Sony vs Fuji

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
R

racall

Active Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
london
Car
Black R172SLK
I,m in the market for a new digital camera.Iv,e looked at a fuji V10 5meg @£200 and a sony N1 8meg @£340 .Both have 3in screens.Do i realy need the sony N! with 8meg as i only take snaps??.Both have no wiewfinder,How do you peeps get on with ones without it,iv,e heard its difficult to see the screen in bright daylight.

Oops i,ve posted this in the wrong section sorry
 
Last edited:
I find a view-finder essential due to the light thing;)
 
I just got the Sony DSC T9 - it's great and has various screen settings so the view finder is not required. Lack of veiw finder was my major concern before I got the camera.
 
Dont worry too much about the Megapixel rating - Above 4 megapixel, it makes no difference unless you are planning to print A3 size posters...

Only thing to watch out for is the Optical Zoom and go for the camera with the highest multiple- do not confuse this with Digital Zoom as this again does not matter... you should be looking at 3X , 4X or 5X Optical zoom and you should be fine..

All other consumables like memory cards and the like can always be upgraded as the need arises..

Lack of viewfinder does not matter as you have the LCD Screen
 
I cant offer a comparison but I recently bought a Fuji V10 and I'm highly delighted with the quality of the camera and the quality of the results. Battery life was a big issue for me but it seems fine, just had a week in the south of France using it every day without recharging it.
Simple to use, fits into a shirt pocket and upgrade to 1GB memory for around £30.

As I said I cant compare the 2 but for what you say you want the Fuji is ideal. You need to ask is the Sony 70% better, 70% better value and will I use all the extra features it has.
 
I also have a fuji, and find that the battery life is awful. Well built camera though. At then end of the day both Fuji and Sony are at the top of the game for casual digital photography.
 
Just to add to this debate...

tmienterprises said:
Dont worry too much about the Megapixel rating - Above 4 megapixel, it makes no difference unless you are planning to print A3 size posters...

Only thing to watch out for is the Optical Zoom and go for the camera with the highest multiple- do not confuse this with Digital Zoom as this again does not matter... you should be looking at 3X , 4X or 5X Optical zoom and you should be fine..

All other consumables like memory cards and the like can always be upgraded as the need arises..

Lack of viewfinder does not matter as you have the LCD Screen
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'd disagree with a lot of that....

the more pixels the better, not just for printing A3 size images but for cropping images - 1/3rd of an 8 or 9mp image is muchj better than 1/3rd of a 4 mp image.

I agree to a point on the digital zoom thing but again when you get up to the high pixel counts a 2x digital zoom is less of a loss than on a 4mp camera. I think a general rule is no matter how much zoom you have you will use it so best be prepared :)

After trying to use cameras with just an LCD screen and no viewfinder I'd never buy a camera without some form of viewfinder. Some conditions make the LCDs useless.

Agreed on the memory cards bit though :)


I bought myself a Fuji S9500 at the weekend, I'd decided that I wanted/needed to upgrade my Nikon 995 and was half looking for a decent replacement.

I borrowed a friends S9500 for an afternoon (why don't camera shops let you properly test drive cameras?) and was blown away by the quality.

Battery life? well, it seems with this camera there's a huge difference between using HD cards and Compact Flash - the latter really hammers the batteries but the meter semms very pessimistic. A set of Duracells which the camera reported as "low" still had a 95% charge. NimH batteries seem to do fairly well though. I'd recommend anybody buying any digital camera to have a power supply for downloading to the computer and any other "on camera" functions.

As an aside, Fuji owners can use a Sony Playstation USB lead which also provides power when connecting to the PC :)

Would I recommend this camera? Absolutely, I've never been a great fan of digital cameras but this one is going a long way to convincing me that 35mm film is a thing of the past

Andy
 
Last edited:
I'm a commercial photographer, so I can't provide any specific input about the cameras you're currently assessing, as the ones I use - while still digital - are just a tad different :)

That said, what Andy said was absolutely right. After lens quality (which is paramount - many Sony digicams use superb Carl Zeiss lenses for example, while many Panasonics use Leica glass...), one of the most important factors with regard to a digital camera is it's resolution. While a typical 4MP camera will (just) produce a decent quality A3 print, a 7 or 8MP camera will produce a larger file which means more detail and a better-quality print. It also allows for cropping, so even when you chop away any unnecessary elements of your original shot, you still have plenty left to make a print.

One of the major issues with consumer digicams is the size of the sensors used (relative to a 35mm film frame, for example). Cramming lots of pixels onto tiny sensors (professional digital SLRs have large, 35mm sensors or at least ones which maximise light capture for each individual pixel) is a recipe for noise (those speckled grainy dots you see in the shadow and single-tone areas of many digital images), so it's worth looking carefully at the models you've shortlisted and finding out which one deals with noise the most effectively. Believe me, when you want to shoot in low light (and I don't mean darkness here, just fading light), noise will become a major thorn in the side of your image quality...

So make sure you check:

  • Lens quality. A big name like Leica or Zeiss means quality optics
  • Noise management. Take shots in low light at higher ISO settings (400+) and see for yourself.
  • Handling and ergonomics. Can you change critical settings without having to put the camera down to access fiddly menus?
  • Auto focus and shutter delay. Does the camera lock on to subjects quickly enough and does the shutter react to your finger in time to capture the required scene?
  • Battery life. Does the camera have a status readout to warn you of the battery's charge level? Does the battery last long enough?

There are many more subjective criteria which can only be set by you, so make sure you consider them before buying. Also ask yourself whether or not a digital SLR (Canon 350D or Nikon D50) kit would be a better buy - these come in packages complete with lenses and offer vastly superior quality to 99% of fixed lens consumer digicams for as little as £400. Just a thought.

And finally....digital is now at a level where mid-range DSLRs of 8MP+ are offering 35mm film-beating quality. Even medium format film has met it's match in the shape of high-end 35mm DSLRs, MF DSLRs and premium level digital backs, which can now offer 39MP through the very best lenses the industry has to offer. It's been three years since I completely stopped using film and I can honestly say I haven't regretted it for a second.

Enjoy your purchase :)
 
Last edited:
Agree with everything BearFace says :)

A D-SLR will typically give better results for not a huge amount more money, but having said that the 'default' lenses supplied with some bodies are not that great so be careful. Obviously a major point against an SLR is that they're not 'pocketable', which rules them out if that's important. Compacts are usually set up to produce "pleasing" images straight from the camera too, which may be a factor if you're mostly going to print as-shot rather than tweaking on the PC afterwards.

My 'carry everywhere' camera is a Sony DSC-P200 (7.2 MP), which I would highly recommend if you want a point & shoot. In good light it produces stunning images, battery life is outstanding, great macro mode, optical viewfinder, etc.

There are a number of websites that publish very thorough reviews which are well worth checking out: www.dpreview.com for example.

Good luck!
 
BearFace said:
I'm a commercial photographer, so I can't provide any specific input about the cameras you're currently assessing, as the ones I use - while still digital - are just a tad different :)

That said, what Andy said was absolutely right. After lens quality (which is paramount - many Sony digicams use superb Carl Zeiss lenses for example, while many Panasonics use Leica glass...), one of the most important factors with regard to a digital camera is it's resolution. While a typical 4MP camera will (just) produce a decent quality A3 print, a 7 or 8MP camera will produce a larger file which means more detail and a better-quality print. It also allows for cropping, so even when you chop away any unnecessary elements of your original shot, you still have plenty left to make a print.

One of the major issues with consumer digicams is the size of the sensors used (relative to a 35mm film frame, for example). Cramming lots of pixels onto tiny sensors (professional digital SLRs have large, 35mm sensors or at least ones which maximise light capture for each individual pixel) is a recipe for noise (those speckled grainy dots you see in the shadow and single-tone areas of many digital images), so it's worth looking carefully at the models you've shortlisted and finding out which one deals with noise the most effectively. Believe me, when you want to shoot in low light (and I don't mean darkness here, just fading light), noise will become a major thorn in the side of your image quality...

So make sure you check:

  • Lens quality. A big name like Leica or Zeiss means quality optics
  • Noise management. Take shots in low light at higher ISO settings (400+) and see for yourself.
  • Handling and ergonomics. Can you change critical settings without having to put the camera down to access fiddly menus?
  • Auto focus and shutter delay. Does the camera lock on to subjects quickly enough and does the shutter react to your finger in time to capture the required scene?
  • Battery life. Does the camera have a status readout to warn you of the battery's charge level? Does the battery last long enough?

There are many more subjective criteria which can only be set by you, so make sure you consider them before buying. Also ask yourself whether or not a digital SLR (Canon 350D or Nikon D50) kit would be a better buy - these come in packages complete with lenses and offer vastly superior quality to 99% of fixed lens consumer digicams for as little as £400. Just a thought.

And finally....digital is now at a level where mid-range DSLRs of 8MP+ are offering 35mm film-beating quality. Even medium format film has met it's match in the shape of high-end 35mm DSLRs, MF DSLRs and premium level digital backs, which can now offer 39MP through the very best lenses the industry has to offer. It's been three years since I completely stopped using film and I can honestly say I haven't regretted it for a second.

Enjoy your purchase :)
Click to expand...

I thought the key pointers were not megapixels but quality of lens and quality of sensor. You've covered both here but I also believe all this megapixel business is blown out of proportion. I would never choose a camera based on megapixels alone, yes A may have more than B but the quality of sensors and lens should be used as a more accurate guide as to the quality of the photos it produces.
 
inder said:
I thought the key pointers were not megapixels but quality of lens and quality of sensor. You've covered both here but I also believe all this megapixel business is blown out of proportion. I would never choose a camera based on megapixels alone, yes A may have more than B but the quality of sensors and lens should be used as a more accurate guide as to the quality of the photos it produces.
Click to expand...


I always assumed it was a trade off between all of these factors. The best optics and sensors in the world can't make up for a low pixel count. Whilst the world's best sensor can be compromised by a poor lens.

At the end of the day, a camera is something that is very personal and one man's meat is another man's poison. Don't be too prejudiced by what the reviewers say they will all have their favourites. Buy a camera that you think will provide you with images that you can enjoy and be proud of whether or not they are technically perfect then enjoy it :)

Andy
 
andy_k said:
I always assumed it was a trade off between all of these factors. The best optics and sensors in the world can't make up for a low pixel count. Whilst the world's best sensor can be compromised by a poor lens.

At the end of the day, a camera is something that is very personal and one man's meat is another man's poison. Don't be too prejudiced by what the reviewers say they will all have their favourites. Buy a camera that you think will provide you with images that you can enjoy and be proud of whether or not they are technically perfect then enjoy it :)

Andy
Click to expand...

All of the above is true.

At work , we have some cracking new DSLR's (Nikon D2X's and D200's) which are over 10MP , we also have older ones , going right back to a D1 which was the first DSLR we bought years ago and is only something like 2MP ; however , it really does not look all that much worse than the ones mentioned above and I defy anyone to show me a compact that will take better pictures than it . The downside of ever increasing resolutions is ever increasing file sizes , requiring more storage capacity - both on your memory cards and on your computer when you get home - plus more processing power to manipulate images .

We do still shoot a lot on film (in some cases for legal reasons as it is still early days for producing digital images Scottish courts) and partly because digital cameras are not as suited to the environments we encounter in fire scenes (smoke , heat , humidity , water pouring through the roof ; my colleagues swear by their Nikon F3's for this work - I like my Pentax LX's - each to their own) ; film , IMHO , still has the edge on contrast ratios if you are looking for detail in bright whites as well as shadows .

There really is no 'formula' - all other things being equal , any one factor will make a difference but the only way to find out what is right for you is to go to the shops , find a helpful dealer who will let you try different models and buy the one you like best .

I do find it somewhat immoral to 'use' a specialist dealer who stocks a wide range of products , has knowledgeable staff , offers good service etc to obtain demonstrations and then to go and buy the products from a 'box shifter' (who probably knows nothing about the equipment and offers no after sales service) just to get the item at a cut price deal . No wonder a lot of the smaller camera shops etc. have gone out of business .
 
Housemate has a Sony. Big pile of crap in my opinion - not only is their software shockingly bad (compared to, say, a Canon that my other housemate has), but they also sting you for media because they use that Memory Stick Duo stuff, which has to be licensed from them.

Best off sticking to something which uses high-speed SD as it's storage.

Just my £0.02
 
Oh , BTW - keep an eye on the Nikon refurb shop .

http://www.nikon.co.uk/where_to_buy/refurbished_shop/

There was nothing on offer when I looked just now , but the stock changes daily and you can get some real bargains , often half the store prices .

We've bought a couple of dozen Coolpix 4200 and 5200's from there for giving out to officers who just need a simple camera - they work very well .
 
Pontoneer said:
D1 which was the first DSLR we bought years ago and is only something like 2MP ; however , it really does not look all that much worse than the ones mentioned above and I defy anyone to show me a compact that will take better pictures than it .
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised.

I have 1.8? MP images shot X years ago through an excellent Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens that also look pretty good, however they simply don't have as much detail as more recent shots from my £230 7.2 MP compact (which has a Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar). Resolution tests do show the D1 is outgunned in this respect by modern compacts:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscp200/page8.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/page19.asp

Of course resolution isn't eveything, but in reasonable light a good quality compact really will produce excellent pictures (comparable in my case to those from my 8 MP Canon D-SLR).
 
BTB 500 said:
I think you'd be surprised......Of course resolution isn't eveything, but in reasonable light a good quality compact really will produce excellent pictures (comparable in my case to those from my 8 MP Canon D-SLR).
Click to expand...


I know ,

I'm thinking of the likes of the Coolpix 5200s we have , which are fine little cameras and , under optimal conditions , will take very presentable pictures .

The difference is , when conditions are less than optimal , the DSLR holds its own . The D1 is a solid lump of a thing and you can get away hand holding it at surprisingly low shutter speeds where the compacts either give up or suffer from camera shake which negates the increased resolution .The Nikkor lens on the D1 (can't remember exactly which one - one of my colleagues has it just now) is really excellent , sharp all the way to the edges .

We obviously wouldn't enlarge D1 pics to poster sizes , but for 8x6 prints which is what we do most of the time it is still excellent .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Palmball
My new SLS
5 6 7
Replies
125
Views
15K
SportsCoupeRich
SportsCoupeRich
KillerHERTZ
GLK Facelift Press Release
Replies
5
Views
2K
rascalmaster
R
Back
Top Bottom