Fuji F30 Review Online At DPReview

[OldNick]

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]

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.

 

[sf]

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]

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]

Read the review Brett.. you nutty Wisconsinite you 😀

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]

dpreview should be ashamed of hyping this product. =(

 

[Rich Silfver]

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]

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.

 

[sf]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[telenous]

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]

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]

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]

>>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]

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]

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]

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]

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