FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR gets priced
By Nilay Patel 
posted February 5th 2009 3:18PM
posted February 5th 2009 3:18PM
[Thanks, Craig R.]
posted February 5th 2009 3:18PM
powered by gdgt
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Thanks to Craig R?
Every dog has its day, apparently its just not my puppy dog day.
I posted this http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/05/fujifilm-finepix-f200-exrs-photos-shown-off/#comments
http://www.slashgear.com/fujifilm-finepix-f200exr-features-super-ccd-exr-image-sensor-0433037/
which links to
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=879728
Maybe you should have used the "Tip us on news!" link instead.
Yeah... kicks soot on the floor of the office... floor... wait..??....
Fuji's earlier attempts at building a P&S around a superior sensor were pretty successful. Hopefully they have pulled off a winner by returning to that formula. Sure it's an expensive camera but if the pictures are notably better, esp at low light like the f30 and f31 were capable of, isn't the extra $100.00 worth it for a couple of years of better pictures?
uhmmm..not a chance. I prefer optical zoom then image quality second. I use a tripod so no problemo. My panasonic 10x zoom is my favorite. Price this Fuji at 250 then we can talk..
I take it you rarely if ever shoot in low light?
Agreed. My sony takes decent pics in good light. As soon as theres low light the quality frankly sucks. Grainy and dithered. I don't complain too much cuz I only paid $95 for it, but its ALMOST unacceptable to take pics not in day light if you want them to come out good.
My Panasonic DMC-TZ3 takes great pictures in low light conditions plus I use my tripod for that. The "Mega" optical image stabilization system works very well.
Stabilization only counters camera shake. It's useless when you're trying to freeze motion.
@ Plothole
I think what he's trying to say is that, depending on the situation you're shooting in, you either want a camera that's chock-full of features with great quality that can be enormous and heavy, or something cheap, light, and convenient. I'm pretty sure we all know that you're not going to find anything that can get a good shot of ninjas jumping around in the dead of night without a flash, but if you're doing, say, lunar photography, something with a 30-sec shutter on the world's most stable tripod with a zoom lens 'till next Tuesday is exactly what you want.
This camera is in between the 2 extremes (good vs. cheap and convenient). Unless they get the price down, it's not going to be competitive on a broad scale in either arena.
if i dont win the Pentax, i will take this one :)
If you win the Pentax, sell it on E-bay and buy this.
I can buy a Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP kit including lens for like $75 more. Tell me why I care about this...(seriously, am I missing something, other than size, I guess)
Amen! I was just going to write that for 4 bills, you're getting into entry-level dSLR territory. I'm sure the street price on this thing will fall. Probably not to the $250-$280 where it ought to be, but it will fall some.
Size is exactly it. This new sensor won't touch even an entry-level dSLR on image quality and low-light performance. Besides, good shots are more about the glass then the sensor, anyway, right?
My opinion on pocketable cameras is that the image quality should be 'good enough'. I carry a Olympus 720SW when I want to shoot on the go, and I think it's great. Yeah, it might not take the best pictures, but it's got it where it counts: size and ruggedness. It's the sealed, waterproof (to 10 ft.) model, so I can stick it in the pocket of my swim trunks when I'm at the beach and not have to worry. I can take it out to the bar, and not worry about dropping it, sitting on it, or someone spilling their drink on it. (this actually happened - I just took it to the bathroom and rinsed it off in the sink. Got the craziest look from the guy at the sink next to me).
In a situation where you're shooting with a pocketable, you're probably not going to have 'ideal' conditions. If you do have 'ideal' conditions, then a dSLR is the way to go. If you don't, I doubt the extra quality of the sensor is going to matter much. I could be wrong, though.
Size is the key. Of course dSLRs will still perform better in low light, but they can't exactly fit in your pocket. (...though I suppose the e420 equipped with the 25mm pancake comes close)
It's not about the size, dude. Don't read the brand, specs and price tag when you pick a camera. This is all about the photos it can produce. If you want a DSLR, go with a real DSLR, for a P&S this is as good as they currently get.
@Geir
Strictly speaking any entry level dSLR has the capacity to function as a "point and shoot".
@ Geir
If size is no object, then we're arguing that a DSLR is a better choice. Every entry-level dSLR out there has an 'Auto Picture' mode (Point & Shoot) that is at least as intelligent as the one in this _pocketable_ camera. They can be used in exactly the same capacity (point the glass end at the pretty and push the button).
So what are you getting here that you can't have in a dSLR at the same price?
Image quality? No. In-camera processing? No. Speed? No way. Zoom? I'll take my 75mm-300mm over that 5x any day. Price? 50 bucks, maybe. Size? Yes, it's easier to carry. There you have it.
Size is exactly the point. I have the big bad DSLR too and I use a tripod for that (not a P&S). The whole idea is to have a small camera that you can keep in your pocket and take to dinner or the bar or a wedding that you aren't professionally shooting... or anytime that you don't want to lug your big camera around with you all day long.
You still want the pictures to turn out great, but this if for those (many) times when an SLR is not right for the occassion.
I have an old Fuji Z1 and I love it. It is quite outdated, so I'm looking at this one. The Z1's pics were ok quality-wise, but the thing was built like a tank, which I loved since other people have dropped it repeatedly over the years.
Yeah, but in that instance, I have a nice camera phone with a 3.1MP camera on it. Obviously the quality is lower than a dedicated camera...but if we're making that argument, then I'm taking my DSLR. The 3MP camera phone does a fine job for "on-the-spot" situations, and is SUPER convenient to boot.
I just don't really see a reason for this to exist. Most people have their "convenient" camera (which is almost always some form of phone now), and their "quality" camera. For the average consumer, their "quality" camera is their $150-200 point-and-shoot, for the prosumer, their "quality" camera is an entry-to-mid DSLR for $400-500 (plus lens, etc). At $350-400...I just don't see what niche this camera fills. It's too expensive for the average consumer, and doesn't do enough for a prosumer.
I have a Fujifilm Finepix f30, which also had the SuperCCD. It takes fantastic photos that some other friends and family I know that don't know how to use their DSLR are very jealous of. They bring out these big expensive DSLR's, yet they don't even know what ISO is. My side by side photos (on auto settings on my Fujifilm) are consistently better than theirs.
The main reason you want this camera is because you can take (especially casual, low light, or indoor) photos 90% of the quality of a DSLR without knowing how to properly operate one, and without having to lug around a big camera.
I also own a F30 (actually a F31, pretty much the same, except with face detect) and a Canon DSLR, and I'd be hesitant to say that you can get 90% of the quality. Yes, the F31 takes low light pics leagues better than nearly all other P&S's (the reason I bought it, even though it's a very old model, compared to the F40/50), but it's still not just 10% away from what a DSLR takes. Most P&S's take around 30% quality of a DSLR in low light (as in horrible, horrible, horrible), while the F30/31 takes around 60%. Not to mention the much better/faster focusing, response, and whole mess of other things you get for bringing around a big camera. DSLRs sell like hotcakes for a reason, since if any P&S could out-perform (or even equal) a DSLR, there would be very little reason to buy one.
Thing is, very few "average Joe" consumers make their decision on how well a camera takes photos, in low light or any light. It's more of a style and price choice. The only picture review they make is taking one in the store, looking at the tiny LCD (everyone I know who's not into cameras is like this... it's the same for most products). So this model is aimed more at the "educated" buyer, who probably wants a backup to his DSLR, but like a lot of people say, $400 is a bit steep (unless the street price is more palatable).
But at least Fuji is doing the smart thing and moving away from xD. Slow, dated, pricey, ultra-low capacity, confusing (M? H? M+? what?) and only two companies actually using it (Olympus and Fuji). But they could have at least added 720p video recording... I bet it's because they still have the xD slot along with the SD.
This FujiFilm P&S is going to kick some serious ass. They could have put it out at $1000 and I would still buy it. I have a DSLR with their previous sensor technology, and it blows away cameras that cost almost 10 times as much. It is not the size and low-light capabilities that makes this a winner, even though it surely helps, it is rather the superb colors and dynamic range. Some photos makes you wonder if it is a HDR photo, as the dynamic range is just way beyond anything else. There isn't anything in the P&S market at this time that can compete with this, so only penny pinchers will pick something else.
$400 and not even HD video! Fuji is not as well established brad, plus great dynamic range is achieved by taking two images of 6 mega pixels at two different exposures same time, what doesn't sound to me like improvement in CCD chip sensitivity, but rather overlapping two 6 mega pixels images (each taken with different exposure) into one. Nevertheless, it is interesting concept and pictures on Fuji web site look great, but I would like to read independent review/test before I commit to spent $400 for camera with $250 features.
I don't get the hype. Though I'm glad Fuji is doing this, hasn't anyone seen the Lumix LX3? Very little difference in price, even better specs in my opinion, and it's been available for months. The pictures I've taken with it often rival SLR's, impressing both amateurs and pros alike. It's low light quality is ridiculous...I almost never use my flash, even in a dark bar or club.
Am I missing something? Why is this camera so cool? Does it have GPS for geotagging? That's what I want... an ultracompact w/ GPS...
They were successful with the F30/31 then screwed it up making every subsequent one (40, 45, 50). Who knows if they learned their lesson?
They didn't.
http://tr.im/em30
http://tr.im/em34
(I don't know who made these shots or when but they've been presented to me as being from the F200EXR. Judging from the data below the images, they are most likely genuine)
I've been a Fuji user for a while, and my old S5200 (~2006) has SuperCCD sensor. It takes photos with a lot less noise than the newer S700 (early 2008) model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperCCD
"They were successful with the F30/31 then screwed it up making every subsequent one (40, 45, 50). Who knows if they learned their lesson?"
They haven't. This has gotta be the only camera in this price range without a histogram. WTF? Also, "manual" controls are a joke and the lens is so slow you need iso 1200 on this camera in situations where you need iso 400 with the Panny LX3, which btw, also has Raw, a hotshoe, superior image stabilization and the price is the same. This Fuji is a dud.
I was looking for this camera back in August. But, I would have liked it to include the Panasonic 10x zoom, with some good low light sensitivity.
I love my Fijifilm cameras - have so since 1999.
NO WAY would I pay $400 for this unit! A good Canon SX10 will out perform this overpriced toy on a bad day. Wake up Fuji.