FujiFilm's FinePix F200EXR, and its pricetag, get reviewed

While some early shots showed a lot of promise, a full review was necessary to ensure that FujiFilm's latest compact camera would be the performer we were hoping for -- and that it would live up to its $400 price. According to Photography Blog this 12 megapixel shooter doesn't disappoint, scoring very high marks for image quality and features. Its EXR mode, which can toggle between favoring resolution, dynamic range, or low noise, works more or less as advertised, bringing far more depth to shadows than your usual pocket cam can manage. Pictures were clear through ISO 800, but anything above that (up to its ludicrous ISO 12800 mode) were too noisy to be usable. Overall the cam was found to be a "veritable breath of fresh air" and a solid choice for a serious photographers who like air and don't want to lug their SLR everywhere.

[David Susilo @ Mar 18th 2009 8:43AM]

I'm curious to know the quality difference between this unit and Canon G10 at ISO800 since I use higher ISO a lot. Ergonomically, the G10 wins but I'm not too happy with its ISO800.

[LordAdmiral @ Mar 18th 2009 11:41AM]

Judging from the samples, the camera at ISO 1600 looks about as good as the LX3 at ISO 400 with NR off. The LX3's low-light capabilities blows the G10 and the G9 away as it were.

The F200 may compare with the F30/31. But that's probably because the F200 does a special kind of pixel binning for high ISO shots that turns the 1/1.6" sensor from a 12MP to a 6MP. And that's exactly the sensor in the F30/31. So it's not terribly surprising that it would be comparable.

It's actually a little sad that it took Fuji 3 generations of cameras to finally come out with a successor to the F31. Now, if only they could put this sensor into the LX3 body...

[Joseph Mama @ Mar 18th 2009 11:52AM]

Lord,
I don't mean to shoot this down before I get home and look at the full-size pics but I genuinely suspect some very clever(heavy) noise-reduction going on.

I HIGHLY doubt that a ISO400 pic on the LX3 is "comparable" to a ISO1600 pic on this camera.

Then again, maybe I'm being unfairly skeptical :)

[cowgaR @ Mar 20th 2009 5:12AM]

Well, I have Canon G10 (2nd reinstallment) and so far I am extremelly happy with it.

But I wonder why are you using ISO 800 at all in it. The highest one I ever Used was ISO 400 (at the latest Cure NME Award gig) and was able (with holding breath and lowering DOF) to take some nice shots, but later on (even when shooting on RAW) was a bit dissapointet with the noise.

I knew I could get LX3 for bar/concert occasions, but they cheated on ISO sensitivity and although of fast Leica F2.0 lens it lacked quality at some point (distortions etc). But now (we have a real summer in London ;-) I don't require my ISO to go higher than 100!

It is almost everytime 80! and man shots looks beatiful! Even when set to AUTO than G10 won't increase it, usually I even have to compensate exposure which of course helps. It is very sunny...

I know I won't get quality shooting night shots but It is still the best camera on the market, and its built and grip is 10 thousands times better than this Fuji so I can hold it steady even for half a second (because its heavy), which I doubt I am able with this toy.

But ISO 800 from a compact? Come'n, even Noise Double Ninja won't help ya ;P
Last time I checked the lens on this were F3.3 that means that ISO200 on G10 is ISO400 on this Fuji, but I am going to see the review anyway.

sorry for rant, just I love my G10, nothing can compare ;-) and I could not go with any other Camera if it didn't have the ergonomics G10 has (and its fast selectable menu options)

[Cocosplas @ Mar 18th 2009 8:44AM]

Type mismatch in the title!!!

[Paul @ Mar 18th 2009 9:46AM]

The use of multiple exclamation marks is redundant - you should only use one.

YAY! I nazied a grammar nazi LOL!

[superhobo @ Mar 18th 2009 9:24AM]

I might not be a professional photographer, but I know enough about the limitations of today's technology to say "ISO 12800, HAHAHAH"

[Metoo @ Mar 18th 2009 9:25AM]

Check out these images on http://www.rentmydslr.com

Clearly this can outclass the Panasonic LX3. Sorry F31fd fanboys...

[Joseph Mama @ Mar 18th 2009 11:44AM]

I don't have the time to immediately view the full-size photos but here is what I noticed:
- It appears that the LX3 pictures, in general, were showing much warmer tones than the F200EXR
- The F200EXR is doing a better job at auto-white-balance (I'm making a bold assumption that the author did not manually adjust this)
------ The LX3 is known to have so-so white-balancing indoors but offers programmable shortcuts to modify white-balancing
- Based on the thumbnails the F200EXR APPEARS to be doing a better job at noise reduction. HOWEVER, I suspect a look at the full-size pics will reveal that there is significant detail being lost .
- The night shots made the LX3 appear to be shooting darker, underexposed pictures despite the fact that it has a faster lens.
- The F200EXR has an additional 2 megapixels. Assuming the lens is doing its job you are going to get slightly more clarity in your photos.
- The color seems slightly more exaggerated on the F200EXR. I can't get much more specific without looking at the full-size pics but the LX3 feels more "natural" for lack of better words

- The LX3 does offer the option to write to RAW so you get additional control over your images from that standpoint


Also, I notice that the F200EXR had more samples available than the LX3. From a psychological standpoint, if the camera results are close, more people will choose the option with more samples simply because they feel more informed and therefore confident. I'd love to see DPreview.com do an in-depth review on this camera and show some side-by-sides in controlled settings.

[cowgaR @ Mar 20th 2009 5:26AM]

@Joseph Mama: what? I was going to see the review, but it doesn't do RAW? there's no point of comparing JPEG images...

well, not to be troll, but at least for me selecting a camera is like that.
1. RAW shooting capability - YES? (NO? next please!)
2. Lens quality...
3.

So this Fuji could be named as "next please" :)

I think I don't need to explain what shooting to RAW brings, and considering just noise removal (which Panasonic is badly known of in all its models and on my G10 it isn't stellar as well loosing too much details) and JPEG compression (among other "inteligent" modifications) the chips in ANY compact cameras can't be so powerfull as Photoshop, Noise Ninja, Camera RAW or FOCUS magic...

if I want a JPEG shots I select twice as small camera (any Canon IXUS will do) with half the price of this one...

end of story? waiting for G11 :)

[hamsterdecombat @ Mar 18th 2009 11:18AM]

Very impressive picture quality indeed for an ultra-compact. Such a shame that my 3MP ixus 30 seems to record movies better.
But if it dies, I'll consider the f200.