Advice on Fujifilm FinePix S7000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by al, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. al

    al Guest

    I'm looking for a new digital camera around the £300 mark. I want to get a
    dSLR, but not for a few years yet (when I have some more cash and when the
    quality is more on a par with film SLR!). So this camera should be a nice
    and capable stopgap one to last me until then!

    Looking around at reviews, the Fujifilm FinePix S7000 comes up quite often
    as it now retails for just £307 on Amazon. Many things attract me to it -
    the high resolution, the macro ability, the 30fps 640x480 video & sound.
    Other things put me off - mainly the fact that RAW images apparently cannot
    be directly manipulated and in "normal" resolution modes (ie. not
    interpolated), it only allows you to convert to JPEG with one compression
    setting that most reviewers say it too aggressive. Also that only ISO 200
    and 400 can be used at full resolution, ISO 800 at 3MP only and apparently
    without great quality. No firewire either.

    Now bearing in mind that this camera cost almost double when it first came
    out, I would like to know how it compares overall picture quality wise to
    newer cameras at the same (£300) price mark now?


    Any feedback would be much appreciated.





    al
     
    al, Aug 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. al

    Ben Thomas Guest

    al wrote:

    > I'm looking for a new digital camera around the £300 mark. I want to get a
    > dSLR, but not for a few years yet (when I have some more cash and when the
    > quality is more on a par with film SLR!). So this camera should be a nice
    > and capable stopgap one to last me until then!
    >
    > Looking around at reviews, the Fujifilm FinePix S7000 comes up quite often
    > as it now retails for just £307 on Amazon. Many things attract me to it -
    > the high resolution, the macro ability, the 30fps 640x480 video & sound.
    > Other things put me off - mainly the fact that RAW images apparently cannot
    > be directly manipulated and in "normal" resolution modes (ie. not
    > interpolated), it only allows you to convert to JPEG with one compression
    > setting that most reviewers say it too aggressive. Also that only ISO 200
    > and 400 can be used at full resolution, ISO 800 at 3MP only and apparently
    > without great quality. No firewire either.
    >
    > Now bearing in mind that this camera cost almost double when it first came
    > out, I would like to know how it compares overall picture quality wise to
    > newer cameras at the same (£300) price mark now?
    >
    >
    > Any feedback would be much appreciated.


    Is that the 6MP Fuji that has a 3MP sensor and they use interpolation to create
    the 6MP image?

    If so, reviews I read when it first came out stated that the 6MP images did not
    have noticably more detail than the 3MP images.

    The ISO restrictions are to be expected with a non-DSLR because the sensors are
    very small and when the sensitivity is turned up to higher levels there is so
    much noise that there's no point in saving the images at the full resolution.

    www.dpreview.com has a very handy comparison tool that lets you search for
    cameras the fit your needs.


    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
    The essentials: Kodak DX6490, Nikon D70, Canon i9950, Pioneer DVR-109,
    Hitachi W37-PD2100, DGTEC 2000A, Harmon/Kardon AVR4500, Denon DVD-2800,
    Whatmough Synergy, Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm LifeDrive.

    Disclaimer:
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
     
    Ben Thomas, Aug 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. al

    al Guest

    "Ben Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Is that the 6MP Fuji that has a 3MP sensor and they use interpolation to
    > create the 6MP image?
    >
    > If so, reviews I read when it first came out stated that the 6MP images
    > did not have noticably more detail than the 3MP images.
    >
    > The ISO restrictions are to be expected with a non-DSLR because the
    > sensors are very small and when the sensitivity is turned up to higher
    > levels there is so much noise that there's no point in saving the images
    > at the full resolution.
    >


    Same principle, different model. It's 6MP with interpolation up to 12MP.
    Images at 6 or 12 look pretty much the same. However, the only time you can
    choose anything regarding the JPEG compression from RAW is when using 12MP
    prints - they can then use the "fine" filter. Otherwise, one compression
    only which is apparently quite aggressive.

    Having said that, the sample pictures that I've seen on a few web sites
    actually look pretty good.




    a
     
    al, Aug 18, 2005
    #3
  4. al

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <u97Ne.3661$>,
    [ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk says...
    > "Ben Thomas" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Is that the 6MP Fuji that has a 3MP sensor and they use interpolation to
    > > create the 6MP image?
    > >
    > > If so, reviews I read when it first came out stated that the 6MP images
    > > did not have noticably more detail than the 3MP images.
    > >
    > > The ISO restrictions are to be expected with a non-DSLR because the
    > > sensors are very small and when the sensitivity is turned up to higher
    > > levels there is so much noise that there's no point in saving the images
    > > at the full resolution.
    > >

    >
    > Same principle, different model. It's 6MP with interpolation up to 12MP.
    > Images at 6 or 12 look pretty much the same. However, the only time you can
    > choose anything regarding the JPEG compression from RAW is when using 12MP
    > prints - they can then use the "fine" filter. Otherwise, one compression
    > only which is apparently quite aggressive.
    >
    > Having said that, the sample pictures that I've seen on a few web sites
    > actually look pretty good.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > a
    >
    >

    The S7000 does a terrific jb, does Macro very well, produces a sharp
    photo and has a distinctive FUJI look to photos shot using the "chrome"
    setting in the menu.

    All that being said, it is a 6mp camera, and using RAW mode and loading
    the pictures through CS2 they can be defaulted to NOT interpolate to the
    space-wasting 12mp mode.

    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 18, 2005
    #4
  5. al

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:21:29 GMT, "al"
    <[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    > This is taking a lot more time than I thought! Hard to pick a
    > clear winner. I think I'm likely to go for the S7000, but would like to see
    > the Cannon still. The Sony had great features, but just a bit too fiddly.
    > Sigh ... life's all about compromise eh!!


    If you can wait a bit longer (and presumably are able to pay a
    little more) you might prefer Fuji's replacement for the S7000, the
    S9000. It's one of three new Fuji cameras, announced but not yet
    available. Its new sensor promises to be a big advance over not
    just the one in the S7000, but over sensors in almost all previous
    P&S cameras. Much more sensitive (usable at higher ISOs) and 9mp.
    More information is available at dpreview.com. The two other
    cameras are the S5200 (upgrade of the S5100) and the E900, which
    appears to be an upgraded E550.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 19, 2005
    #5
  6. al

    al Guest

    "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The S7000 does a terrific jb, does Macro very well, produces a sharp
    > photo and has a distinctive FUJI look to photos shot using the "chrome"
    > setting in the menu.
    >
    > All that being said, it is a 6mp camera, and using RAW mode and loading
    > the pictures through CS2 they can be defaulted to NOT interpolate to the
    > space-wasting 12mp mode.
    >


    And can you see any difference between a 6MP RAW image, manipulated through
    CS's RAW filter vs. 12MP fine JPEG with the camera's own internal filtering
    done?

    The more I read about cameras at this price bracket, the more confused I
    get! None of them are perfect - but they're all good in subtly different
    ways! Here's some more I've been looking at if anyone has any comments on
    them:

    Sony DSC-H1
    Fujifilm Finepix S7000
    Canon PowerShot S2 IS
    Konica Minolta Dimage A200
    Nikon CoolPix 8400
    Fujifilm Finepix S9500
    Sony Cybershot DSC F828




    a
     
    al, Aug 19, 2005
    #6
  7. al

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <xUoNe.1641$>,
    [ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk says...
    > And can you see any difference between a 6MP RAW image, manipulated through
    > CS's RAW filter vs. 12MP fine JPEG with the camera's own internal filtering
    > done?
    >


    I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to the
    shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up if you
    are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean" 6mp frame
    than with an interpolated 12mp frame.

    I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 19, 2005
    #7
  8. al

    al Guest

    "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to the
    > shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up if you
    > are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean" 6mp frame
    > than with an interpolated 12mp frame.
    >
    > I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    > still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    > --


    Well I think for it's original cost (high £500's) it would not stand up in
    today's market. It does seem quite good value for £306 though, even against
    some of the newer competition.

    I'd also be very interested in seeing some low light shots without flash and
    some indoor/dark shots with flash. Also some shots showing what telescopic
    ability it has, as the main emphasis seems to be on macro performance (ie. I
    want to know how much distance shots suffer as a result and how well it
    zooms on far away objects).

    I know it's asking a lot, but if you had some examples of any such images,
    I'd be very grateful. Can either give email address or temporary FTP access
    (former is easier!).



    al
     
    al, Aug 19, 2005
    #8
  9. al

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <psrNe.2059$>,
    [ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk says...
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to the
    > > shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up if you
    > > are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean" 6mp frame
    > > than with an interpolated 12mp frame.
    > >
    > > I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    > > still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    > > --

    >
    > Well I think for it's original cost (high £500's) it would not stand up in
    > today's market. It does seem quite good value for £306 though, even against
    > some of the newer competition.
    >
    > I'd also be very interested in seeing some low light shots without flash and
    > some indoor/dark shots with flash. Also some shots showing what telescopic
    > ability it has, as the main emphasis seems to be on macro performance (ie.. I
    > want to know how much distance shots suffer as a result and how well it
    > zooms on far away objects).
    >
    > I know it's asking a lot, but if you had some examples of any such images,
    > I'd be very grateful. Can either give email address or temporary FTP access
    > (former is easier!).
    >
    >
    >
    > al
    >
    >
    >

    I know I did some Macro work with it last spring, and some wildlife
    around May or so.. I'll look in the archives on my other 'puter when I
    get it up and running tommorrow (down for parts replacement).

    I might even have some on this 'puter I'll go look right now.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 19, 2005
    #9
  10. al

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <psrNe.2059$>,
    [ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk says...
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to the
    > > shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up if you
    > > are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean" 6mp frame
    > > than with an interpolated 12mp frame.
    > >
    > > I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    > > still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    > > --

    >
    > Well I think for it's original cost (high £500's) it would not stand up in
    > today's market. It does seem quite good value for £306 though, even against
    > some of the newer competition.
    >
    > I'd also be very interested in seeing some low light shots without flash and
    > some indoor/dark shots with flash. Also some shots showing what telescopic
    > ability it has, as the main emphasis seems to be on macro performance (ie.. I
    > want to know how much distance shots suffer as a result and how well it
    > zooms on far away objects).
    >
    > I know it's asking a lot, but if you had some examples of any such images,
    > I'd be very grateful. Can either give email address or temporary FTP access
    > (former is easier!).
    >
    >
    >
    > al
    >
    >
    >

    et

    remove the dot.
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 19, 2005
    #10
  11. al

    al Guest

    Had a look at a few of them in the shops today. A little closer to
    deciding!

    Sony DSC-H1
    ---------------
    Very small camera. Found it a bit cramped to be honest.

    Fujifilm Finepix S7000
    -----------------------
    Managed to get a proper go with this and take a few shots. I think I'm
    generally leaning towards this as my favourite. Smaller than I thought it
    would be, but still bigger than the tiny Sony and comfortable to use.
    Weight was fine. Macro function very powerful (1cm!).

    Canon PowerShot S2 IS
    -------------------------
    Nobody had it in stock! Grrr ... it was the main other one I wanted to see!

    Konica Minolta Dimage A200
    -------------------------------
    Nice looking and feeling - didn't get to try it with batteries. Hard to
    judge. Don't think it had as many attractive features as the S7000.


    This is taking a lot more time than I thought! Hard to pick a
    clear winner. I think I'm likely to go for the S7000, but would like to see
    the Cannon still. The Sony had great features, but just a bit too fiddly.
    Sigh ... life's all about compromise eh!!




    al
     
    al, Aug 20, 2005
    #11
  12. al

    ThomasH Guest

    On 18-Aug-05 11:55, al wrote:
    > I'm looking for a new digital camera around the £300 mark. I want to get a
    > dSLR, but not for a few years yet (when I have some more cash and when the
    > quality is more on a par with film SLR!). So this camera should be a nice
    > and capable stopgap one to last me until then!
    >
    > Looking around at reviews, the Fujifilm FinePix S7000 comes up quite often
    > as it now retails for just £307 on Amazon. Many things attract me to it -
    > the high resolution, the macro ability, the 30fps 640x480 video & sound.
    > Other things put me off - mainly the fact that RAW images apparently cannot
    > be directly manipulated and in "normal" resolution modes (ie. not
    > interpolated), it only allows you to convert to JPEG with one compression
    > setting that most reviewers say it too aggressive. Also that only ISO 200
    > and 400 can be used at full resolution, ISO 800 at 3MP only and apparently
    > without great quality. No firewire either.
    >
    > Now bearing in mind that this camera cost almost double when it first came
    > out, I would like to know how it compares overall picture quality wise to
    > newer cameras at the same (£300) price mark now?
    >
    >
    > Any feedback would be much appreciated.


    Wait just a tiny bit:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp

    Thomas

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > al
    >
    >
     
    ThomasH, Aug 21, 2005
    #12
  13. al

    al Guest

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Wait just a tiny bit:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp
    >
    > Thomas
    >


    That's an extra £150 though. The 9500 is for sale over here already.
    Really can't justify the extra spend :(

    At the moment, I'm stuck between the Fuji S7000 and the Canon S2 IS ....
    (£20 difference)





    a
     
    al, Aug 21, 2005
    #13
  14. al

    ThomasH Guest

    On 21-Aug-05 10:49, al wrote:
    > "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Wait just a tiny bit:
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp
    >>
    >>Thomas
    >>

    >
    > That's an extra £150 though. The 9500 is for sale over here already.
    > Really can't justify the extra spend :(
    >
    > At the moment, I'm stuck between the Fuji S7000 and the Canon S2 IS ....
    > (£20 difference)
    >


    We do not know yet what the street price will be...
    Observe that Fujifilm release 3 new cameras, take
    a look at the smaller one than. My opinion is that
    the old paradox saying apply especially for digital
    cameras: "I do not have money enough to buy cheap."

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Aug 21, 2005
    #14
  15. al

    al Guest

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 21-Aug-05 10:49, al wrote:
    >> "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Wait just a tiny bit:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp

    >
    > We do not know yet what the street price will be...
    > Observe that Fujifilm release 3 new cameras, take
    > a look at the smaller one than. My opinion is that
    > the old paradox saying apply especially for digital
    > cameras: "I do not have money enough to buy cheap."
    >


    Do too ...:

    http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/photography/digital-cameras/390771/prices

    Unless you're American and the S9000 isn't out yet? Certainly the European
    version, the S9500 is. £449.99 is too much for me to spend at the moment
    though. I want a camera that will last me 5 years till I get a good dSLR.
    If I spend £450, why not go £50 more for a 350D! :(





    a
     
    al, Aug 21, 2005
    #15
  16. al

    McKev Guest

    al wrote:
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to
    >> the shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up
    >> if you are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean"
    >> 6mp frame than with an interpolated 12mp frame.
    >>
    >> I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    >> still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    >> --

    >
    > Well I think for it's original cost (high £500's) it would not stand
    > up in today's market. It does seem quite good value for £306 though,
    > even against some of the newer competition.
    >
    > I'd also be very interested in seeing some low light shots without
    > flash and some indoor/dark shots with flash. Also some shots showing
    > what telescopic ability it has, as the main emphasis seems to be on
    > macro performance (ie. I want to know how much distance shots suffer
    > as a result and how well it zooms on far away objects).
    >
    > I know it's asking a lot, but if you had some examples of any such
    > images, I'd be very grateful. Can either give email address or
    > temporary FTP access (former is easier!).
    >


    I use the S7000, bought it online in Feb for £307 and find its excellent
    value for money - my last fuji (MX1500) lasted 5 yrs and is still going
    strong.
    I've emailed you a few pics ive taken recently (and resized them downwards)
    on the s7000.

    regards,
    McKev
     
    McKev, Aug 22, 2005
    #16
  17. al

    McKev Guest

    al wrote:
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I am convinced that the results are better.. There is an odd look to
    >> the shots that are interpolated to 12mp in camera.. It only shows up
    >> if you are a pixel peeper, but Im better satisfied with a "clean"
    >> 6mp frame than with an interpolated 12mp frame.
    >>
    >> I must admit I dont use the S7000 as much as I did last year, but I
    >> still find it to be a good camera for the money.
    >> --

    >
    > Well I think for it's original cost (high £500's) it would not stand
    > up in today's market. It does seem quite good value for £306 though,
    > even against some of the newer competition.
    >
    > I'd also be very interested in seeing some low light shots without
    > flash and some indoor/dark shots with flash. Also some shots showing
    > what telescopic ability it has, as the main emphasis seems to be on
    > macro performance (ie. I want to know how much distance shots suffer
    > as a result and how well it zooms on far away objects).
    >
    > I know it's asking a lot, but if you had some examples of any such
    > images, I'd be very grateful. Can either give email address or
    > temporary FTP access (former is easier!).
    >
    >



    email rejected...whats your email addy?


    McKev
     
    McKev, Aug 22, 2005
    #17
  18. al

    al Guest

    "McKev" <> wrote in message
    news:ahsOe.24748$...
    >
    > email rejected...whats your email addy?
    >
    >
    > McKev


    alan at allthings dot co dot uk ... reply address was just nonsense, sorry
    ;)




    a
     
    al, Aug 23, 2005
    #18
  19. al

    ThomasH Guest

    On 21-Aug-05 11:50, al wrote:
    > "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On 21-Aug-05 10:49, al wrote:
    >>
    >>>"ThomasH" <> wrote in message news:...
    >>>
    >>>>Wait just a tiny bit:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp

    >>
    >>We do not know yet what the street price will be...
    >>Observe that Fujifilm release 3 new cameras, take
    >>a look at the smaller one than. My opinion is that
    >>the old paradox saying apply especially for digital
    >>cameras: "I do not have money enough to buy cheap."
    >>

    > Do too ...:
    >
    > http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/photography/digital-cameras/390771/prices
    >
    > Unless you're American and the S9000 isn't out yet? Certainly the European
    > version, the S9500 is. £449.99 is too much for me to spend at the moment
    > though. I want a camera that will last me 5 years till I get a good dSLR.
    > If I spend £450, why not go £50 more for a 350D! :(
    >


    I understand completely, but I meant to look at the equally
    new upcoming S5200/S5600:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072802fuji_s5200zs5600z.asp

    The S7000 has had some known issues with image processing,
    see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms7000/ for details.
    You would be buying now an older technology, in the digital
    world its not like getting a "collectible"!!

    The S7000 is de facto a 3 Mpix camera, Fuji used to add up
    the both kind of pixels together to make them appear double
    in the brochure, and by doing so they run into serious
    problems with public perception.

    Thomas


    > a
    >
    >
     
    ThomasH, Aug 23, 2005
    #19
  20. al

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > The S7000 is de facto a 3 Mpix camera, Fuji used to add up
    > the both kind of pixels together to make them appear double
    > in the brochure, and by doing so they run into serious
    > problems with public perception.
    >
    > Thomas
    >
    >


    The S7000 is defacto a 6 megapixel camera. Through interpolation it
    produces 12mp pictures

    The S5000 is the one thats 3 megapixels. Interpolation save a 6mp image.
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin

    Fuji FinePix S602Z vs Fujifilm FinePix S7000

    Kevin, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    4,762
    Kevin
    Dec 21, 2003
  2. Fujifilm FinePix S7000 comments?

    , Apr 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    352
    Cool Hand
    Apr 11, 2004
  3. Steve

    Fujifilm FinePix S7000 a battery killer?

    Steve, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,739
  4. tzipple

    Fujifilm FinePix S7000 Opinions?

    tzipple, Feb 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    641
    Ken Oaf
    Feb 26, 2005
  5. Mike Engles

    Fujifilm FinePix S7000

    Mike Engles, Apr 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    316
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou
    Apr 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page