Canon Powershot A620 or Fuji F11?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SS, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. SS

    SS Guest

    Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little bit
    of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon seems
    to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to noise!!
    The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it
    does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate
    colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as
    point and shoot.
     
    SS, Nov 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SS wrote:
    > Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little bit
    > of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon seems
    > to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to noise!!
    > The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it
    > does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    > optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    > unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate
    > colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as
    > point and shoot.


    One of the reasons I bought the Sony W7 was that it has an optical
    viewfinder against the Canon SD500's LCD-only finder. However, now I
    find that I almost never use Sony's optical viewfinder because the
    viewfinder on most compact P&S digicams is really crappy.

    xD vs CF/SD - Take a look at ebay. The cheapest offer on Olympus 1GB xD
    card is $60. I'd say that about the same as CF card.

    ISO - My colleague recently bought the Fuji F10 and its high ISO
    performance is simply amazing for a small P&S. The 4x6s at ISO800 show
    hardly any noticeable noise.

    So, I'd say go with the Fuji F11 and you should be happy with it.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SS

    Mark² Guest

    SS wrote:
    > Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    > little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then
    > the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be
    > 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical viewfinder but a
    > smaller screen (2") however it does take SD which I have loads. The
    > Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no optical viewfinder and only
    > takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated unable to decide!! I just
    > want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate colour and as
    > little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as point and
    > shoot.


    I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.

    The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are only so many
    MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is inevitable. With the
    more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I appreciate--even without as many
    "pixels." I don't just want pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.


    Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP camera that
    uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING for noisy photos.
    I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd rather have fewer...but
    CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot camera...which really isn't designed to the
    huge-print market anyway.
    To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such huge pixel counts
    ONLY for marketing to those who automatically assume that more pixels mean
    you somehow get better images. For the most part, NONE of them do well with
    noise at that pixel count until you get into much larger sensors (mostly
    DSLRs).

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Nov 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > SS wrote:
    > > Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    > > little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then
    > > the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be
    > > 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical viewfinder but a
    > > smaller screen (2") however it does take SD which I have loads. The
    > > Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no optical viewfinder and only
    > > takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated unable to decide!! I just
    > > want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate colour and as
    > > little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as point and
    > > shoot.

    >
    > I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    > It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.
    >
    > The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are only so many
    > MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is inevitable. With the
    > more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I appreciate--even without as many
    > "pixels." I don't just want pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.
    >
    >
    > Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP camera that
    > uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING for noisy photos.
    > I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd rather have fewer...but
    > CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot camera...which really isn't designed to the
    > huge-print market anyway.
    > To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such huge pixel counts
    > ONLY for marketing to those who automatically assume that more pixels mean
    > you somehow get better images. For the most part, NONE of them do well with
    > noise at that pixel count until you get into much larger sensors (mostly
    > DSLRs).
    >
    > -Mark


    Going by that logic, shouldn't the Canon 20D be more noisier than the
    300D? But it isn't, so I guess that says something about packing more
    MP in the same sensor size and yet reducing noise.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #4
  5. SS

    Mark² Guest

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >> SS wrote:
    >>> Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    >>> little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review.
    >>> Then the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to
    >>> be 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical viewfinder
    >>> but a smaller screen (2") however it does take SD which I have
    >>> loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no optical viewfinder
    >>> and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated unable to
    >>> decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate
    >>> colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the
    >>> camera as point and shoot.

    >>
    >> I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    >> It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.
    >>
    >> The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are only
    >> so many MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is
    >> inevitable. With the more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I
    >> appreciate--even without as many "pixels." I don't just want
    >> pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.
    >>
    >>
    >> Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP
    >> camera that uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING
    >> for noisy photos. I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd
    >> rather have fewer...but CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot
    >> camera...which really isn't designed to the huge-print market anyway.
    >> To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such huge pixel
    >> counts ONLY for marketing to those who automatically assume that
    >> more pixels mean you somehow get better images. For the most part,
    >> NONE of them do well with noise at that pixel count until you get
    >> into much larger sensors (mostly DSLRs).
    >>
    >> -Mark

    >
    > Going by that logic, shouldn't the Canon 20D be more noisier than the
    > 300D? But it isn't, so I guess that says something about packing more
    > MP in the same sensor size and yet reducing noise.


    Not particularly so, but in basic theory...yes. If they want it to be
    equally noiseless, they have to jump through significant techno hoops to get
    it. The actual since the actual photo-site (pixel) size difference is very
    small, and the pixels still remain MUCH larger than point&shoot sensors.
    There IS a limit to how much light you can gather as size decreases. This
    is an inescapable fact of how our world is put together... They also manage
    to do some pretty effective noise reduction algos in-camera. But
    then...point&shoots often do this as well.

    Here's a link to Canon's explanation of their noise reduction:
    http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html
     
    Mark², Nov 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > > Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > >> SS wrote:
    > >>> Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    > >>> little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review.
    > >>> Then the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to
    > >>> be 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical viewfinder
    > >>> but a smaller screen (2") however it does take SD which I have
    > >>> loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no optical viewfinder
    > >>> and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated unable to
    > >>> decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate
    > >>> colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the
    > >>> camera as point and shoot.
    > >>
    > >> I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    > >> It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.
    > >>
    > >> The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are only
    > >> so many MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is
    > >> inevitable. With the more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I
    > >> appreciate--even without as many "pixels." I don't just want
    > >> pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP
    > >> camera that uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING
    > >> for noisy photos. I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd
    > >> rather have fewer...but CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot
    > >> camera...which really isn't designed to the huge-print market anyway.
    > >> To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such huge pixel
    > >> counts ONLY for marketing to those who automatically assume that
    > >> more pixels mean you somehow get better images. For the most part,
    > >> NONE of them do well with noise at that pixel count until you get
    > >> into much larger sensors (mostly DSLRs).
    > >>
    > >> -Mark

    > >
    > > Going by that logic, shouldn't the Canon 20D be more noisier than the
    > > 300D? But it isn't, so I guess that says something about packing more
    > > MP in the same sensor size and yet reducing noise.

    >
    > Not particularly so, but in basic theory...yes. If they want it to be
    > equally noiseless, they have to jump through significant techno hoops to get
    > it. The actual since the actual photo-site (pixel) size difference is very
    > small, and the pixels still remain MUCH larger than point&shoot sensors.
    > There IS a limit to how much light you can gather as size decreases. This
    > is an inescapable fact of how our world is put together... They also manage
    > to do some pretty effective noise reduction algos in-camera. But
    > then...point&shoots often do this as well.
    >
    > Here's a link to Canon's explanation of their noise reduction:
    > http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html


    Thats my point. In theory, more MP packed in the same sensor size ought
    to increase noise but digicam manufacturers have managed to reduce
    noise while increasing MP for the same sensor size. Atleast, as yet.
    For eg, my Sony W7 has the same size sensor as the Sony W5. In theory,
    the W5 should offer better noise performance but the noise performance
    of the W5 and the W7 are similar. And I think that goes for the Canon
    SD400 and SD500 (550?).

    So while I agree that there is a limit to packing more MP in the same
    sensor size before the noise starts to deteriorate, I think the
    manufacturers have managed to stall that by improving fabrication
    technology and better processing algorithms.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #6
  7. SS

    Mark² Guest

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >>> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >>>> SS wrote:
    >>>>> Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    >>>>> little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review.
    >>>>> Then the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said
    >>>>> to be 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical
    >>>>> viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it does take SD
    >>>>> which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    >>>>> optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very
    >>>>> frustrated unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed
    >>>>> pictures with accurate colour and as little 'grain' as possible.
    >>>>> I will mainly use the camera as point and shoot.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    >>>> It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.
    >>>>
    >>>> The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are
    >>>> only so many MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is
    >>>> inevitable. With the more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I
    >>>> appreciate--even without as many "pixels." I don't just want
    >>>> pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP
    >>>> camera that uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING
    >>>> for noisy photos. I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd
    >>>> rather have fewer...but CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot
    >>>> camera...which really isn't designed to the huge-print market
    >>>> anyway. To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such
    >>>> huge pixel counts ONLY for marketing to those who automatically
    >>>> assume that more pixels mean you somehow get better images. For
    >>>> the most part, NONE of them do well with noise at that pixel count
    >>>> until you get into much larger sensors (mostly DSLRs).
    >>>>
    >>>> -Mark
    >>>
    >>> Going by that logic, shouldn't the Canon 20D be more noisier than
    >>> the 300D? But it isn't, so I guess that says something about
    >>> packing more MP in the same sensor size and yet reducing noise.

    >>
    >> Not particularly so, but in basic theory...yes. If they want it to
    >> be equally noiseless, they have to jump through significant techno
    >> hoops to get it. The actual since the actual photo-site (pixel)
    >> size difference is very small, and the pixels still remain MUCH
    >> larger than point&shoot sensors. There IS a limit to how much light
    >> you can gather as size decreases. This is an inescapable fact of
    >> how our world is put together... They also manage to do some pretty
    >> effective noise reduction algos in-camera. But then...point&shoots
    >> often do this as well.
    >>
    >> Here's a link to Canon's explanation of their noise reduction:
    >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html

    >
    > Thats my point. In theory, more MP packed in the same sensor size
    > ought to increase noise but digicam manufacturers have managed to
    > reduce noise while increasing MP for the same sensor size.


    I would only apply that to DSLRs.
    Point&Shoot cameras...that often have sensors less than 1/4th the size of
    DSLR sensors usually eshibit HORRIBLE noise at 400 ISO and above, where a
    Canon 5D or 1D Mark II can take unbelievably clean shots even at 1600 ISO.
    There is no question that they are already suffering from pixels that are
    too small.

    Atleast,
    > as yet. For eg, my Sony W7 has the same size sensor as the Sony W5.
    > In theory, the W5 should offer better noise performance but the noise
    > performance of the W5 and the W7 are similar. And I think that goes
    > for the Canon SD400 and SD500 (550?).


    You're comparing so-so with bad.
    Try comparing the noise at high ISO (like 1600) with a *significantly*
    larger sensor DSLRs.

    > So while I agree that there is a limit to packing more MP in the same
    > sensor size before the noise starts to deteriorate, I think the
    > manufacturers have managed to stall that by improving fabrication
    > technology and better processing algorithms.


    Take a look at 1600 ISO samples images at Dpreview (full size images)
    compared to even 400 ISO images taken by small sensor point&shoots. The
    DSLR will usually win--even at the VASTLY higher ISO rating.
    1600 ISO requires only 1/4th the light that 400 does, yet the size allows so
    much more sensitivity. There is already a huge difference.
     
    Mark², Nov 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > > Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > >> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > >>> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > >>>> SS wrote:
    > >>>>> Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a
    > >>>>> little bit of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review.
    > >>>>> Then the Canon seems to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said
    > >>>>> to be 'unuseable' due to noise!! The canon has an optical
    > >>>>> viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it does take SD
    > >>>>> which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    > >>>>> optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very
    > >>>>> frustrated unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed
    > >>>>> pictures with accurate colour and as little 'grain' as possible.
    > >>>>> I will mainly use the camera as point and shoot.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I just bought the A610...which is 5MP instead of 7.
    > >>>> It's still in the box as it arrived about an hour ago.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The reason I bought it over the 620 was the fact that there are
    > >>>> only so many MP you can squeeze into a tiny sensor before noise is
    > >>>> inevitable. With the more reasonable 5MP, it's an advantage I
    > >>>> appreciate--even without as many "pixels." I don't just want
    > >>>> pixels...I want QUALITY pixels.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Personally, I think it's pretty silly to manufacture a 7 or 8MP
    > >>>> camera that uses such a MINISCULE sensor anyway. It's just BEGGING
    > >>>> for noisy photos. I'm used to my "noiseless" Canon DSLR, and I'd
    > >>>> rather have fewer...but CLEANER MP in a point-and-shoot
    > >>>> camera...which really isn't designed to the huge-print market
    > >>>> anyway. To me, the 6,7-8MP point-and-shoots are made with such
    > >>>> huge pixel counts ONLY for marketing to those who automatically
    > >>>> assume that more pixels mean you somehow get better images. For
    > >>>> the most part, NONE of them do well with noise at that pixel count
    > >>>> until you get into much larger sensors (mostly DSLRs).
    > >>>>
    > >>>> -Mark
    > >>>
    > >>> Going by that logic, shouldn't the Canon 20D be more noisier than
    > >>> the 300D? But it isn't, so I guess that says something about
    > >>> packing more MP in the same sensor size and yet reducing noise.
    > >>
    > >> Not particularly so, but in basic theory...yes. If they want it to
    > >> be equally noiseless, they have to jump through significant techno
    > >> hoops to get it. The actual since the actual photo-site (pixel)
    > >> size difference is very small, and the pixels still remain MUCH
    > >> larger than point&shoot sensors. There IS a limit to how much light
    > >> you can gather as size decreases. This is an inescapable fact of
    > >> how our world is put together... They also manage to do some pretty
    > >> effective noise reduction algos in-camera. But then...point&shoots
    > >> often do this as well.
    > >>
    > >> Here's a link to Canon's explanation of their noise reduction:
    > >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html

    > >
    > > Thats my point. In theory, more MP packed in the same sensor size
    > > ought to increase noise but digicam manufacturers have managed to
    > > reduce noise while increasing MP for the same sensor size.

    >
    > I would only apply that to DSLRs.
    > Point&Shoot cameras...that often have sensors less than 1/4th the size of
    > DSLR sensors usually eshibit HORRIBLE noise at 400 ISO and above, where a
    > Canon 5D or 1D Mark II can take unbelievably clean shots even at 1600 ISO.
    > There is no question that they are already suffering from pixels that are
    > too small.
    >
    > Atleast,
    > > as yet. For eg, my Sony W7 has the same size sensor as the Sony W5.
    > > In theory, the W5 should offer better noise performance but the noise
    > > performance of the W5 and the W7 are similar. And I think that goes
    > > for the Canon SD400 and SD500 (550?).

    >
    > You're comparing so-so with bad.
    > Try comparing the noise at high ISO (like 1600) with a *significantly*
    > larger sensor DSLRs.
    >
    > > So while I agree that there is a limit to packing more MP in the same
    > > sensor size before the noise starts to deteriorate, I think the
    > > manufacturers have managed to stall that by improving fabrication
    > > technology and better processing algorithms.

    >
    > Take a look at 1600 ISO samples images at Dpreview (full size images)
    > compared to even 400 ISO images taken by small sensor point&shoots. The
    > DSLR will usually win--even at the VASTLY higher ISO rating.
    > 1600 ISO requires only 1/4th the light that 400 does, yet the size allows so
    > much more sensitivity. There is already a huge difference.


    I am NOT comparing P&S digicams to dSLRs. I am comparing digicams to
    digicams - 5MP ones to 7MP ones. Look at the ISO 800 or even ISO1600
    performance of the Fuji F10/F11. Its way ahead of the rest of the P&S
    digicams that stop at ISO400. Within a particular brand itself, compare
    the 5MP model to the 7MP model, like the Sony W5 to the W7. The W7 at
    ISO400 is no worse than the W5 or the Canon SD500 is no worse than the
    SD400. Which means that the manufacturer managed to cram more MP on the
    same sensor while keeping noise levels similar to the lesser MP models.
    So your Canon A610 noise could be as bad as that on A620 even though
    its got lesser MP on the same size sensor.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #8
  9. SS

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > The W7 at ISO400 is no worse than the W5 or the Canon SD500 is no
    > worse than the SD400. Which means that the manufacturer managed to
    > cram more MP on the same sensor while keeping noise levels similar
    > to the lesser MP models. So your Canon A610 noise could be as bad
    > as that on A620 even though its got lesser MP on the same size
    > sensor.


    I don't know about the sd500/400 but the A510 is noticibly less
    noisy than the A520. Compare:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona510/page6.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona520/page7.asp
     
    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > > The W7 at ISO400 is no worse than the W5 or the Canon SD500 is no
    > > worse than the SD400. Which means that the manufacturer managed to
    > > cram more MP on the same sensor while keeping noise levels similar
    > > to the lesser MP models. So your Canon A610 noise could be as bad
    > > as that on A620 even though its got lesser MP on the same size
    > > sensor.

    >
    > I don't know about the sd500/400 but the A510 is noticibly less
    > noisy than the A520. Compare:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona510/page6.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona520/page7.asp


    You are comparing A510 and 520 and drawing conclusions on the A610 and
    A620?

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > > The W7 at ISO400 is no worse than the W5 or the Canon SD500 is no
    > > worse than the SD400. Which means that the manufacturer managed to
    > > cram more MP on the same sensor while keeping noise levels similar
    > > to the lesser MP models. So your Canon A610 noise could be as bad
    > > as that on A620 even though its got lesser MP on the same size
    > > sensor.

    >
    > I don't know about the sd500/400 but the A510 is noticibly less
    > noisy than the A520. Compare:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona510/page6.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona520/page7.asp


    Check:
    SD500 at ISO400
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd500/page7.asp

    and, SD400 at ISO400
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/page8.asp

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #11
  12. SS

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005
    #12
  13. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > > Check:
    > > SD500 at ISO400
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd500/page7.asp
    > >
    > > and, SD400 at ISO400
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/page8.asp

    >
    > You're comparing an older camera to a newer one with improved
    > technology. With technology equal (A510 and A520 introduced at the
    > same time), the A510 beats the A520. There are no test results up for
    > the 610 vs 620 but if I had to guess, I'd predict a similar outcome
    > as with the 510/520.


    How so? The SD400 and SD500 are 5MP and 7MP respectively and both were
    announced on 17-Feb-05.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #13
  14. SS

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > How so? The SD400 and SD500 are 5MP and 7MP respectively and both were
    > announced on 17-Feb-05.


    Oops, I thought the 400 was older. Interesting.
     
    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005
    #14
  15. SS

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > How so? The SD400 and SD500 are 5MP and 7MP respectively and both were
    > announced on 17-Feb-05.


    Umm, you're right, they came out on the same date, I was mistaken about
    that. However, according to

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/
    and
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd500/

    respectively, the sd400 has a 1/2.5" ccd while the sd500 has 1/1.8".
    That would make the sd500's pixels considerably larger than the sd400's.
     
    Paul Rubin, Nov 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> writes:
    > > How so? The SD400 and SD500 are 5MP and 7MP respectively and both were
    > > announced on 17-Feb-05.

    >
    > Umm, you're right, they came out on the same date, I was mistaken about
    > that. However, according to
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/
    > and
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd500/
    >
    > respectively, the sd400 has a 1/2.5" ccd while the sd500 has 1/1.8".
    > That would make the sd500's pixels considerably larger than the sd400's.


    Yep, was myself going to point that out but there are no samples of
    A610 and A620 available to compare.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 23, 2005
    #16
  17. SS

    Art Snyder Guest

    On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:26 GMT, "SS" <> wrote:

    >Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little bit
    >of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon seems
    >to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to noise!!
    >The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it
    >does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    >optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    >unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with accurate
    >colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as
    >point and shoot.
    >


    This thread has gone astray, as they always do, from your question
    above.

    No contest for me. The F11. I have an F10 and for a point and shoot,
    it's my favorite digicam. If it was lost, I'd get the F11 right away.
    I also have Canon and Olympus digicams, but for one that fits the
    pocket and dim light shots, and near instantaneous out of the pocket,
    focus, and shoot, the Fuji is the clear winner.

    Art Snyder
     
    Art Snyder, Nov 24, 2005
    #17
  18. SS

    SS Guest

    Thanks - after looking at further reviews i reckon I agree and will get the
    F11 - going to be expensive though having to get a 512MB or 1GB XD card!
    Another £50 on top of the camera price!!

    "Art Snyder" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:26 GMT, "SS" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little

    bit
    > >of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon

    seems
    > >to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to

    noise!!
    > >The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it
    > >does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    > >optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    > >unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with

    accurate
    > >colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as
    > >point and shoot.
    > >

    >
    > This thread has gone astray, as they always do, from your question
    > above.
    >
    > No contest for me. The F11. I have an F10 and for a point and shoot,
    > it's my favorite digicam. If it was lost, I'd get the F11 right away.
    > I also have Canon and Olympus digicams, but for one that fits the
    > pocket and dim light shots, and near instantaneous out of the pocket,
    > focus, and shoot, the Fuji is the clear winner.
    >
    > Art Snyder
    >
     
    SS, Nov 24, 2005
    #18
  19. SS wrote:
    > Thanks - after looking at further reviews i reckon I agree and will get the
    > F11 - going to be expensive though having to get a 512MB or 1GB XD card!
    > Another £50 on top of the camera price!!
    >
    > "Art Snyder" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:26 GMT, "SS" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little

    > bit
    > > >of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon

    > seems
    > > >to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to

    > noise!!
    > > >The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however it
    > > >does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but no
    > > >optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    > > >unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with

    > accurate
    > > >colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera as
    > > >point and shoot.
    > > >

    > >
    > > This thread has gone astray, as they always do, from your question
    > > above.
    > >
    > > No contest for me. The F11. I have an F10 and for a point and shoot,
    > > it's my favorite digicam. If it was lost, I'd get the F11 right away.
    > > I also have Canon and Olympus digicams, but for one that fits the
    > > pocket and dim light shots, and near instantaneous out of the pocket,
    > > focus, and shoot, the Fuji is the clear winner.
    > >
    > > Art Snyder
    > >


    My colleague bought the F10 just before the F11 was released. I looked
    at the 4x6 prints he made of a photograph taken at ISO800 - its
    perfectly usable. He wishes he had waited a bit to get the F11 which
    has more manual control (apparently, the F11 US version is plain P&S
    while the version with manual controls is for the rest of the world). I
    bought the Sony W7 since I somehow missed considering the Fuji F10 or
    else I too would've bought the F10/F11.


    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 25, 2005
    #19
  20. SS

    SS Guest

    The F11 is a bit pricey in my opinion - cheapest UK is £240 with NO XD card,
    The F10 is around £200, but I guess better spend a bit more than regret
    later. I would have liked the E900 but gather its not as good on noise
    though has full manual including focus and still under £300!

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    SS wrote:
    > Thanks - after looking at further reviews i reckon I agree and will get

    the
    > F11 - going to be expensive though having to get a 512MB or 1GB XD card!
    > Another £50 on top of the camera price!!
    >
    > "Art Snyder" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:26 GMT, "SS" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Almost convinced to get the Fuji F11 but purple fringing seems a little

    > bit
    > > >of a problem in what is otherwise a brilliant review. Then the Canon

    > seems
    > > >to get an excellent review but ISO 400 said to be 'unuseable' due to

    > noise!!
    > > >The canon has an optical viewfinder but a smaller screen (2") however

    it
    > > >does take SD which I have loads. The Fuji has a good screen (2.5") but

    no
    > > >optical viewfinder and only takes XD (expensive). Help very frustrated
    > > >unable to decide!! I just want sharp, crisp, detailed pictures with

    > accurate
    > > >colour and as little 'grain' as possible. I will mainly use the camera

    as
    > > >point and shoot.
    > > >

    > >
    > > This thread has gone astray, as they always do, from your question
    > > above.
    > >
    > > No contest for me. The F11. I have an F10 and for a point and shoot,
    > > it's my favorite digicam. If it was lost, I'd get the F11 right away.
    > > I also have Canon and Olympus digicams, but for one that fits the
    > > pocket and dim light shots, and near instantaneous out of the pocket,
    > > focus, and shoot, the Fuji is the clear winner.
    > >
    > > Art Snyder
    > >


    My colleague bought the F10 just before the F11 was released. I looked
    at the 4x6 prints he made of a photograph taken at ISO800 - its
    perfectly usable. He wishes he had waited a bit to get the F11 which
    has more manual control (apparently, the F11 US version is plain P&S
    while the version with manual controls is for the rest of the world). I
    bought the Sony W7 since I somehow missed considering the Fuji F10 or
    else I too would've bought the F10/F11.


    - Siddhartha
     
    SS, Nov 25, 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. SS

    Fuji F10 and F11

    SS, Nov 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    318
    timeOday
    Nov 17, 2005
  2. Matti Vuori

    Lens adapter for Fuji F11/F10

    Matti Vuori, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    325
    John Bean
    Dec 13, 2005
  3. qwert2b2
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    702
    Bart van der Wolf
    Dec 15, 2005
  4. Blair

    Fuji f10,f11-lack of viewfinder.

    Blair, Jan 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    323
    Blair
    Jan 30, 2006
  5. Blair

    Canon A620 or Fuji F11?

    Blair, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    975
    ASAAR
    Feb 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page