Finpix S7000 battery drain

Just bought me a Fuji Finepix S7000. I'm a bit alarmed about the rumours
referring to battery drain when using compact-flash in stead of XD-memory!
Now I need to buy some memory.
Is this a marketing trick of Fuji or is really something wrong?
Please, content users of compact flash in S7000 (new model) let me know
(brand, type of CF).

Many thanks,

Jan (from the Netherlands)

Gemini

Gemini wrote:

> Just bought me a Fuji Finepix S7000.

Sorry to hear that. We won't hold it against you.

> I'm a bit alarmed about the rumours
> referring to battery drain when using compact-flash in stead of XD-memory!

Shouldn't you be more alarmed about the rumors of poor image quality?

From DCresouce:

"The Fuji FinePix S7000 is a camera with a lot of potential that was
ultimately a let down in the image quality department. In what seems to
be a trend lately on their cameras, Fuji is processing and compressing
their images to death, causing higher than average noise and other
digital junk. I can live with a little "grain" in images, but when it
starts eating away at details, it's too much."


--

-Thad L.

Hi
Just buy an XD memory card, then you will have no worries, will you? I have
the same camera and use an XD 512 meg card and use the view finder not the
LCD screen and I get about 50 to 60 photos using the flash to a set of
batteries.


"Gemini" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Just bought me a Fuji Finepix S7000. I'm a bit alarmed about the rumours
> referring to battery drain when using compact-flash in stead of XD-memory!
> Now I need to buy some memory.
> Is this a marketing trick of Fuji or is really something wrong?
> Please, content users of compact flash in S7000 (new model) let me know
> (brand, type of CF).
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Jan (from the Netherlands)
>
>
>

"Thad" <> wrote in message
news:...

> > Just bought me a Fuji Finepix S7000.

> > I'm a bit alarmed about the rumours
> > referring to battery drain when using compact-flash in stead of
XD-memory!

It has been fixed in the current batch of new cameras, but it sure was an
issue. I have a 128Meg CF in my camera and have no battery issues at all. I
regularly get 250+ pictures after having the camera sit with the batteries
in it for 2-3 weeks

> Shouldn't you be more alarmed about the rumors of poor image quality?

Do you OWN an S7000? If not go away troll, and leave the S7000 owners to
talk

Bud

Bud wrote:

> Do you OWN an S7000? If not go away

No, I don't, but I have seen the results. And I haven't seen one review
that gives it a high score for image quality. The JPG format on this
camera is unusable. And if you do not want to hear opinions from a
variety of people, then you are in the wrong forum. Show us a high
quality JPG from out of the S5000 or S7000, without manipulation. With
all of the abuse that some people give George Preddy about Sigma
cameras, my dissenting opinions about these particular Fuji models are
relatively mild.

I have succeeded in opening up debate on the quality of these cameras,
and most S5000/S7000 owners have conceeded that the out-of-camera JPGs
are not usable. They shoot RAW. What good is that to the target market?


--

-Thad L.

I work with this camera too (I'm an Eos owner). I often use 12 MP Fine Jpeg
and sometimes I set it for the RAW. From JPEg i can create A3 print size
with wonderful details. When I see my shot on monitor, 100% crop, yes...
they aren't too attractive. But you need to print them to join this camera.
Trust me.

Mike

"Thad" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:...
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Do you OWN an S7000? If not go away
>
> No, I don't, but I have seen the results. And I haven't seen one review
> that gives it a high score for image quality. The JPG format on this
> camera is unusable. And if you do not want to hear opinions from a
> variety of people, then you are in the wrong forum. Show us a high
> quality JPG from out of the S5000 or S7000, without manipulation. With
> all of the abuse that some people give George Preddy about Sigma
> cameras, my dissenting opinions about these particular Fuji models are
> relatively mild.
>
> I have succeeded in opening up debate on the quality of these cameras,
> and most S5000/S7000 owners have conceeded that the out-of-camera JPGs
> are not usable. They shoot RAW. What good is that to the target market?
>
>
> --
>
> -Thad L.

"Thad" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Do you OWN an S7000? If not go away
>
> No, I don't, but I have seen the results. And I haven't seen one review
> that gives it a high score for image quality. The JPG format on this
> camera is unusable. And if you do not want to hear opinions from a
> variety of people, then you are in the wrong forum. Show us a high
> quality JPG from out of the S5000 or S7000, without manipulation. With
> all of the abuse that some people give George Preddy about Sigma
> cameras, my dissenting opinions about these particular Fuji models are
> relatively mild.
>
> I have succeeded in opening up debate on the quality of these cameras,
> and most S5000/S7000 owners have conceeded that the out-of-camera JPGs
> are not usable. They shoot RAW. What good is that to the target market?
>
>
> --
>
> -Thad L.
Its no debate if one party does not have the facts of a hands on user...
IMO you are off track at least about the S7000 (only one I am familar with
and own)
How you feel qualified to condemn both cameras based on reviews is
uninformed and baseless.
I too thought (and the keyword was thought) based on some reviews (not all
are negative, some quite the contrary) that the S7000 was inferior until I
had the opportunity to read the Fuji forum and dpreview.com
of real world users and then had a chance to buy one under $400 after
rebate. Having owned no fewer than 12 cameras the past 3 years the Fuji
S7000 while not being perfect (no camera is) is superb
in speed, raw and 12mp jpeg output, macro is outstanding. In fact I liked
it so much I also bought
the Fuji F700 pocketable to take with me everywhere, also outstanding while
not getting great reviews, mainly because of price ($600 when introduced)
for a 3.1 megapixel camera. (Now around $300, a real bargain) 12mp fine and
normal, even 6mp with the S7000 are excellent.

You want to see some examples, here are a few I just posted:
http://jspen.smugmug.com/gallery/116061/1/4151869
(mostly jpegs, some raw)

Back off on being a Fuji basher, your words mean nothing unless you actually
own one... there are plenty of owners that LOVE them for their value,
features and photo quality, in my opinion nothing under
$400 compares... Or maybe Thad you can recommend (and be helpful rather
than critical of peoples choices) a under $400 6.1 6X Zoom camera that
shoots RAW? Your answer is...

Jim

"Thad" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Do you OWN an S7000? If not go away
>
> No, I don't, but I have seen the results. And I haven't seen one review
> that gives it a high score for image quality. The JPG format on this
> camera is unusable. And if you do not want to hear opinions from a
> variety of people, then you are in the wrong forum. Show us a high
> quality JPG from out of the S5000 or S7000, without manipulation. With
> all of the abuse that some people give George Preddy about Sigma
> cameras, my dissenting opinions about these particular Fuji models are
> relatively mild.
>
> I have succeeded in opening up debate on the quality of these cameras,
> and most S5000/S7000 owners have conceeded that the out-of-camera JPGs
> are not usable. They shoot RAW. What good is that to the target market?
>
>
> --
>
> -Thad L.

Stick your head up your ass and fight for air....PLONK

Jim Spen wrote:

> You want to see some examples, here are a few I just posted:
> http://jspen.smugmug.com/gallery/116061/1/4151869


If you're happy with those photos, then that is all that matters.
Everyone sees things differently. There was a time when I would have
been satisfied with those images too.

Can you get a better 6X zoom for under $400? Probably not. Too many
people are more impressed by the optical zoom factor, and less concerned
about optics.

For the record, I'm not a Fuji basher. The S3000 takes better pictures
than either the S5000 or S7000, and most reviews will confirm this. At
least that camera gives you a usable JPG. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
RAW OPTION. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY THESE CAMERAS WILL NOT USE RAW.

And as far as my opinion not being valid because I don't own an S5000 or
S7000..nonsense. Do you thing many of the people in this group that go
around bashing Sigma and Foveon actually own a Sigma? No. They base
their arguments of the thorough testing of more qualified professionals
like Phil Askey. Same here. I value Phil Askey's advice about cameras
more than I trust yours. Just like I would expect you to value Tiger
Woods' advice about the game of golf more than you would value mine.
Your opinions about cameras and my views on gold are indeed valid, but
the expert's view should bear more weight.

--

-Thad L.

SNIP>
> If you're happy with those photos, then that is all that matters.
> Everyone sees things differently. There was a time when I would have
> been satisfied with those images too.

You again criticize yet provide no substantive facts, you are a troll
looking for a argument, the others are 100% right. By all means, please post
some of your images so we can compare your 3000 to my 7000 images... (Or
don't you own one of those also...)

> Can you get a better 6X zoom for under $400? Probably not. Too many
> people are more impressed by the optical zoom factor, and less concerned
> about optics.

You have proven nothing is wrong with the F7000 optics

> For the record, I'm not a Fuji basher. The S3000 takes better pictures
> than either the S5000 or S7000, and most reviews will confirm this. At
> least that camera gives you a usable JPG. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
> RAW OPTION. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY THESE CAMERAS WILL NOT USE RAW.

And I did not provide the samples in ALL RAW format, they were mostly JPEG
as previously indicated.
A 3MP S3000 will take a better picture than the 6mp S7000, let see it...
Your best buddy Phil Askey
actually said (see below) the resolution of the S7000 matched the 8MP Sony
828. Lets see
your 3mp proof so we can compare. Then we will crop that image and the
S7000 and see which one looks better after beding cropped... He also said
it will deliver good images at 6mp GASP, not
consistant with your biased analysis.


> And as far as my opinion not being valid because I don't own an S5000 or
> S7000..nonsense. Do you thing many of the people in this group that go
> around bashing Sigma and Foveon actually own a Sigma? No. They base
> their arguments of the thorough testing of more qualified professionals
> like Phil Askey. Same here. I value Phil Askey's advice about cameras
> more than I trust yours. Just like I would expect you to value Tiger
> Woods' advice about the game of golf more than you would value mine.
> Your opinions about cameras and my views on gold are indeed valid, but
> the expert's view should bear more weight.

You are full of it...
The only nonsense here is your argumentative, ignorant, advice and
commentary... You want to know why you are full of it... Your buddy, Phil
Askey's conclusion on the S7000 review which he RECOMMENDED says it all...

Quote: dpreview.com Phil Askey FInepix F7000 Review (Note he was
recommending it at $600!)

"The S7000 is in a fairly unique position, it is the only prosumer digital
camera with a six megapixel sensor. Indeed, until the announcement of Sony's
eight megapixel DSC-F828 it was the highest resolution prosumer digital
camera. Test results versus the Sony were mixed, our studio comparison shots
showed better performance from the F828, however the S7000's 12 MP mode
matched the F828 on the resolution chart.

From a speed point of view the S7000 is as fast as any extending lens
prosumer level digital camera with fairly good auto focus performance (at
least if you switch to Center AF area) and good shot to shot times. Slowest
functions are power on, switching back to record mode if the lens has
retracted and fully magnifying an image in play mode.

The S7000 feels limited by two things, firstly that it doesn't provide as
much manual control as some of the other cameras it will be compared to (the
Minolta DiMAGE A1 comes to mind), nor as many features. And secondly that
the lens system is the still the same which was used originally in the
FinePix 4900 Zoom (September 2000).

Overall however you can work around these limitations and stick to the 6 MP
image mode which will deliver good images with fewer artifacts and a smaller
file size. Where the S7000 wins is value for money, at around $600 it offers
a lot at a lower price than the competition.

Recommended"



PLONK!