fuji f31 fd - new model f50 fd - any good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bugbear, Nov 29, 2007.

  1. bugbear

    bugbear Guest

    I liked the look of the f31 fd. It has rave reviews.

    It now has a successor, which looks very nice.

    The only thing I don't like about is the battery;
    I would prefer standard ones (AAA or AA).

    Would any owners of the f31 like to chip in with
    "long term" reviews, and has anyone
    had an f50 for long enough to give similar

    bugbear, Nov 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. bugbear

    JohnR66 Guest

    The older version got rave reviews due to the amazing noise performance as
    compared to other point and shoots. Otherwise it was just a fair camera. The
    lens wasn't that great (purple fringing), camera had too much contrast,
    limited manual control and no AA batteries.

    Fuji gave up this great noise performance to be more part of the stupid
    megapixel race, introducing the 12MP F50. Now it is just another over noise
    reduxed "me too" cam.

    I'd gladly take a 2/3" sensor 7 megapixel, 3 or 4x zoom camera over this
    junk if only one were made.

    JohnR66, Nov 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. bugbear

    bugbear Guest

    By the standards of P&S I thought it had GOOD manual control

    Aperture Priority, Shutter speed Priority, Full manual exposure, Custom white balance.

    Manual focus, and "full manual" exposure are the only omissions?.

    My local store doesn't stock hypothetical cameras; can I mail
    order one? ;-)

    bugbear, Nov 29, 2007
  4. bugbear

    bugbear Guest

    Yurgle. What Fuji call "manual" mode is MOST odd.

    bugbear, Nov 29, 2007
  5. JohnR66 wrote:
    "Seven megapixels should be enough for anyone...."

    David J Taylor, Nov 29, 2007
  6. bugbear

    Toby Guest

    What I read was that it is marginally better than the f31 at low ISOs but
    that rapidly changes at higher ISOs. Also the mechanical vibration reduction
    is apparently not too good. I'm sticking with my 31.

    Toby, Nov 30, 2007
  7. bugbear

    bugbear Guest

    Ooh. Nasty. Any refs?
    I'd expect you to! It's only a year old!

    bugbear, Nov 30, 2007
  8. bugbear

    Chris Savage Guest

    And take good care of it, because forthcoming models aren't going to get
    any better.

    Wish I'd bought something like it when they were available and I still
    had some money.
    Chris Savage, Nov 30, 2007
  9. bugbear

    m II Guest

    Shades of Gates....

    m II, Jan 5, 2008
  10. Intentionally so! But do most people really need more than 5-6-7Mpix?

    David J Taylor, Jan 5, 2008
  11. If the image is printed or otherwise used just as it was captured with no
    cropping, and the prints are not intended for poster sized prints, then you
    are probably right. But in situations where you are trying to catch subjects
    that tend to move unexpectedly, a wider shot than needed that is then
    cropped to a useable size could make a larger original image a good thing.
    Or if the image is intended for poster work, more pixels is better. Also if
    this is a photo that is intended to doccument or archive small details of a
    larger object, more pixels can yield more fine detail for intensive study
    later. For example, a tapestry that is imaged in a few large pieces that
    still allow the fine details of content and weave to be studdied later.

    So for the bulk of persons who just shoot an image, take it to the store to
    be printed at nothing larger than 8x10 with no cropping, 6-8mp is more than
    enough. But there will always be those who have a need for more resolution.
    Of course there are also those who rate their personal worth by being able
    to brag that they have more of something than the normal and for them 100GP
    images would always be lacking something. :)

    Randy B.
    Randy Berbaum, Jan 5, 2008
  12. bugbear

    Skinner1 Guest

    To be honest, I don't care about most people. I care about what I need
    to do what I want to do. And that means I need as many pixels as I can
    cram into the picture.
    Skinner1, Jan 6, 2008
  13. bugbear

    m II Guest

    The quality of those pixels is more important than the stupid race in
    the numbers wars. Fuji was a real disappointment with their F50 Finepix.
    I loved the 6MP 1/1.6 sensors they had previously used.

    m II, Jan 7, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.