Fuji F30 Review Online At DPReview [Archive]

dcsang

07-26-2006, 02:54

"To sum up, the F30 is far and away the best low light compact camera on the market today, bar none. It's the perfect 'social' camera for the DSLR owner who doesn't want to lug all his or her gear to parties, and it is - in expert hands - capable of superb results in any light. I would even go as far as to suggest - funds permitting - getting one for low light work even if you already own a camera you use for daylight shooting... So then, Highly Recommended unless you rarely shoot indoors or at night." So says Simon Joinson in his review found here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/

Now I know this is not a Rangefinder; I know this is "heracy" because it's digital but what it is seems to be a great low light/available light digital that is POCKETABLE.

As someone who owns a 5D and 20D; I can tell you, they ain't pocketable by a long shot :D

And in light of IGMeanwell's recent post regarding the F30: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26140

I thought those of you who are considering this camera (I know I have been for a while) may want to look into this review :)

Cheers
Dave

IGMeanwell

07-26-2006, 03:14

I have been waiting patiently for this review ... its nice to see he likes the camera

BTW: just emailed Fuji this morning as to any talk of a Natura S inspired digital in the horizon? Using spirited talk of competition with the Ricoh GR-D and words like "stealth" "silent" and "superb low-light capabilities" and super EBC lens.

If Fuji sends me a back a message that says no to all those questions the F30 might be in my future ... but I will be patient

especially since Fuji also released the F20, the little-brother to the F30... doesn't have as high of iso settings (only to ISO 1000)

dcsang

07-26-2006, 03:44

Nachkebia

07-26-2006, 03:59

F30 looks very sexy indeed, though I can not choose between LX2 and F30, other has amazing wide angle stuff. though F30 is great allarounder... anyhow, dream would be Zeiss ikon with Fuji sensor :)

Chuck A

07-26-2006, 05:22

Actually, I am a bit disappointed in this camera. After looking at a few reviews and image samples. It appears to have some problems that are deal-breakers for me.

1) No RAW.
2) No contrast or sharpening adjustment.
3) The higher contrast setting means lower DR and blown highlights.
4) Purple fringing is high.
5) No viewfinder.

To be fair some of these problems exist is all of the small sensor digitals. While the high ISO performance is excellent, I am still looking for a small digital that doesn't have some fatal flaws. While the Pan LX1 was pretty close, the Pan LX2 is the next place to look. Still no viefinder though. IMHO.

jano

07-26-2006, 05:27

Don't care too much about no viewfinder. You get used to it -- besides, the viewfinders, when present on those P&S digicams, are often horrible.

Don't like the inability to adjust various settings affecting outcome. Not good.

Would like body to have a little sealing or possibly bump-proof, while maintaining size, ala new ricoh 500g :) In my dreams, I guess.

JoeFriday

07-26-2006, 05:33

dcsang

07-26-2006, 05:41

I was seriously thinking of getting a F10/F11 six months back.. there were some closeout deals on the F10 for about $180.. but the image quality wasn't acceptable.. sure, the high ISO was great, but I wasn't impressed with the Fuji lens

I wonder if the F20/F30 is any better.. I would also like a pocketable digital for unexpected photo ops

Read the review Brett.. you nutty Wisconsinite you :D

To me, the images look good - sure there's no RAW but really.. RAW in a P&S is, imho, a waste of time without any ability to totally handle the manual settings or have interchangeable lenses etc.

High ISO performance is something that, again, to me, matters a great deal - as it's been noted in the review, there have been umpteen times that I've been "blinded" by P&S flash at various events - so much so that you know when the photo-op is going to occur. Same goes with using a DSLR for the most part but at least with the two I own, plus 1.2 and 1.4 lenses I can get away without using flash a lot of the time.

Having seen 4x6 prints from the ISO 3200 shots on the F30, I can say that it's a decent little camera that does the job it was meant to do .. shoot in available/low light when other digital p&s's blind you with harsh flash :D

Dave

JoeFriday

07-26-2006, 05:55

sherm

07-26-2006, 06:05

Now Brett... I'm not going to "pile on" here but seriously do you really think that the Zeiss lenses are of the same caliber as those produced by Cosina for Zeiss?

I would tend to think that the name was a liscensing ploy by the like of Sony for the digicam market.

This may be a bit cynical on my part, but Fuji has made some great strides with the Super CCD technology.

RAW in a point and shoot is like a screen door on a submarine.... not useful.

BTW, Breatt I'm originally from Beloit so I've got your back if it gets too rough around here:p

Scott

Todd.Hanz

07-26-2006, 06:07

Looks like a cool camera but I've high hopes for the Pannasonic LX2: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06071904panasoniclx2.asp.

Hopefully the noise issues will be solved in this model, with a 28mm lens and 16:9 wide CCD, this one should rock!

Todd

JoeFriday

07-26-2006, 06:18

see, now I agree with Todd.. the LX2 would definitely be my weapon of choice

IGMeanwell

07-26-2006, 06:23

I'm reading the article right now, and checking out the sample photos (why did they make us have to click through every photo to get to a specific one??)

there are certainly some good images in there.. and I can see where non-flash low light capabilities is what they're going after.. I guess I haven't decided that high ISO trumps the Leica/Panasonic image quality that I'm used to with my Lumix FZ20

if only Fuji would team up with Zeiss and bring out an F40 with a CZ lens!

I was just hoping at least they would put a super ebc lens on the F30 ... of course it could be one without the tag

At the rate Fuji is popping out P&S... lagging on the S4

I am thinking that Fuji is really working towards getting the rangefinder crowd to look their way

they have already made more progress on low-light shooting than any other company so far

even the new canon with IS has been reviews with very negative low-light ability ... the new Lumix goes to ISO 3200 but crops the image in order to cut down on noise which also in turn lowers resolution and sharpness

The F30 is the ONLY P&S that can do ISO 3200 at its full sensor resolution and judging by the DPreview samples is very useable at ISO3200 (add noise ninja it will be excellent)

Chuck A

07-26-2006, 06:31

Don't care too much about no viewfinder. You get used to it -- besides, the viewfinders, when present on those P&S digicams, are often horrible.

As hard as I try I can't seem to get used to not having a viewfinder. I just don't feel like I am taking pictures. I feel completely disconnected from the process. I have found a workaround, I use the Xtend-a-view on my C7000 and it works like having an EVF. Not great but I can see some detail and have my eye to the camera.

IGMeanwell

07-26-2006, 06:38

VinceC

07-26-2006, 06:59

It seems that lack of any sort of eyelevel viewfinder pretty much robs you of a couple of stops on the low-light end. It's much harder to hold the camera steady out in front of you than hold it to your eye, braced against your face. My Canon G1 has a pretty uninspiring finder, but I find it pretty easy to handhold down around 1/5th of a second.

dcsang

07-26-2006, 07:00

Here I ran DPreview's ISO 3200 shot through Noise Ninja ... didn't do a whole lot to change the default noise reduction settings

This is what I got ... still some noise but with a little more PP work I think you can get some nice 4x6s or even 5x7s out of this guy

keep in mind I sized it down and lowered the dpi to be able to post

I've seen 4x6's without Noise Ninja (or any other noise reduction program) and they're just fine imho.

I don't want a smooth 3200 - I want a grainy bumpy 3200.. because that's what film is like.

Digital has made everyone persue the holy grail of an "extremely sharp, grain free world" :D Grain makes me think the thing is "real" .. ya know? :)

Cheers,
Dave

JoeFriday

07-26-2006, 07:09

kinda like that grain alcohol you drink, Dave? ;)

Solinar

07-26-2006, 07:22

As hard as I try I can't seem to get used to not having a viewfinder.

Me, neither. My big quibble on the LCD screen versus a true VF is the lack of a real time display. I call it image lag.

One other quibble, an image stabilized sensor is the way to go with these pocket cams. I want both, IS and a good ISO 800 image.

dcsang

07-26-2006, 07:37

kinda like that grain alcohol you drink, Dave? ;)

I prefer to think of it as "nectar" Brett.. nectar.. not alcohol :D

Dave

OldNick

07-26-2006, 08:15

Brett,
When you posted the information about the discounts on the F10, I used that to talk a Wal-Mart clerk into selling me one for $200. I have been very happy with the performance of the F10, though it tops out at ISO 1600. I won't be trading up for quite a while. Here are a couple of shots in manual mode. The flowers are at ISO 80, to force the aperture open. The furniture shot is at ISO 1600.

Jim N.

ray_g

07-26-2006, 09:41

This has been my problem with digital, and why I don't have a new camera. The products have been coming so quickly, that though an excellent camera (like the F30) is available, you know that something potentially better already in the pipeline (like the LX2), and will likely wait a few months for that. I know that you really ought to get what fills your needs, but the way prices have been going down as well, you naturally want to get more for your money by waiting. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

07-26-2006, 12:02

I was just hoping at least they would put a super ebc lens on the F30 ... of course it could be one without the tag

At the rate Fuji is popping out P&S... lagging on the S4

I am thinking that Fuji is really working towards getting the rangefinder crowd to look their way

they have already made more progress on low-light shooting than any other company so far

even the new canon with IS has been reviews with very negative low-light ability ... the new Lumix goes to ISO 3200 but crops the image in order to cut down on noise which also in turn lowers resolution and sharpness

The F30 is the ONLY P&S that can do ISO 3200 at its full sensor resolution and judging by the DPreview samples is very useable at ISO3200 (add noise ninja it will be excellent)

maybe that is true. Maybe Fuji is working on getting the RF people over - and maybe they have been setting up a place as the low light leaders.

But, I don't know about that. I have studied the images from the F30 and F11, and have compared those with images from my own Canon SD700IS, and here is what I notice :

1. Fuji applies strong noise reduction that creates a resolution lowing blockiness to the image at high ISOs (800+).
2. At screen res, the Fuji images are nicer at high ISO, but upon any magnification, they show considerable NR issues.
3. The images from my Canon are sharper at all ISOs - especially at high ISOs where the Canon does not apply any NR and instead produces very organic looking grain - like film grain. It looks noisier, but is a more film-like image.
4. The Fuji build quality and design seem less refined than the SD700.
5. SD700, once you get the hang of it (about two days), is very very fast to navigate. Faster than any other digital camera I've used.
6. SD700 only goes to 35mm wide at widest. . . is this not so wide?
7. SD700 lacks any aperture or shutterspeed manual controls. Offers only presets for DOF and exposure compensation.

more to come, stay tuned for my full review of the SD700 with samples.

JoeFriday

07-26-2006, 12:13

1. Fuji applies strong noise reduction that creates a resolution lowing blockiness to the image at high ISOs (800+).
2. At screen res, the Fuji images are nicer at high ISO, but upon any magnification, they show considerable NR issues.
3. The images from my Canon are sharper at all ISOs - especially at high ISOs where the Canon does not apply any NR and instead produces very organic looking grain - like film grain. It looks noisier, but is a more film-like image.
that was pretty much what I've felt about the Fuji images, as well.. and ultimately why I passed on the F10/F11.. the images seem to have a 'plasticky' look to them that I really don't like.. sure, it's nice and clear, but I don't see the depth in them that I see with certain other cameras

kbg32

07-26-2006, 12:25

Read the review Brett.. you nutty Wisconsinite you :D

To me, the images look good - sure there's no RAW but really.. RAW in a P&S is, imho, a waste of time without any ability to totally handle the manual settings or have interchangeable lenses etc.

Dave

Sorry Dave, but this statement is so off base. This is precisely what I think is wrong with a lot of P&S cameras, no RAW capability. It really expands the camera as a tool for getting all that one can out of it, moreso then high ISO ratings. I have a LX1. What drew me to this camera was the fact that it captures images in RAW files. The noise that people think plagues this camera files becomes moot when one has the capability to lessen it, or completely remove it. RAW gives one the added ability to get all they can out of their files. To capture in any other file format, THAT is a waste of time. I think many people are afraid to shoot in this format, because - 1. they don't know how to process the files, 2. they don't want to take the time to learn how, and 3. a lot of people find it intimidating. I know at first I did. Just as one learned analogue photography, etc., there is a learning curve in processing RAW files. It is like learning to be in the darkroom again. Don't get me wrong, there are times when jpegs are preferable, but you are really selling yourself short shooting anything other then RAW when you need the most out of your image.

ghost

07-26-2006, 12:30

dpreview should be ashamed of hyping this product. =(

Rich Silfver

07-26-2006, 12:37

dpreview should be ashamed of hyping this product. =(

And why should they be ashamed again? Looks like a pretty good p&s to me (and yes, I've read the specs and looked at image samples and am able to create an opinion). Why should they be ashamed?

ghost

07-26-2006, 12:47

07-26-2006, 12:59

Sorry Dave, but this statement is so off base. This is precisely what I think is wrong with a lot of P&S cameras, no RAW capability. It really expands the camera as a tool for getting all that one can out of it, moreso then high ISO ratings. I have a LX1. What drew me to this camera was the fact that it captures images in RAW files. The noise that people think plagues this camera files becomes moot when one has the capability to lessen it, or completely remove it. RAW gives one the added ability to get all they can out of their files. To capture in any other file format, THAT is a waste of time. I think many people are afraid to shoot in this format, because - 1. they don't know how to process the files, 2. they don't want to take the time to learn how, and 3. a lot of people find it intimidating. I know at first I did. Just as one learned analogue photography, etc., there is a learning curve in processing RAW files. It is like learning to be in the darkroom again. Don't get me wrong, there are times when jpegs are preferable, but you are really selling yourself short shooting anything other then RAW when you need the most out of your image.

RAW capability IS A big plus for any digital camera, but not vital in my opinion for P&S cameras. I shot an image yesterday of a city scene with the full range of light intensities from black to white, shadows to brighest light, and I found that I could bring detail out of the deepest shadows in the scene - unbelievable detail given that I was pulling them from the deepest portions of the darkest shadows. That is most of what I used RAW for - extended information to work with in getting back detail where it may have been lost. The SD700 offers a great deal of info in the JPG files - I know this is not possible, but it does something well.

IGMeanwell

07-26-2006, 15:51

because it doesn't actually deliver good high iso performance. all it does is noise reduce like hell, giving you files infested with artifacts, desaturated colors, low detail, and blocky tonality. i'm not sure you'd even get decent 4x6 machine prints without some additional work.

sounds like this camera also has problems in bright light, which is ridiculous.

You obviously aren't familiar with P&S digital cameras

plus you already have had 3 people on this thread talk how they prefer a certian amount of noise to give it a grainy film feeling

Don't be a troll unless you have a decent argument

rxmd

07-27-2006, 02:49

I'll probably get one. I need a small carry-around-everywhere digital camera that is also usable for photographing manuscripts in archives and libraries; over the next year I'll be working in Central Asia a lot where there is typically not the best lighting in the workplace.

The choice is between this and the GR-D, and I think a 28mm-eq wideangle is a bit impractical as an everyday lens in those situations.

Philipp

MJSfoto1956

07-27-2006, 03:15

telenous

07-27-2006, 03:42

My question in all this: how come nobody is shipping a pocket digital camera with an f2 or f1.4 fixed lens? For me *THAT* is the way to go for a dedicated low-light camera. Toss the wimpy zoom and offer me a handful of fast, small, lightweight fixed focal length lenses -- you know, just like a mini Leica!!!

How many of you would buy such a puppy?

I would definitely want to buy (or consider buying) something like that. The crop factor probably means that the camera would have to use a 28mm or 35mm lens to give you something approximating a normal focal length. f2 or f1.4 shouldn't be unfeasible although the lens would be big and the camera quite expensive.

dcsang

07-27-2006, 03:55

Sorry Dave, but this statement is so off base. This is precisely what I think is wrong with a lot of P&S cameras, no RAW capability. It really expands the camera as a tool for getting all that one can out of it, moreso then high ISO ratings. I have a LX1. What drew me to this camera was the fact that it captures images in RAW files. The noise that people think plagues this camera files becomes moot when one has the capability to lessen it, or completely remove it. RAW gives one the added ability to get all they can out of their files. To capture in any other file format, THAT is a waste of time. I think many people are afraid to shoot in this format, because - 1. they don't know how to process the files, 2. they don't want to take the time to learn how, and 3. a lot of people find it intimidating. I know at first I did. Just as one learned analogue photography, etc., there is a learning curve in processing RAW files. It is like learning to be in the darkroom again. Don't get me wrong, there are times when jpegs are preferable, but you are really selling yourself short shooting anything other then RAW when you need the most out of your image.

Keith,

You can lessen noise in JPEG files - Noise Ninja or NeatImage can do that.
I shoot in RAW all the time - when it's necessary to shoot in RAW - for example; with my DSLRs when I'm shooting a wedding - no fear of post processing here, I know how to do it and do it effectively.

A P&S camera does not "lend itself" (for the lack of better words) to RAW capture - a "ProSumer" (hate that word) "DSLR-like" camera would be decent with RAW and many do have it but small pocketable P&S cameras are made for people who want the image now. In this case it's not a matter of not taking the time to learn or finding it intimidating or even not knowing; it's more about not wanting to "wait" for the final image. At least that's my take on it.

Dave

dcsang

07-27-2006, 03:58

because it doesn't actually deliver good high iso performance. all it does is noise reduce like hell, giving you files infested with artifacts, desaturated colors, low detail, and blocky tonality. i'm not sure you'd even get decent 4x6 machine prints without some additional work.

sounds like this camera also has problems in bright light, which is ridiculous.

The mere fact that you've said "I'm not sure you'd even get decent 4x6 machine prints" suggests that you've never seen a 4x6 machine print at high iso.

I have, from a local lab, no post processing - they look absolutely fine.

I bet a lot has to do with the total size of the original image (6 MP) but they still look just fine - if they didn't, I would not have mentioned it earlier in this thread :)

Dave

VinceC

07-27-2006, 04:10

>>The crop factor probably means that the camera would have to use a 28mm or 35mm lens to give you something approximating a normal focal length.<<

For a point-and-shoot with the now-common tiny sensor, you're actually talking a lens in the 7mm to 10mm range to get a "normal" image size.

My Canon G1 -- now five or six years old, is f/2 to f/2.5 through its 7-21mm zoom range. Equivalent to 32mm to 102mm. Later Canon P&S's use similar optics.

I don't think there's much of a consumer market for a fixed-lens, available light digital point and shoot.

ghost

07-27-2006, 04:19

The mere fact that you've said "I'm not sure you'd even get decent 4x6 machine prints" suggests that you've never seen a 4x6 machine print at high iso.

I have, from a local lab, no post processing - they look absolutely fine.

I bet a lot has to do with the total size of the original image (6 MP) but they still look just fine - if they didn't, I would not have mentioned it earlier in this thread :)

Dave

if the high iso 4x6 prints look "fine", great. no problems with saturation or blocky tonality? that's definitely a larger concern than noise in such small prints.

ghost

07-27-2006, 04:20

You obviously aren't familiar with P&S digital cameras

plus you already have had 3 people on this thread talk how they prefer a certian amount of noise to give it a grainy film feeling

Don't be a troll unless you have a decent argument

i wasn't talking about the amount of noise. go hunting somewhere else.

IGMeanwell

07-27-2006, 04:57

if the high iso 4x6 prints look "fine", great. no problems with saturation or blocky tonality? that's definitely a larger concern than noise in such small prints.

OK ... what digital P&S have you found that has met your requirements?

Todd.Hanz

07-27-2006, 05:08

As this discussion run awry, RAW in a small P&S is often a waste for the majority of consumers. My wife for instance would never be able to print her snaps at walgreens, sams, costco, walmart, cvs, etc if they were shot in RAW as they don't have they ability to recognize the format...yet.

I shoot RAW all the time and agree it a superior way of capturing all the info possible, but the P&S market is aimed at Soccer Moms and not the analy retentive techno geeks like us :)

Todd

dcsang

07-27-2006, 05:56

if the high iso 4x6 prints look "fine", great. no problems with saturation or blocky tonality? that's definitely a larger concern than noise in such small prints.

I'm not going to be the one to convince you if it's good or not. I think, in my opinion, they look fine. You have to go to your local camera shop. Go ahead, ask them to show you a 4x6 print from the camera. If they are worth their salt they'll do it for you - it's no skin off their noses :)

Only you are going to be the determining factor in whether a print will look good enough for yourself.

We get caught up when we talk digital because a lot of folks love to enlarge the original image to 400% to determine just how "bad" the image out of the camera is. They then never bother to print when we all know that we do not press our noses up to framed photos on the wall to view said photos. It's always been an issue with digital images and cameras as long as I've been reading/using them.

Dave

Kevin

07-27-2006, 06:35

Are the RAW and TIFF formats qualitatively comparable?

My little Casio does not support RAW but TIFF. Is that comparible to RAW? I have only had this baby for over a week and thus haven't performed many tests yet.

ampguy

07-27-2006, 07:24

have you used one? what did you think?

dpreview should be ashamed of hyping this product. =(

ampguy

07-27-2006, 07:37

maybe.

RAW and TIFF are both uncompressed, and both have advantages and disadvantages.

tweakers like RAW, but it's not standardized, you need proprietary software to view or modify the image.

TIFFs are a standard, and viewable with standard pc/mac software, and ready to go to print.

TIFFs are less flexible, in that in most cases the ISO and white balance from the camera settings are embedded in the image and cannot be changed as with RAW images.

RAW capture may be higher resolution (12-bits/pixel), where TIFFs may be 8 bits, bucketized into 12-bit TIFF files. Check your camera specs.

I don't know the specifics of your Casio's TIFF dump, I have a Lumix and if you know to set the ISO and WB correctly at photo time, the TIFFs will be good, and not benefit from RAW tweaks for my needs.

So the answer to your question is maybe, but there are parameters you likely can't tweak in the the TIFF that you could in RAW with enough time and proprietary software at hand.

Are the RAW and TIFF formats qualitatively comparable?

My little Casio does not support RAW but TIFF. Is that comparible to RAW? I have only had this baby for over a week and thus haven't performed many tests yet.

fgianni

07-27-2006, 07:40

Are the RAW and TIFF formats qualitatively comparable?

Unfortunately the big difference is that raw supports 12 bits per color, while TIFF only 8 like JPEG, essentially a TIFF image has already been processed by the camera, while the raw image is raw datra coming from the sensor.

The only advantage that TIFF has over JPEG is that it is not compressed, so it's free from any artefacts due to the JPEG compression, however IMHO the quality difference between high quality JPEG and TIFF is negligible, and does not justify the amount of memory used by TIFF.

John

07-27-2006, 07:52

originally posted by kgb32
Just as one learned analogue photography, etc., there is a learning curve in processing RAW files. It is like learning to be in the darkroom again.
OK I'll bite. I have a Canon Power Shot S 50 5 megapixel p+s. It is capable of shooting raw. After I run the raw files through the Canon utility and save as tiffs - what workflow should I try? I have Elements 4 and Gimp, (and others). Levels adjust? auto adjust? Should I apply unsharp mask second last and noise ninja last? (if required). Point me in the right direction so I can read up on it. :)

ampguy

07-27-2006, 08:02

take the tiff to your local drug store and enlarge to 8x10.

put your M3 on a tripod, and take a picture of the 8x10.

Take the film out of your M3 and go back to the drugstore for developing and the resulting 8x10 will have all that raw work and more done for you.
:cool:

OK I'll bite. I have a Canon Power Shot S 50 5 megapixel p+s. It is capable of shooting raw. After I run the raw files through the Canon utility and save as tiffs - what workflow should I try? I have Elements 4 and Gimp, (and others). Levels adjust? auto adjust? Should I apply unsharp mask second last and noise ninja last? (if required). Point me in the right direction so I can read up on it. :)

ghost

07-27-2006, 13:17

OK ... what digital P&S have you found that has met your requirements?

at high iso, none.

ghost

07-27-2006, 13:25

We get caught up when we talk digital because a lot of folks love to enlarge the original image to 400% to determine just how "bad" the image out of the camera is. They then never bother to print when we all know that we do not press our noses up to framed photos on the wall to view said photos. It's always been an issue with digital images and cameras as long as I've been reading/using them.

Dave

uh...exactly? we usually don't put framed 4x6 prints on the wall and look at them from a distance. we usually put them in albums and look at them intimately.

Kevin

07-28-2006, 00:07

Hey, thanks for the quick and understandable replies !

I already noticed that the .tiff files are much larger than the high resolution .jpg files. I thought that the .tiff files must therefore be uncompressed, RAW equivalents. My mistake.

Does anyone else here have this digital p&s? I bought it new/old-stock - a model from 2004 (Casio Exilim EX-P700).

It is the only small digital p&s I could find with an external flash terminal !

IGMeanwell

07-28-2006, 00:39

Kevin,

Have you actually used an external flash with the Casio?

dcsang

07-28-2006, 00:42

uh...exactly? we usually don't put framed 4x6 prints on the wall and look at them from a distance. we usually put them in albums and look at them intimately.

Sure we do.

Everyone all around the world does this.....

Dave

Kevin

07-28-2006, 01:10

Kevin,

Have you actually used an external flash with the Casio?

That is why I bought the thing in the first place :rolleyes:

In daylight I can set the camera to ISO 80 and fire away.

When the light gets low I put the Casio and my standard Metz swivel/tilt flash on a bracket. I set the camera to Manual, allowing me to quickly and easily change the aperature and shutter speed.

The image results can be very good indeed, and the whole digital with flash setup is relatively small, light and unobtrusive.

People sometimes laugh when they see this tiny p&s attached to a flash almost twice as large !!!

I would recommend this setup to every rf-user here. The camera might not be the most modern camera on the market, but having an external flash terminal on such a small digicam makes up for all shortcomings, whatever they may be.

Will post some flash rabbit pics here soon.

Kevin

IGMeanwell

07-28-2006, 01:29

Kevin,

I will be looking forward to those for sure ... I like the odd and innovative (really the first I have heard the use of a flash mount on a Digital P&S)

Kevin

07-28-2006, 02:32

No prob!

I will post something as soon as I have replaced my pc's graphics card !

In the meantime you can read the review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioexp700/

I bought two of them because the price of old-stock inventory has almost halved. This camera is a winner for me and has quenched my desire for anything better, probably because of its small size, manual controls, flash terminal !!! and of course the 7.1 MP sensor !!!

Personally I wouldn't even consider the newer EX-Z700:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06072601casioexz700.asp

ghost

07-28-2006, 02:41

Sure we do.

Everyone all around the world does this.....

Dave

ok, i'll take that as a "no".

i printed out some 4x6s. iso 400 is fine, the others aren't. if you like it, i'll bet it only lasts until aps-c sensors make it to small cameras!

IGMeanwell

07-28-2006, 05:51

Kevin

07-28-2006, 06:12

In that size the answer could be yes, however I haven't completely researched the market, past and present.

I do believe that Casio introduced a p&s with a feature that the mainstream market did not consider valuable enough to warrant paying extra for.

When the EX-P700 came out in late 2004 it cost retail almost $700 !!!

I got each of mine new for less than half that price. I might even pick up a third if the price drops below $200 (you know how easily these things can break, especially during a job!).

I cannot tell you how powerful and liberating it is to have such a small, light digital p&s attached to a big flash. Everyone wants to have their picture taken with this rig. I mean everyone.

For events in which a customer will not afford film-based photography or even pro digital photography (which I have no gear for anyways), this is the only solution I could come up with.

Perhaps my bunny pics will convince you that this is the right solution for you?

Will be back soon!

Kevin

ampguy

07-28-2006, 07:50

cool, i like bunny pics.

kbg32

07-28-2006, 08:34

Keith,

You can lessen noise in JPEG files - Noise Ninja or NeatImage can do that.
I shoot in RAW all the time - when it's necessary to shoot in RAW - for example; with my DSLRs when I'm shooting a wedding - no fear of post processing here, I know how to do it and do it effectively.

A P&S camera does not "lend itself" (for the lack of better words) to RAW capture - a "ProSumer" (hate that word) "DSLR-like" camera would be decent with RAW and many do have it but small pocketable P&S cameras are made for people who want the image now. In this case it's not a matter of not taking the time to learn or finding it intimidating or even not knowing; it's more about not wanting to "wait" for the final image. At least that's my take on it.

Dave

I agree with you there as far as using NN etc. on jpeg files. For most people, P&S are just for jpeg capture for getting the image "now". I find RAW invaluable, even with my little LX1. It was my camera of choice in getting a small pocketable P&S. It's a great little street shooter - small and silent. The "noise" has never been a problem. I think people tend to dwell on this issue far too much. I am looking forward to the LX2 this September.

Cheers.

IGMeanwell

07-29-2006, 01:19

It looks like they will be releasing the F20 in September ... slightly slimmer and lighter... plus available in a "gunmetal" finish (why can't they just make'em black)

Looks like they did away with the ISO 3200 setting ... could go up to ISO 2000 with their natural light setting (uses a smart fill flash I guess)

The more I read up on these P&S 's the less appealing they seem ... I'm going to be looking forward to seeing a review of the Lumix LX2 when it arrives and maybe by then Fuji will have an even better pocket rocket to speak of

Kevin

07-30-2006, 03:03

These are a few test shots of the bunnies taken with a small digital p&s in extremely low light (aka night) in the flat. I could not have taken any decent pics without flash, not with this prosumer camera.

'The Casio EX-P700 has an external flash sync terminal which allows me to connect any flash unit I want.

Using a big Metz 45 CT or even something smaller on a flash bracket, the pics can be as good as any other pro digital camera, but at half the cost, half the size and half the weight.

I shot a baptism yesterday and the flash pics are quite fine for the money.

Best Regards,
Kevin

rxmd

07-30-2006, 05:34

Hi,

the older P-600 apparently has an external terminal, too.

What settings do you use on the flash? Do you just have it flash away at full power and have the camera do the metering, do you use an automatic flash and fix the camera's aperture, or does the camera support TTL flash?

Philipp

Kevin

07-30-2006, 11:44

That's right! The EX-P600 has a flash terminal as well! But I dont think either of these models has TTL.

I haven't tried full manual flash yet. I think that would be way too much light!

Yes, I use an automatic flash and fix the camera's aperture. Normally I set the camera to ASA 80 and the flash to ASA 100. The flash's output dial is set anywhere between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

Then I take a pic and adjust the aperature as needed. Slight underexposure is fine, then I wont have so many problems with overexposed highlights.

Do you like the look?

07-30-2006, 12:50

HCB used 35mm rangefinders because they are low impact, stealthy, etc. Some of us want to buy into the digital P&S selection. This is a good idea - they have alot of value if used for the right things. Some of us want to use a digital P&S for the type of thing we use our film rangefinders for. This is not a good idea - digital P&S cameras are not rangefinders. They will not replace rangefinders. They cannot replace rangefinders. The RD-1 is close. THe M8 will do a nice job of it, but still miss the mark (with a cropped sensor that will affect the value of our lens lineups).

What most of us want is a digital rangefinder LIKE the RD-1, but built differently, longer baselength, higher ISOs, lower ISOs, etc.

I bought the Canon SD700IS because it offers remarkably nice B&W, is easy to use after a day or so of getting used to the controls, and takes fantastic video. It is just a really nice family snapshot/pics on the bus to work/random clicking kind of camera for someone without the time or money to process 10+ rolls of film a week. I didn't buy it hoping to find something that would replace film of any format. I didn't buy it as my stealthy street shooter. The RF645 remains my art camera. The P&S is just that : a P&S for taking pictures of stuff like what I ate for breakfast or videos of raccoons playing in my yard, or pics of my Bronica.

I bought the Canon BECAUSE it will never replace my real camera. There will never be a "should I bring the Bronica or the SD700?" event. Never, because both cameras are hugely different creatures.

I accept that there are different tools for different jobs.

ampguy

07-30-2006, 13:10

the black one looks stealthy!! The white one has a cool design around his eyes.

These are a few test shots of the bunnies taken with a small digital p&s in extremely low light (aka night) in the flat. I could not have taken any decent pics without flash, not with this prosumer camera.

'The Casio EX-P700 has an external flash sync terminal which allows me to connect any flash unit I want.

Using a big Metz 45 CT or even something smaller on a flash bracket, the pics can be as good as any other pro digital camera, but at half the cost, half the size and half the weight.

I shot a baptism yesterday and the flash pics are quite fine for the money.

Best Regards,
Kevin

Kevin

07-30-2006, 13:36

Jacky (the black bunny) is a stealth rocket all right. She can run faster than any bunny I have ever had.

The cool-eye-design bunny is Bobby. He is quite the character. He likes to pose, much like Leoni, my current avatar bunny who passed away last year.

Are you a bunny friend as well?

IGMeanwell

07-30-2006, 17:05

I like these bunny pics alot ... I assume the exposure takes a little to get right but overall I like the quality

I think this would be a setup Weegee would have been proud of ...

I just think its pretty funnny out of all the fantastic equipment you have it seems like you enjoy using this set up just as much as your others; or am I putting words into your mouth? It definitely seems to have its place in your arsenal

Kevin

07-31-2006, 03:00

Thanks! Bunnies are great models I must tell you! They will actually sit up and pose for people they know well.

It seems almost blasphemous that I would enjoy using such as rig as much as my Leica M6 or Contax G2.

But I enjoy using it in only a few specific contexts:

1) bunny pics
2) studio flash verification (polaroid substitute)
3) underpaid, dark indoor events where good light, DOF and my comfort have a high priority.

I think Weegee must have had some serious arm and shoulder muscels in his heyday. But I dont believe he would have traded in his trusty Graphic for this cheap thing!