Fuji f31d vs panasonic tz3 vs canon IS 870

[Goosemaster]

....http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/fujif31fd_samples/

Basically I look at that and want to cry.....and then I look at the price since they are so rare...


*#$@#$%42...I JSUT GOT OUTBID ON EBAY ...GOT TOO EXPENSIVE:|*


edit: I'm a student, I realize my place in the world...I'm getting a 570IS

 

[magomago]

holy CRAP why is the price so high!!!! I got this camera for my parents around 230 dollars with tax and shipping maybe 8 months ago? I couldn't find it on ebay, but an amazon site pulled up a price of 500 bucks! For that I'd rather just get a K100D +lens kit for probably around the same! Why not just get f40d or f50d? Or do the higher MP counts negate the whole "low noise" thing?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: magomago
holy CRAP why is the price so high!!!! I got this camera for my parents around 230 dollars with tax and shipping maybe 8 months ago? I couldn't find it on ebay, but an amazon site pulled up a price of 500 bucks! For that I'd rather just get a K100D +lens kit for probably around the same! Why not just get f40d or f50d? Or do the higher MP counts negate the whole "low noise" thing?

IIRC they made the f31fd with a nice juicy fat sensor. The new ones have a smaller cmos sensor that tries to make up for this much like most of the Canons, invalidating their high pixel count and adding a great deal of noise.

As far as I know, the f31fd is unmatched at general picture taking in its price range and people caught wind of this.

Some have come close, liek the aforementioned Panny, but lb for lb, $ for $, it looks liek the Canon 579 is the only one that can supplant it as others are too expensive for what you get.

All I want is a P&S to have around in m pocket that takes gorgeous pics....quite the oxymoron when you think about it.

I wanted a Canon SD 1000 (@$149 for aesthetics...that sold out), then the Panny, but that is too close to the canon is 870 with is $250 bones....too much for me right now.

The 570 isn't pretty but the pics are fantastic.

 

[Basso]

Look at the photo samples of the F50fd at DCResource then you can see what happens if you put 12 millon pixels on a tiny sensor. It's just horrible.
Anyway, I'm happy with my F31fd

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: magomago
holy CRAP why is the price so high!!!! I got this camera for my parents around 230 dollars with tax and shipping maybe 8 months ago? I couldn't find it on ebay, but an amazon site pulled up a price of 500 bucks! For that I'd rather just get a K100D +lens kit for probably around the same! Why not just get f40d or f50d? Or do the higher MP counts negate the whole "low noise" thing?

IIRC they made the f31fd with a nice juicy fat sensor. The new ones have a smaller cmos sensor that tries to make up for this much like most of the Canons, invalidating their high pixel count and adding a great deal of noise.

As far as I know, the f31fd is unmatched at general picture taking in its price range and people caught wind of this.

Some have come close, liek the aforementioned Panny, but lb for lb, $ for $, it looks liek the Canon 579 is the only one that can supplant it as others are too expensive for what you get.

All I want is a P&S to have around in m pocket that takes gorgeous pics....quite the oxymoron when you think about it.

I wanted a Canon SD 1000 (@$149 for aesthetics...that sold out), then the Panny, but that is too close to the canon is 870 with is $250 bones....too much for me right now.

The 570 isn't pretty but the pics are fantastic.

I looked and apparantly the f31fd and f41fd both have a 1/1.7'' sensor. Of course the latter has around 2 million more pixels. For the f50fd, it has a 1/1.6'' sensor, making slightly LARGER....so I don't see how the newer ones have a smaller sensor, if anything its a tad larger. Of course, that high MP count kills it...

I reallly wish companies would not push a MP race on p&s. What is the point when the photos look horrible? Btw I took a look at those f50fd photos. MAN you were right, even in broad day light (where you'd think the best IQ could b had for a P&S since light isn't an issue) that noise is really obvios making the entire photo fuzzy and giving it a haze all over (although that maybe due to no IR filter? I have no idea...). I am almost positive my old A70 had better IQ than that.

Anyways good luck with that purchase of yours =)

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Basso
Look at the photo samples of the F50fd at DCResource then you can see what happens if you put 12 millon pixels on a tiny sensor. It's just horrible.
Anyway, I'm happy with my F31fd

holy craptastic pictures man! I'm so happy with the f31. Fuji had a winning compact there. Too bad they hopped on the mp bandwagon

and yea, the f31 was a steal for $250. But for $450, no way. And looking at the f50 pics, i'd buy any canon compact over that one. Man has the tide turned.

 

[Goosemaster]

so yeah...family needed financial help as I was making m way to the store..

no digicam for now

 

[RedWolf]

If manual controls aren't a necessity, the F20 performs quite well in low light (similar to the F30/F31) and costs about $100. So if you aren't in too bad of financial trouble, it's a good option. They are quite plentiful on ebay. The F30/31 are no longer made and are sought after by people with dslrs for their manual controls and fantastic low light capabilities. The F40 is a good low light shooter as well but, like the F20, lacks manual controls.

 

[dug777]

That's just stupid.

It's not even that great, it just sucks less than the rest of the P&S compacts

 

[Basso]

Actually the F31fd is great
It has outperformed my 400D DSLR on many occasions, especially in low-light situations where I needed a great depth of field.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Basso
Actually the F31fd is great
It has outperformed my 400D DSLR on many occasions, especially in low-light situations where I needed a great depth of field.

Why didn't you just increase the ISO on your 400D?

It's amazing for a P&S, but it's no DSLR by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Basso]

ISO1600 is the highest setting on the 400D. That's not good enough in low-light situations where you need a great depth of field.
The F31fd supports up to ISO3200 (sure, it looks kinda crappy but it's still better than a blurry picture) and has a great depth of field, like all P&S cameras.
So a DSLR is not always better than a P&S.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Basso
ISO1600 is the highest setting on the 400D. That's not good enough in low-light situations where you need a great depth of field.
The F31fd supports up to ISO3200 (sure, it looks kinda crappy but it's still better than a blurry picture) and has a great depth of field, like all P&S cameras.
So a DSLR is not always better than a P&S.

The samples at 3200 for your camera are so noisy/noise reduced as to be effectively useless, and even dpreview effectively concludes that, and the 400D is less noisy at both 800 and 1600, at least from their respective dpreview reviews.

As far as the DOF is concerned, P&S DOF is indeed more forgiving, and this can be very handy in some situations. I'd consider the shallower DOF of an SLR to be an advantage most of the time, since I rarely want everything in the frame to be 'in focus', otherwise you tend to distract from your focal point (unless it's landscapes, or architecture).

 

[Basso]

Straight out of the camera the ISO3200 pictures look pretty bad but they can be greatly improved after some post-processing. Then they're actually usable for small prints.
But still I only use ISO1600 or ISO3200 when there's no other way to make a non-blurry picture.