fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good?

JohnR66 wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear.DeleteThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:13kti4qa1pbb57f@corp.supernews.com...
>> I liked the look of the f31 fd. It has rave reviews.
>>
>> It now has a successor, which looks very nice.
>>
>> The only thing I don't like about is the battery;
>> I would prefer standard ones (AAA or AA).
>>
>> Would any owners of the f31 like to chip in with
>> "long term" reviews, and has anyone
>> had an f50 for long enough to give similar
>> comment?
>>
>> BugBear
>
> The older version got rave reviews due to the amazing noise performance as
> compared to other point and shoots. Otherwise it was just a fair camera. The
> lens wasn't that great (purple fringing), camera had too much contrast,
> limited manual control and no AA batteries.

By the standards of P&S I thought it had GOOD manual control

Aperture Priority, Shutter speed Priority, Full manual exposure, Custom white balance.

Manual focus, and "full manual" exposure are the only omissions?.

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digital/digital-cameras/advanced-co...ct/fine
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf31fd.asp
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportProduct.js...rodcat=

> Fuji gave up this great noise performance to be more part of the stupid
> megapixel race, introducing the 12MP F50. Now it is just another over noise
> reduxed "me too" cam.
>
> I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over this
> junk if only one were made.

My local store doesn't stock hypothetical cameras; can I mail
order one?

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

bugbear wrote:
> JohnR66 wrote:
>> "bugbear" <bugbear RemoveThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>> news:13kti4qa1pbb57f@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I liked the look of the f31 fd. It has rave reviews.
>>>
>>> It now has a successor, which looks very nice.
>>>
>>> The only thing I don't like about is the battery;
>>> I would prefer standard ones (AAA or AA).
>>>
>>> Would any owners of the f31 like to chip in with
>>> "long term" reviews, and has anyone
>>> had an f50 for long enough to give similar
>>> comment?
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> The older version got rave reviews due to the amazing noise
>> performance as compared to other point and shoots. Otherwise it was
>> just a fair camera. The lens wasn't that great (purple fringing),
>> camera had too much contrast, limited manual control and no AA batteries.
>
> By the standards of P&S I thought it had GOOD manual control
>
> Aperture Priority, Shutter speed Priority, Full manual exposure, Custom
> white balance.
>
> Manual focus, and "full manual" exposure are the only omissions?.
>
> http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digital/digital-cameras/advanced-co...ct/fine
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf31fd.asp
> http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportProduct.js...rodcat=

Yurgle. What Fuji call "manual" mode is MOST odd.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

JohnR66 wrote:
[]
> I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over
> this junk if only one were made.
>
> John

"Seven megapixels should be enough for anyone...."

David
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

What I read was that it is marginally better than the f31 at low ISOs but
that rapidly changes at higher ISOs. Also the mechanical vibration reduction
is apparently not too good. I'm sticking with my 31.

Toby
"bugbear" <bugbear.DeleteThis@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:13kti4qa1pbb57f@corp.supernews.com...
>I liked the look of the f31 fd. It has rave reviews.
>
> It now has a successor, which looks very nice.
>
> The only thing I don't like about is the battery;
> I would prefer standard ones (AAA or AA).
>
> Would any owners of the f31 like to chip in with
> "long term" reviews, and has anyone
> had an f50 for long enough to give similar
> comment?
>
> BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

Toby wrote:
> What I read was that it is marginally better than the f31 at low ISOs but
> that rapidly changes at higher ISOs. Also the mechanical vibration reduction
> is apparently not too good.

Ooh. Nasty. Any refs?

> I'm sticking with my 31.

I'd expect you to! It's only a year old!

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

On 2007-11-30, bugbear <bugbear RemoveThis @trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Toby wrote:
>> What I read was that it is marginally better than the f31 at low ISOs but
>> that rapidly changes at higher ISOs. Also the mechanical vibration reduction
>> is apparently not too good.
>
> Ooh. Nasty. Any refs?
>
> > I'm sticking with my 31.
>
> I'd expect you to! It's only a year old!
>

And take good care of it, because forthcoming models aren't going to get
any better.

Wish I'd bought something like it when they were available and I still
had some money.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> JohnR66 wrote:
> []
>> I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over
>> this junk if only one were made.
>>
>> John
>
> "Seven megapixels should be enough for anyone...."
>
> David
>
>


Shades of Gates....




mike
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

m II wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> JohnR66 wrote:
>> []
>>> I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over
>>> this junk if only one were made.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> "Seven megapixels should be enough for anyone...."
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
>
> Shades of Gates....
>
>
>
>
> mike

Intentionally so! But do most people really need more than 5-6-7Mpix?

David
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:T9Hfj.72743$c_1.67801@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Intentionally so! But do most people really need more than 5-6-7Mpix?
>
> David

If the image is printed or otherwise used just as it was captured with no
cropping, and the prints are not intended for poster sized prints, then you
are probably right. But in situations where you are trying to catch subjects
that tend to move unexpectedly, a wider shot than needed that is then
cropped to a useable size could make a larger original image a good thing.
Or if the image is intended for poster work, more pixels is better. Also if
this is a photo that is intended to doccument or archive small details of a
larger object, more pixels can yield more fine detail for intensive study
later. For example, a tapestry that is imaged in a few large pieces that
still allow the fine details of content and weave to be studdied later.

So for the bulk of persons who just shoot an image, take it to the store to
be printed at nothing larger than 8x10 with no cropping, 6-8mp is more than
enough. But there will always be those who have a need for more resolution.
Of course there are also those who rate their personal worth by being able
to brag that they have more of something than the normal and for them 100GP
images would always be lacking something.

Randy B.
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:25:23 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>m II wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> JohnR66 wrote:
>>> []
>>>> I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over
>>>> this junk if only one were made.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> "Seven megapixels should be enough for anyone...."
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Shades of Gates....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>
>Intentionally so! But do most people really need more than 5-6-7Mpix?
>
>David
>

To be honest, I don't care about most people. I care about what I need
to do what I want to do. And that means I need as many pixels as I can
cram into the picture.
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good? 

Skinner1.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> To be honest, I don't care about most people. I care about what I need
> to do what I want to do. And that means I need as many pixels as I can
> cram into the picture.


The quality of those pixels is more important than the stupid race in
the numbers wars. Fuji was a real disappointment with their F50 Finepix.
I loved the 6MP 1/1.6 sensors they had previously used.





mike
 >> Stay informed about: fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good?