Finpix S7000 battery drain

"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, many people have been hoodwinked about the s7000 and I'm beginning to
think some of its reviewers have been taking drugs before writing. While it
is true that the best quality can be obtained shooting in RAW mode, the 6mp
normal/soft jpg's produce not just good, but _excellent_ qualilty results at
8x10 and above. I've even produced good-to-very-good 8x10's when shooting
in the S7000's 3 mp jpeg mode! In those few cases in which noise might have
been too noticeable in the print, post-processing with NeatImage solved the
problem handily.

Does the S7000 produce photos as good as those taken by the Canon 300D
without post-processing? No, it does not and any s7000 owner who says it
does isn't being honest or has spent too much time in the darkroom sniffing
fixer. However, the s7000 does produce images as good as--and
_probably_better than-- any 5 mp camera on the market, and for a very
attractive price for an SLR-like camera. I agonized quite a bit over my
purchase beforehand, printed and examined quite a number of sample photos
from various cameras, and finally decided the S7000's price/performance
characteristics defined a camera that was just too good a value to pass up.
Here's some of what I received for my $499 US (after rebate through Costo,
which I have already received.):

1) A 6 mp, rugged camera which can produce excellent prints, though
admittedly requiring post-processing _some_of the time. Please note that I
would not have purchased the camera had it produced poor-quality images,
whatever its other virtues might have been. The picture is the thing, after
all: one doesn't (or shouldn't, perhaps) buy a camera to use as an
ornament.
2) Uses standard NiMH cells, not proprietary batteries
3) Uses CompactFlash cards, of which I had a ton.
4) relatively long lens (6x), reasonable wide-angle (35mm, 35mm-SLR
equivalent)
5) Can be handily used with my 1.4x TCON-14U telephoto lens
6) properly-centered, metal tripod mount
7) full manual operation, including manual focussing.
excellent built-in flash
9) standard hotshoe flash, which does not require a propriety flash unit
10) very good electronic viewfinder with a switchable composition/alignment
grid
11) very good LCD display, easily used outdoors with just minimal shading
12) histogram function (post-shutter only: the preview histogram function
is utterly worthless)
13) excellent macro and super-macro modes
14) very flexible white-balancing selections, including two user-settable
modes (which I use all the time).
15) THE SHUTTER BUTTON ACCEPTS A STANDARD CABLE RELEASE!!!! Sorry for the
shout, but I have NEVER understood why digital camera makers usually fail to
include such a trivial, but nearly essential feature.

I could go on, but that's enough for starters. IMHO, the s7000 is probably
the most under-rated 5+ mpcamera on the market today. Yep, it's got some
warts (I wish there were selectable jpeg compression, for example, and a 6mp
RAW mode), but all-in-all it's a serviceable, workmanlike camera and I'm
very happy with it. It is a great camera for the serious photographer on a
budget.

Two observations/caveats which must be mentioned: 1) the S7000 is not a
camera for beginners who are easily frustrated, but for long-time 35mm SLR
photographers, using it is as comfortable as meeting an old friend for
coffee, and 2) you should purchase a sturdy add-on filter adapter
IMMEDIATELYafter getting the S7000 and you should keep it on the camera at
all times. Fuji should have included this in the package.

If I had to describe the S7000 in the fewest possible words, I'd say that,
with the filter adapter attached, the camera handles like an evolved version
of the Olympus C-2500L, which is still a great camera. If automotive
metaphors are more to your liking, the S7000 isn't a Lexus, but neither is
it the Yugo some reviewers have made it out to be. It's more like a Ford
F-100 pickup-- might not be stylish, but it'll get you there and it's kinda
purdy in its own utilitarian, minimalist way. It _is_ a husky-sized beast,
though: If you can squeeze it into a hip pocket, the Fujifilm S7000 will
definitely "make your butt look big", to quote the Casio EXILIM commericial
which ran here on the Left Coast at Christmas-time.

Finally, not all reviewers detest the poor, maligned S7000. Here's what
Phil Askey at www.dpreview.com said at the conclusion of his S7000 review:

"Overall however you can work around these limitations [see the full review
for the list] 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"

As always, though, caveat emptor, look before you leap, etc. And you may
fairly criticize the Fujifilm S7000 for its _real_ limitations all you like,
but don't you be dissin' my baby just fer yucks!

--Paul

Paul H.

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

The arrogance of this remark certainly doesn't aid in advancing your rather
negative position on the Fuji S7000. Before you ascended to a higher
aesthetic plane, you would have been satisfied with the images? Such
comments are not merely worthless, they are self-aggrandizing rubbish and a
transparent attempt to salvage some sort of validity from the wreck your
previous comments by re-defining the term "quality." Sure, the pictures
look fine to newbies and/or the artistically impaired, but to one gifted
with true sight, they are irrecoverably flawed. Bah.

> 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.

This is at least the second time you have called the jpegs produced by the
Fuji S7000 unusable, yet you have listed no criteria explaining how you
define "useful" and you have implied that you've not printed any S7000 jpegs
yourself. What you are saying, then, is that without any real evidence or
experience, you have completely accepted the verdict of a small subset of
S7000 users who are purportedly displeased with the camera's output and that
you have also ignored any comments running contrary to your fixed, negative
position. Given this, why should anyone take your comments seriously? So
far, they have been virtually indistinguishable from the kinds of remarks a
troll routinely issues.

>I value Phil Askey's advice about cameras more than I trust yours.

If you value Askey's advice, then accept his concluding remarks about the
S7000 in his review:

"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"

Note that Askey says "good" images, not "unusable" ones, and that he
recommends the S7000. Furthermore, www.megapixel.net rates the S7000's 6mp
jpeg image quality as "average to good" with the prefacing remark that

". All cameras are rated according to
their resolution class ."

Better-than-average, while unacceptable to some, is still a far cry from
"unusable". Frankly, if you look at the overall quality of cameras in the
6.0-6.3 mp resolution class, even merely "average" would not be a bad place
to be located.

=============================================

On a related note, I wish there were some sort of double-blind test which
might be set up to judge the relative merits of pictures taken by different
digital cameras under similar settings, instead of having to rely upon
subjective pronoucements from people whose state of disinterest is unknown,
or even suspect. These inane
"I-dislike-this-camera-and-I-ain't-gonna-change-my-mind" threads have become
tedious, at best.

Paul H.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:35:34 +1000, "CyTaN" <> wrote:

=>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.
=>

Or get a cheaper 2.2GB microdrive(1.99GB in FAT16).

Cool Hand

"Paul H." <> wrote in message
news:Es-dnR3j_tPwnDndRVn-...
>
> Two observations/caveats which must be mentioned: 1) the S7000 is not a
> camera for beginners who are easily frustrated, but for long-time 35mm SLR
> photographers, using it is as comfortable as meeting an old friend for
> coffee, and 2) you should purchase a sturdy add-on filter adapter
> IMMEDIATELYafter getting the S7000 and you should keep it on the camera at
> all times. Fuji should have included this in the package.

> --Paul
>
>

Hi Paul,

I'm a very new photographer. Never used a film camera, and my first digital
camera is the S7000. I've only had it a few months now. Haven't had any
problems using it. I started out on auto mode, slowly getting to know the
camera and getting more comfortable with the features of it. (LOVE the
super-macro)

I find the S7000 (and my wifes' S5000) to be very easy for beginners like
us, and very user friendly. We don't claim to be experts at all and have a
way to go before we master the advanced functions of the camera, but it is
easy, with auto focus, auto exposure, etc, to get started until one learns
enough to be able to do it all themselves.

Darryl.

Daz_n_Pat

In article <>, Thad
<> writes

<snip>

>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?

If they don't, there opinion is as worthless as yours

>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.
>

Don't believe everything you read, including 'professionals'

--
Jeff Taylor

One of many happy S7000 users (with very useable jpegs!)

Jeff Taylor