NickTrop
Veteran
A while ago I posted about using a Fuji F30 along with some SW to emulate film photography - specifically bokeh and "the film look". The SW is both made by Alien Skin - "Bokeh" and "Exposure 2". I ended up not with the 30 (had it, gave it away, long story) ended up with the F20.
Gotta tellya... not bad for a cheap used digicam. Cost me $80 (plus ship) used (VG condition) US on the auction site - a CCD that really does shoot ISO 800 no problem - goes up to 2000. 36-100 (something) zoom, f2.8-5 zoom lens.
Lots of talk about digital RFs out there that cost $1000's. If you don't have that kind of dough, this camera is a compelling alternative, if you get what you lose in post. To me the advantage of an RF is that it's quite, unobtrusive, smaller that an SLR and better in low light. (It literally costs 1/37.5ths of a $3000 digital RF.) If you want that privilege in the digital world but don't have 1000's to blow and are willing to make some sacrifices (like not shooting with a RF) this camera line (F30 and 31 are the best but too many bidders... F10, 20 is good enough) is definitely something to consider. In fact, it has some advantages over the more expensive M8s and Epsons of the world - it's tiny, and actually might have a better sensor (though smaller). A little PS, good black and white conversion SW, some time (getting realistic looking bokeh takes time and skill...) and you come pretty close, imo. Shut off the fake shutter noise and infernal beeping and the camera is literally completely silent. Also has terrific battery life.
Bottom line - If you shoot a RF mostly because they're the best natural light tools and they're unobtrusive and quite, and if want the advantages of digital, getting one of these little gems used is a no-brainer.
I purchased mine because I wanted to shoot more unconstrained by processing costs or time to develop. I doesn't replace a film camera but ya know what? It doesn't suck.
Gotta tellya... not bad for a cheap used digicam. Cost me $80 (plus ship) used (VG condition) US on the auction site - a CCD that really does shoot ISO 800 no problem - goes up to 2000. 36-100 (something) zoom, f2.8-5 zoom lens.
Lots of talk about digital RFs out there that cost $1000's. If you don't have that kind of dough, this camera is a compelling alternative, if you get what you lose in post. To me the advantage of an RF is that it's quite, unobtrusive, smaller that an SLR and better in low light. (It literally costs 1/37.5ths of a $3000 digital RF.) If you want that privilege in the digital world but don't have 1000's to blow and are willing to make some sacrifices (like not shooting with a RF) this camera line (F30 and 31 are the best but too many bidders... F10, 20 is good enough) is definitely something to consider. In fact, it has some advantages over the more expensive M8s and Epsons of the world - it's tiny, and actually might have a better sensor (though smaller). A little PS, good black and white conversion SW, some time (getting realistic looking bokeh takes time and skill...) and you come pretty close, imo. Shut off the fake shutter noise and infernal beeping and the camera is literally completely silent. Also has terrific battery life.
Bottom line - If you shoot a RF mostly because they're the best natural light tools and they're unobtrusive and quite, and if want the advantages of digital, getting one of these little gems used is a no-brainer.
I purchased mine because I wanted to shoot more unconstrained by processing costs or time to develop. I doesn't replace a film camera but ya know what? It doesn't suck.
bmattock
Veteran
Here are some photos from the upcoming Fuji F200 EXR. Might be a suitable update to the venerable F10~31fd cameras.
http://translate.google.com/transla.../cda/review/2009/02/05/10144.html&sl=ja&tl=en
http://translate.google.com/transla.../cda/review/2009/02/05/10144.html&sl=ja&tl=en
NickTrop
Veteran
Thanks - yes, read about this one. Definitely one to keep an eye on. Looking forward to reading some reviews when it's on the shelves.
ampguy
Veteran
The past week I shot some indoor photos at 3200, very usable for online work low res work, and 1600 would have just been too risky with movement/sharpness.
IK13
Established
I have F30. Very good detail, poor dynamic range (funny, since the big brother S5 delivers the best dynamic range amongst the DSLR).
Put a white shirt anywhere in the picture and unless you way underexpose - you get pretty bad glow.
The above, plus Fuji's refusal to add something so simple like a histogram (and real manual controls) will most likely make me look somewhere else (Panasonic?)
Put a white shirt anywhere in the picture and unless you way underexpose - you get pretty bad glow.
The above, plus Fuji's refusal to add something so simple like a histogram (and real manual controls) will most likely make me look somewhere else (Panasonic?)
sleepyhead
Well-known
I had an F30 for a while and pretty much hated it - so sorry, as a long time film RF user and now also Epson R-D1 user, I gotta disagree. The results from the F30 at ASA 800 and 1600 were painful to look at compared to the nice film-like noise from the R-D1 at the same settings. I know that I'm comparing two very different beasts, but aren't you as well?
The lack of histogram on the F30 also bugged me. I always had it set to -2/3 stop underexposure to avoid blown out highlights.
Also, any camera that can't at least mount and use ONE of my M-mount lenses will never be a substitute for a digital rangefinder for me.
The lack of histogram on the F30 also bugged me. I always had it set to -2/3 stop underexposure to avoid blown out highlights.
Also, any camera that can't at least mount and use ONE of my M-mount lenses will never be a substitute for a digital rangefinder for me.