the raster detail at all and it was blurred by noise. Fuji fares better at ISO 100 to ISO ISO 800. On the other hand, at ISO 1600 Fuji's noise jumps so obviously, that the Panasonic manages better quality with low contrast detail (but fares worse with high contrast detail). At ISO 800, low contrast detail resolving might be seen as a tie between the TZ3 and the F100fd. This ISO 800-1600 performance can be a surprise for someone familiar with Fuji's reputation for getting the best high ISO shots.

In the following crop of the sprayer nozzle, you can see how the detail can be almost completely smeared into other parts of the image, in areas where contrast is not very high. In this crop the backround luminosity and color are quite close to the object's, so in-camera noise reduction has a hard time deciding what to treat as noise (and remove it) and what to treat as signal (and save it). It looks like the Panasonic TZ3 is applying more in-camera noise reduction to the image and on the other hand, there is more room for noise removal in post processing with the Fuji. This is a good thing, as some images benefit from cleaner look while others need all the possible detail. The TZ3 image has lost more detail to the in-camera noise reduction.

Red blotches ^
One noteworthy peculiarity of F100fd's image quality is larger red blothces of "noise" in shadow areas, that are too large (roughly 20x20 pixels) to be removed in post processing by Neatimage or other equivalent programs. These blotches are quite faint, probably a side effect of the noise reduction system or some other in-camera image processing. They are most visible at higher ISOs, but appear very faintly even in some ISO 100-200 images. Actually even the previous model F30 has this kind of red blothces, but they are even fainter (and I haven't seen anyone complaining about them). The blotches cannot be usually seen in images that have not been post procesed, but when the image is underexposed or has shadow areas and is subjected to levels / curves or equivalent processing while lifting the shadows, the blotches become more visible. When raising the ISO, these blotches appear more frequently in the shadow areas. To see what these blotches look like, see the the crop of an ISO 400 image below. This 100% crop is taken from the image that you can see in the beginning of the pink band section. The image there represents the (resized) full image area, both with and without post processing). Later in the pink band section you can also look at the 100% crops of test target (ISO 100 to 3200) to see another sample of the blotching.

F100fd at ISO 400, 1/9 seconds. 100% crop.


These blotches can not be removed with noise reduction programs, but it is possible to make them less visible with for example a Hue / saturation adjustment layer or a Selective Color adjustment layer. Basically the aim is to change the hue of the blotch to match the surrounding colors, desaturate the blotch partially or lighten/darken it - i.e. anything to make it blend better to the backround. Of course, advanced Photoshop wizards can come up with plenty of tricks to fix the blotching. For example, one other trick could be to use the Magic wand in the Blue Channel to select the blotches, pick the color of the backround with the Eye dropper tool and then paint over the blotches with the brush set to Mode: Color and opacity to something like 50-70%.

In the below example, a part of an ISO 400 image (in this case, the ceiling) has been selected with the Magic Wand. In this particular image, the it was possible to fade the blotches to the backround color with a Selective Color adjustment layer by increasing cyan and decreasing magenta in the red channel. You need different settings depening on image. You can't of course make an adjustment like this to a part of an image that is red... it would distort the colors.

Pink band ^
The "pink band" phenomenon is a a glow on the left side of the image (sensor) that is about 100-200 pixels wide and usually magenta hued, at times it may be perceived to be more reddish or bluish. This left side glow is a relatively rare occurrence in everyday photography, probably partially due to the shutter speed limitations that the F100fd has (can't take slower than 1/4 second photos with all ISO settings, Night mode uses lowest ISOs). Some people don't get pink band on their images - or they just don't see it in their images or never photograph in circumstances that produce the pink band. In the F100fd test done by the Imaging-resource, their low light images seem to quite free of the pink band. On the other hand, it is a well known fact that many people get the pink band and my camera definitely does produce the pink band at times.

The "pink band" is most visible with images that have been underexposed and need to be treated (for example with levels or curves) in post processing to correct the exposure. This is most pronounced with firmware v1.01 and is to large extent fixed with v1.02. I strongly recommend updating firmware to v1.02 (but I take absolutely no responsibility for errors or accidents that happen in the process). In everyday photography this flaw shows usually only in photographs that have been taken with 1/4 - 1/8 shutter speeds and have been underexposed and/or have dark areas on the left hand side. In daytime photography the phenomenon is usually never visible. Below you will see a actual photography situation presenting pink band. The image was taken with firmware v1.01, which creates stronger pink band than v1.02

F100fd at ISO 400, 1/9 seconds, without post processing
same image as above with typical post processing (slight noise removal, levels, contrast adjustment - no local adjustments)

I went through all of my F100fd photos that I've taken while photographing in an actual photography situation and not trying to manifest some particular effect with a test target (like pink band) from the camera. From among all my photos that have been taken with firmware v1.02 (over 4000), the following ISO400 image is actually the ONLY one, that I managed to find at the moment that shows the left side overheating, which is in this case obviously magenta hued. This photograph has the typical case that can show the magenta glow and I have to say that I do not photograph in such circumstances with a compact camera very often (I dig my DSLR for this kind of condinitions). You really have to shoot this kind of scene with dark border areas (left side), long(ish) exposure and ISO 400 or above to get the pink band (though this scene might have shown a smaller amount of magenta glow with ISO 200). Some people might shoot more often in this kind of circumstances than I do and they would suffer a bit more of the glow. Of course, the left side glow can be somewhat fixed in post processing.

This sample has three resized versions of the same image. Unprocessed on the left, typical moderate post processing at right and extreme post processing (that I would never usually use) in the third pic. This particular image shows magenta coloration almost through the whole image, when the shadows are lifted. ISO 400 and 1/6 seconds shutter speed.

Firmware v1.02. ISO 400 and 1/6 seconds.

The "pink band" issue appears in varying amounts, most frequently when using the slowest shutter speeds (1/8 to 1/4) and at ISO 400 or higher, especially when the image is underexposed. But the pink band can also rarely appear with the lower ISOs to lesser extent and with faster shutter speeds with the higher ISOs. Some people say, that the pink band appears when the camera has heated up, but this is irrelevant anyway because no one should be expected to wait for their camera to cool down before taking another photograph. I haven't yet tested if the cooling of camera can reduce the pink band, but I know for sure that it can't make it go completely away (and it would be highly impractical if it did! :) More user experience and testing is needed and feedback on this phenomenon is welcome - if someone has tested an F100fd that has no pink band at all, leave a note!

While photographing the test target, I have managed only to capture _significant_ pink banding at ISO 800, but in real life photography I've caught the pink band with ISO 400 and even with ISO 200. In the following strip of resized images (representing the whole image area) you'll see the pink band growing from ISO 800. On the right the image has been brightened with Contrast and Curves for your viewing pleasure :) Sorry about that long strip of images.

And next you'll see 100% crops (550 pixels wide) from the previous images, taken from the left side of the image.

Pink band can be removed (well, made less visible) with tricks similar to removing the red blothces. You can select the part of the image that presents pink band with for exaple Quick Mask tool (press the letter Q in Photoshop) and paint over the pink band area with a brush to select it (you have to invert the selection). Then make a Hue / saturation adjustment layer and adjust hue, saturation and lightness in appropriate amounts to reduce the visibility of the pink band. Below you can see one example for the values for reducing the pink band. Note that you can twiddle with the sliders between the strips of color to select a larger or a smaller part of the spectrum to be affected.

Image quality of F100fd vs F30 and vs F50 ^
Well, people area obviously going to be interested in how the F100fd performs image quality wise against the previous image quality champ, the Fuji F30. I will compare the two cameras using a little help from the a well known camera review site. I cannot provide you any direct comparison between the F100fd and F30, because I don't have the F30 anymore, but the folks at Imaging-resource.com are kind enough to give everyone free acces to the full size test images from every camera that they have ever tested. The test images for F100fd and F30 are not all from same tests (some tests feature different targets), but Imaging-resource has the same "still life" ISO series for both the F100fd and F30, which makes comparing the two cameras easy. They also provide a "comparometer" utility, which you can use to directly compare the studio sample images of two cameras (of course you can download them to your computer and study them in Photoshop, etc). I consider Imaging-resource's reviews very high quality, neutral and informative and I can highly recommend the site to anyone seeking the best camera reviews.

For copyright reasons I will not of course present any of the images or crops here, if you wan't to see them, you will have to go the the www.imaging-resource.com web site

Imaging-resource's F100fd sample images:
http://www.imaging- resource.com/PRODS/F100FD/F100FDA7.HTM

Imaging-resource's F30 sample images:
http://www.imaging- resource.com/PRODS/F30/F30A7.HTM

Imaging-resource's F50 sample images:
http://www.imaging- resource.com/PRODS/F50FD/F50FDA7.HTM

Imaging-resource's camera comparometer
http://www.imaging- resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM


I downloaded Fuji F100fd, F30 and F50 images from Imaging-resource and compared them in various manners, like side by side at full resolution, on top of each other in layers (after resizing F100fd / F50 images to 6MP bicubic), etc. Let's break down the image comparison at various ISO's between F100fd, F30 (and F50). I will present analysis of the images from ISO 100 upwards.

ISO 100
F100fd has more overall detail in both high contrast and (perhaps surprisingly) also in low contrast areas of images than F30. The F100fd images would appear to be slightly less sharpened in-camera. There is less purple fringing and CA in F100fd images. At per pixel level the F100fd appears to be more noisy when compared to F30, but this evens out when you resize the F100fd images to 6MP (or use camera's own 6MP mode). At this ISO I can't really blame the F100fd to perform any worse when the difference in resolution is taken into consideration. Someone might even say that the F100fd is performing better noise-wise also, but this is a very close call. These things (more detail in high contrast and low contrast areas, equivalent noise performance and lack of fringing) result in overall better performance at ISO 100 by the F100fd. The F50 would appear to be slightly sharper then the F100fd, but also slightly noisier at ISO 100. Perhaps the F50 has more in-camera sharpening. Pretty equal performance between F100fd and F50.

ISO 200
Same thing at ISO 200 between F100fd and F30. F100fd has more overall detail in both high contrast and in low contrast areas of images. As noise starts to increase and the cameras have slightly different methods for processing noise, it gets harder to say which is better, but I would say that the F30 has slightly better flat areas regarding noise and the F100fd has better noise control in areas where there is small detail also. Like I've said previously between Fuji F50 and F30, at this ISO it is a matter of prefence which camera produces the better images, the F100fd or F30. If you prefer more detail - then the F100, but if you prefer smoother, noise free flat areas then, _perhaps_ the F30. Pretty evenly matched but overall, I might consider the F100fd to perform slightly better at this ISO. The F50 is clearly noisier than F100fd and I prefer the F100fd's image over F50. The F100fd seems more smooth than F50 and still at least equally detailed (The F100fd may be even slightly more detailed).


Side note: from ISO 400 on, the pink band starts to appear more frequently, so if it is a major concern for you, you have to take it into account. The Imaging -resource's test targets have a white backround and white left side, so the pink band would not show up in the still life series. Although, I have to say that when I looked at their low light ISO series, there wasn't really any pink band to talk about there either. Strange. Maybe there's just a lot of faulty F100fd's around and Imaging-resource has received a pink band free camera? Input from other F100fd users would be welcome and if anyone has a pink band free camera, I'd like to see ISO 400-1600 test shots too taken around 1/4 second.


ISO 400
F30 handles flat areas (areas void of detail) slightly better and makes them cleaner, but the difference is not big compared to F100fd. Although the F30's flat areas look less noisy, in some parts the F30's noise reduction leaves some slight pixel level irregularities to the smooth areas, that the F100fd does not have. This ISO is where those slight "red blotches" of the F100fd start to appear to the shadows, but now that I look at some F30 images, I see that they are present in the there too, but not quite as visibly as in the F100fd. I have to say, that only a pixel peeper like me will pay any attention to the blotches (those people who post process images extensively and carefully, making the best possible image at pixel level). The F100fd image seems overall more detailed and "contrasty" than the F30 version (this may be partially due to the F100fd not having any PF / CA). At this ISO, I like images from both cameras equally, so it's a tie between the F30 and F100fd. F50 noise performance is clearly worse than F100fd, the F50's flat areas have more irreqular noise the the F100fd. Amount of detail goes pretty even between the F50 and F100fd, though the F50 image seems more sharpened in some areas. Overall, F100fd looks better than F50.

ISO 800
F30 image has more low contrast detail and smoother flat areas. F100fd has more detail in high contrast areas. The F100fd has more apparent noise. The F30 wins at this ISO due to the smoother appearance, but all things considered, the difference is not that huge - depends on how much the difference in luminance noise troubles you. The F50 has unappealingly blotchy noise in flat areas of the image at this ISO and low contrast detail is seemingly worse than F100fd - the F100fd image looks more pleasing.

ISO 1600
F30 image has more low contrast detail, smoother flat areas and less overall noise than F100fd. F100fd has slightly more detail in high contrast areas. The F100fd looks less saturated than the F30, possibly partly because of the noise / noise reduction. The F30 wins at this ISO due to much smoother appearance. The F50 has ugly blotchy noise in flat areas and low contrast detail is seemingly worse than F100fd. The F50 looks more saturated than F100fd, but it actually makes the situation only worse for the F50. The F50 has colored blotches in the noise of flat areas, while in comparison the F100fd looks positively color blotch free (though it does have pale red blotches in shadow areas). The F100fd image looks more pleasing than the F50, because the F50 image looks damn ugly. F100fd's noise is more "fine grained" than F50's noise.

ISO 3200
Ok... so now we have entered the ISO at which NO compact camera looks pretty anymore - not even the F30. I personally draw the line at ISO 1600 for the F30, but the F100fd's image looks maybe slightly worse still. The first thing that strikes the eye, is that the saturation of the F100fd is much lower than the F30 at this ISO. The noise of the F100fd looks finer grained than the F30, but there's more of it. The F30 has more "clumpy" noise, so it's not pretty either (more of the noise has been removed in in-camera processing but it has left uneven areas). The F30 has more low contrast detail compared to the F100fd, but that doesn't mean that there much of it. The F100fd has more high contrast detail. It is basically pointless at this point to say which camera's output looks "better", but I prefer the F30 by a little margin. The difference was bigger at ISO 1600 in F30's favor. The F50 performance is weakest of the bunch because of it's uneaven noise which is spiced with pretty thightly spaced many colored color blotches (at this ISO 3200 the F50 only outputs a 6MP file, while the F100fd still produces a 12MP file). The F50 produces approximately the same amount of high contrast detail as F30 at this ISO.

Bottom line
Per pixel image quality of F30 looks better than F100fd's. But when you resize the F100fd image to 6MP, at lower ISOs (100-200) the F100fd outperforms the F30, because the F100fd is more detailed and does not have more noise than the F30. At ISO 400 the performance seems matched between F100fd and F30. At ISO 800 to ISO 1600 F30 wins. ISO 3200 gives everyone the shivers. F50 image quality is worse than F100fd from ISO 200 and up.

1/25s f/3.5 at 8.1mm iso100

Compared to Fuji F30 or F31 ^
When comparing cameras, it always comes down to what you need from a camera and what you're going to use it for.

In favor of F100fd
+ much more versatile 28-140 lens
+ Image stabilization
+ Better ISO 100-200
+ Smaller size, fits in pants pocket, etc

In favor of F30/F31
+ Aperture and shutter speed control
+ better for low light shots in 1 second to 1/8 seconds shutter speed range (with focal lengths 36-108)
+ better quality with ISO 800 and higher (useful if you never use a DSLR, othwerwise questionable value)
+ better, smoother flat areas in regards to noise with ISO 400 and up

Conclusion ^
(updated 2009/03/01 with notes about and comparison to Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10 )
The F100fd is a very good and versatile point & shoot compact camera, if you can overlook it's flaws. The versatility comes from the 28-140 lens, (mediocre) image stabilization, good image quality and noise performance up to ISO 400 (ISO 800) and compact size. The combination of focal length range, image stabilization and noise performance means that you can use the F100fd in a multitude of circumstances. Biggest problems are the lack of a histogram and memory card size limited to 4GB (at least the cards that I have tried). Myself, all in all, I'm fairly happy with the F100fd and I wouldn't trade it right now back to the older Fujis like the F30 (because it lacks the 28-140 lens). But right now (2009/03/01) I'm thinking hard about getting a Panasonic LX3 as a sidekick to the F100fd, because of the vastly better controls and histogram, fast lens and better low contrast detail, even though the lens is seriously limited on the tele-end.

(update 2009/06/14) Recently, I have purchased a Panasonic TZ7 (also known as ZS3) and it fares very well in good light and lower ISO's against the Fuji F100 and F200. The image quality is on par to F100 and ISO 80 and ISO 100, even better in some cases. The TZ7 is also a pleasure to use because of the 25-300mm equivalent lens, histogram, good LCD and good IS. A more detailed report to come in the future, probably as a separate article.

Still, the F100fd might not be YOUR cup of tee (see the list of what you should take into account when considering the F100fd). I have DSLRs to manage the more challenging photographic situations, so that helps bare the missing things. Of course, I would LOVE to have all the missing features in the F100fd and the flaws removed (especially the missing histogram, PB and MicroSD problems). In the future, I may be forced to acquire another compact that has less limited low light shooting possibilities and manual control over aperture and shutter speed.

The flaws that you should take into account include:
1) missing histogram (just about every other camera of the competition has this feature)
2) Class 6 8GB Micro SD card read/write errors, i.e. you can't use 8GB MicroSD cards!
3) sub-par handling in form of the missing EV-button, virtual menu wheel and slow operation when adjusting exposure through the menus.
4) the rarely occurring "pink band" issue that appears in varying amounts, most frequently when using the slowest shutter speeds (1/8 to 1/4) and at ISO 400 or higher, especially when the image is underexposed. But the pink band can also appear with the lower ISOs to lesser extent and with faster shutter speeds with the higher ISOs.
5) no possibility to adjust aperture or shutter speed
6) no possibility to take photos with slower than 1/4 second shutter speeds without selecting the Night mode, which is very limited in function (you can not use EV- correction or select ISO)
7) weak flash
8) poorly implemented continuous shooting (but not worse than other F-series cameras)
9) pooor video mode (that I almost never use)


At the moment there is a short list of competition to the Fuji F100fd: Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3 (about which I talk in a bit more detail in the next paragraph, Panasonic TZ5, the older Panasonic model TZ3 (which both have a 28-280 lens), the just announced and around the door TZ7 (=ZS3) with the more wide angle lens and the old Canon Ixus 860IS (=SD870IS) which has a 28-105 lens. Now there is also available the Canon PowerShot SX200 IS, which has a 28-336mm equivalent focal length and manual controls. It is roughly on TZ7(ZS3)'s level considering image quality. Sony W170 is also not a bad camera as such with a 28-140 lens, but it doesn't get near the Fuji's image quality. The Sony W170 images have more chroma noise and stronger (less sophisticated) noise reduction than the F100fd, but it comes right after the Fuji, Panasonic and Canon in image quality. If you want the best possible image quality at ISO 100-400 and don't take long shutter speed shots in low light and possibly also want a camera that fits into your pants pocket, then the Fuji F100fd is a good choice, with aforementioned reservations.

Compared to Canon G10 and Panasonic LX3
In terms of controls and features, those two cameras are way, way ahead of the F100fd with just about all the features that you usually need in a camera, both even an external flash socket. The G10 is significantly larger, the LX3 is pretty pocketable (but still doesn't fit in a jeans pocket like the F100fd does). In regards to image quality they manage equally well at ISO 100-400, and actually have more low contrast detail than the F100fd. At higher sensitivities, the Canon G10 produces softer JPG images than Fuji (ISO 800 and higher). The LX3 produces very high quality images at ISO 800-1600 too, but the noise pattern is less even than F100fd's and IMO tends to show up more in image areas that have little detail.

LX3 in JPG mode has an irregular luminance noise pattern that is hard to smooth out in post processing. In RAW, the LX3 has more noise, but it can be easily smoothed out in (for example) Lightroom to look cleaner.

Canon G10 in JPG mode also has some irregularity in the reduction of luminance noise, but not as much as the LX3. Using G10 in RAW gives better details than F100fd even at ISO 400, but increases noise a lot. The G10 and LX3 have more low contrast detail than F100fd in either JPG or RAW mode, but in RAW they have significantly more noise and in JPG the noise pattern is more irregular (uglier).

At ISO 100-400 G10 and LX3 manage to balance noise with detail, but at ISO 800 that changes as both cameras still have a bit more detail than F100 (especially the LX3) but both have much more noise, so that the end resul looks bad.

The Canon G10 has 28-140mm range, image quality is as good at ISO 100-400 (and you also have the option for RAW), but most importantly considering usability as a photographic device, the G10 is just like a camera should be. The G10 has easy access to EV correction, PASM modes, histogram and very straightforward operability with enough BUTTONS(!) for quick setting changes (many modern cameras have far too few buttons while the settings have to be changed from menus). It's just got a lot more bulk than the F100fd.

Then we come to the Panasonic LX3. If one was to concentrate on wide angle photography (24-60mm, 18mm with an adapter!), then the LX3 would be without DOUBT the best choice among compact cameras at the moment, with very good controls, great high ISOs (as good as F100fd up to ISO 1600, but with better low contrast detail), faster lens and still surprisingly pocketable! If it had even slightly more reach in the tele-end, I'd be using it right now alongside or instead of the F100fd.

If you want the focal lengths of 140-280, easier and faster operation (like changing exposure value), good continuous shooting, better IS, histogram and don't mind a bit bigger camera, then the TZ5/TZ7 (ZS3) is your choice. You will just have to live with the fact that the TZ5/TZ7 images have more luminance noise and less detail than the F100fd images. There's nothing really wrong with the old Canon 860IS, but it does have weaker image quality than the F100fd and the lens can't compete with the other two cameras, so I'd write that choice off, unless you need something truly pocketable and don't feel comfortable with the Fuji F100fd.

If you want to select the camera between the the TZ5 and the TZ3, it must be noted that the difference in image quality with the newer TZ5 and older TZ3 is that the TZ5 has more detail, but the images also have more noise and the flat areas (areas void of detail) are not as smooth with the TZ5 as they are with the TZ3. The TZ5 has some improvements in button layout (it is easier and faster to operate than the TZ3, macro can be accessed via a button and there's a separate slide switch for image review) and the movie mode has been improved (now 1280x720 pixels at 30 frames per second and as far as I remember correctly you can zoom while recording).

In the future, I'm waiting to see more compact cameras that have all the usual controls and features of an advanced *photographer's* camera (like a histogram, AF/AE- lock button, Aperture control and Manual shutter speed control) with a wide angle zoom lens AND good image quality. I hope along with many others that the Olympus/Panasonic micro four thirds can respond to the need. Of course, those cameras won't be quite as pocketable as the F100fd or even the Panasonic LX3/TZ5, but they might get close with a single focal length pancake lens.

In year 2009 Olympus may come up with some exciting compact Micro Four Thirds cameras. So far, Panasonic's u43 camera (G1) is too large, but I think I've read somewhere, that Panasonic will also develop more compact Micro Four Thirds cameras in the future.

Fuji F200 EXR (update 2009/06/14) ^
In a nutshell, in regards to noise and detail, the F200 performs worse than F100 at 12mp size, because of the new sensor design and demosaicing artifacts. At 6MP and higher ISO's, the F200 may be considered better, because the camera removes color blotching efficiently and in that regard results in cleaner looking images. There is improvement in dynamic range (highlight retention), when using the specific DR modes (400% and 800%). Previously, when I observed some pre-release images, I noticed that the F200 had stronger sharpening than F100. This seems to be fixed in the release version, but the F200 images still have more luminance noise than F100 images (at 12MP). On the other hand, the F200 images now look less detailed than F100 images. Just to let you know to avoid confusion, because I previously criticized the F200 images because of strong sharpening.


12MP resolution and sharpening:
Having looked at the 12MP and 6MP images of F200 and F100, it's clear that when shooting at at 12MP, the older F100 produces a bit more detail than the F200 and the images are less noisy. On ISO 100 there is no significant difference in the amount of noise (but F200 images look softer), but at ISO 200 there is already a slight advantage to F100 and at ISO 400 to ISO 800 the difference is clearly in F100's advantage. To some casual observer, the F200 images might look more detailed, but that is definitely not the case.

On top of having more noise, demosaicing artifacts are slightly messing up the details near resolution limit with the F200 - you can see the effect when looking at some images with some fine diagonal lines, like buildings at a distance or looking at high contrast areas near resolution limit in images with tree branches and other fine detail.

At lower ISO's (ISO100, ISO200) the output of F200 isn't such a bad thing, but at ISO 400 and up, it's clearly worse then F100.


6MP in-camera resolution:
At 6 megapixels the F200 produces, perhaps, slightly better images than the F100, because it removes the color blotching that can be seen in the F100 images. It's not the same as chroma noise. Chroma noise is different and there isn't any in either camera. I quess that the blotching is probably a side effect of chroma noise that is badly removed with the in-camera noise reduction... Looking at details, it kind of looks like you really don't even need the 12MP's of the camera. There seems to be almost all of the detail in a 6MP file, but there is less blotching.

On the other hand, the F100fd images have less luminance noise and in this respect look cleaner. Flat image areas look better in that regard with F100, but the blotching can be seen. It is a matter of preference which looks worse, luminance noise or blotching. Myself, I rather tolerate a little more luminance noise than blotching - the images look more natural that way to my eye. It is probably a software trick with the F200, because the 12MP image of the F200 has just as much blotching as F100 does and I don't think that pixel binning can remove the blotching, because the color blothes are 20 pixels wide.

On the whole, image quality wise, I would say that the F100 is a better camera - IF - the F200 didn't have the dynamic range improvement modes, which can help a lot in preserving hilight detail. Personally, I wouldn't exchange the F100 to F200.

ps. this blotching is something that just about every compact camera of every brand has, the Fuji F31 too.

The left side glow ("pink band") is fixed in the F200 - you can't see the left side glow, that you can see in the higher ISO's of F100fd pics.


Still no histogram
There is no histogram in the F200. I find this unbelieavable. Really, it makes me want to cry. With digital photography, it's the single most important tool for getting properly exposed images. With such poor and small LCD displays that these cameras have, it is impossible to check the level of exposure while photographing in even a slightly demanding situation. For example, if there is any sunlight to the LCD display or against the direction to which you're holding the camera, it makes judging exposure from the LCD just impossible! Even in good lighting situations, the LCD display's poor quality (and frankly, nature) makes an accurate judgement of exposure a hard and even an impossible thing.

A simple histogram would make correct exposure in the more demanding situations a breeze. A histogram also is a _quick_ way of judging exposure and making a decision if and how much exposure correction needs to be done and which way. Even with DSLRs, which have vastly more dynamic range, the first thing that I (and many other photographers) check after taking a shot is the histogram. With a camera that has no histogram, I am constantly frustrated for having to guess if the highlights are blown or not, only when I get back home and look at images on a monitor, I finally know if the exposure was accurate or not.

It costs absolutely NOTHING to include a histogram, but still Fuji has not included one (while their larger compacts have that feature). It could be switched off by default (like in some recent Panasonic compacts) if the fear of confusing beginners (?!) is the reason for not including it.


the good and the bad of the F200:
+ less color blotching at 6MP
+ no left side glowing
+ DR advantage in DR modes (but possibly more noise)
- still no histogram! (this is frankly unbelievable)
- higher luminance noise than F100
- demosaicing artifacts at 12MP
- provia mode uses less sharpening, but it is spoiled by stronger contrast
- hot pixels at even 1/4" second exposures (F100fd is hot pixel prone, too). Dark frame subtraction not working properly.

My post processing workflow (in order of execution) ^
1) Noise control (Neatimage)
I have generated noise profiles for the F100fd, that you can download from Neatimage.com's website here.

I run the image through Neatimage, if it is ISO 200 or higher, sometimes also ISO 100 images. Images that are going to be heavily post processed (with contrast adjustments like Levels, Curves, Shadow & highlight) benefit most from noise removal, because noise tends to become more apparent when adjusting contrast. Many ISO 100 images don't need noise removal even when contrast adjusted, but some do benefit from it. It also depends on image's type and the photographer's taste and style how much and how often noise should be removed.

Removing noise only takes 30 seconds in total when you know what you're doing (auto match a profile for Fuji F100fd and select an appropriate filter preset. If your really picky (like me) just use that 10 minutes to fine tune a filter preset for every ISO. I recommend selecting 200% magnification when previewing the effect of neatimage while making adjustments to the filter preset.
http://www.neatimage.com/

2) optical distortion fix (mostly on wide angle images)
Use PTlens for correcting barrel / pincushion distortion (if needed). Running PTlens on an image for optical distortion takes less than 10 seconds.

PT-lens homepage:
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

2b) fringing fix (only about 1% of images)
This happens really rarely with the F100fd, but CA can be fixed with PTlens too. If there is any purple fringing, I fix it with a "Hue / saturation" layer, darkening and desaturating parts of the image that have blue/ magenta fringing (PTlens can't remove it).

Step-by-step Hue / saturation PF fix in Photoshop:
- Go to quick mask mode press [Q]
- With a Brush [B] of appropriate size, paint areas of the image that have purple fringing
-create a "Hue / saturation" layer
- select Edit: Blues or Magentas from the pull down menu
- click on a part of image that has the color fringing, this will adjust the position of the sliders to a correct position. After that, you can adjust the more accurately by hand if you want to.
- I usually dial a negative value for lightness and
- negative value for saturation

3) brightening shadows, darkening hilights (~20-40% of images)
I use the shadow / highlight feature of Photoshop on some images. For example pics that have high contrast and strong directional light seem to benefit from some balancing (brightening) of the shadows. It is also possible to darken hues that are NEARLY burnt with the shadow / highlight tool and gain some more detail into the hilights if necessary.

4) Levels (on 80-90% of images) for contrast adjustment and white balance fixing.

5) Curves (maybe 80% of images) for contrast

5b) other contrast adjustments (like large radius USM, large radius High pass filter, layering, etc) in varying degrees to most of the images

6) Saturation adjustment (~5 to 20% of images)
Hue / saturation layer or some other method. Increasing or *decreasing* saturation

7) finally: Save the original processed image to a new file

7) (optional) Resize to web size
(about 750pixels on the long side) and sharpen, save to a size of under 150kb (usually)

ps) about sharpening
For further information on sharpening, you can take a look at some text that I've written on the subjet in here. I've been meaning to update the text for a while now, but the text gives several ideas about how to sharpen an image with local or general adjustments.

B&W conversion in post processing ^
I use almost always the Channel mixer for turning into b&w, because that way I get to decide how much brightness differently colored areas of the image will have and have the most control over the final image. I also use Hue / Saturation before the b&w conversion to modify the image. There are plenty of good tutorials on the net abot B&W conversion, so I won't go in to more details here, but just try this:
1) - make a Hue / Saturation layer, with neutral settings (no change)
2) - make a Channel mixer layer (monochrome) with starting values of 33% in each value
3) -> then, adjust the 'Hue' slider in the Hue / Saturation layer and see it's effects on the image
----> note: the Hue / saturation layer needs to be below the Channel mixer layer for this to work.
4) (optional) -> you can also try varying the amount in the Output Channels of the Channel mixer layer
-> It's THAT easy!

1/20s f/3.3 at 6.4mm iso100

Fuji F100fd image gallery: ^
Maybe it should be noted, that not ONE of the shots in the image gallery suffer from the pink band phenomenon.
https://pbase.com/arn/snapshots_f100fd

The following thumbnail is left there for technical reasons.
(otherwise this text will not show up at all in the main PBase gallery. It's just the same pic as in the beginning of this text)