707 vs:Fuji6900z

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Have you seen the 6900s indoor flash pics? Red skin tones are very noticable.

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

All you have to do is customize your "White Balance".

jrouss said:

Have you seen the 6900s indoor flash pics? Red skin tones are very
noticable.

Click to expand...

There are good reasons to get a 707 over a 6900 - mainly the low light focus, noise reduction, and resolution. Reduce the Sony 5MP pics down to 3MP (Fuji res) and they will be just as sharp as Fuji 3MP, and much sharper than 6MP.

See example pics at

http://www.chinahkphoto.com/

Certainly for night shots the 707 as the edge over the Fuji 6900. Otherwise, I still feel that the pictures taken by the Fuji are more "photographic" than those coming out of the 707 and with a resolution that is very close (the Fuji original picture size is 6 mp, but with a real resolution closer to 4.5 mp). See for examples the Galleries of Ron H. at http://www.pbase.com/ronhep/galleries

Jean-Paul
http://www.pbase.com/sfjp/galleries

AlanS said:

There are good reasons to get a 707 over a 6900 - mainly the low
light focus, noise reduction, and resolution. Reduce the Sony 5MP
pics down to 3MP (Fuji res) and they will be just as sharp as Fuji
3MP, and much sharper than 6MP.

See example pics at

http://www.chinahkphoto.com/

Click to expand...

SFJP said:

Certainly for night shots the 707 as the edge over the Fuji 6900.
Otherwise, I still feel that the pictures taken by the Fuji are
more "photographic" than those coming out of the 707 and with a
resolution that is very close (the Fuji original picture size is 6
mp, but with a real resolution closer to 4.5 mp).

Click to expand...

The Fuji 6900z resolution is certainly excellent, but it's simply not in the F707 class. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page17.asp

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I like the fuji pix, but the reds are Chinese (too loud, too much orange, not a true red at all). Plus, flesh tones are "made up", and flat areas are noisy. The 707 may not produce the most "likeable" shots right off, but they can be worked up to very impressive results. I think only the g2 comes close.

The type of shot matters, too. Corners are much sharper with the 707!

sh

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the resolution of the 707 is better on some tests, but the full size images from the 707 I have seen so far in the reviews look to me too much in-camera processed. If I apply heavily Ultra-Sharpen plug-in to my Fuji 6900 - 6 mp, fine, soft in-camera sharpening - pictures, I too get a very significative improvement of resolution with the same kind of artificial look I see in 707 pictures.

When I will see 707 pictures with the same resolution than the currently available samples but with a natural photographic look and good colors, I will be convinced that it can make better pictures than the Fuji 6900, but for now I think that Fuji 6900 and Olympus E10 are still the best cameras in the consumer/prosumer price. Of course, there are several months of published pictures from these two cameras and some excellent galleries like those of http://www.belgiumdigital.com for the E10, and those of Ron H. http://www.pbase.com/ronhep/galleries for the 6900. There is not yet any real experience with the 707 and we may have to wait 2 or 3 months to really judge if good photographers can make such good pictures with it.

Anyway, the 707 is certainly a good camera top-level consumer camera and worth its money, especially when looking to its extra-features for night shooting. But in my opinion it does not smoke out the Fuji!

Jean-Paul
http://www.pbase.com/sfjp/galleries

David J. Littleboy said:

SFJP said:

Certainly for night shots the 707 as the edge over the Fuji 6900.
Otherwise, I still feel that the pictures taken by the Fuji are
more "photographic" than those coming out of the 707 and with a
resolution that is very close (the Fuji original picture size is 6
mp, but with a real resolution closer to 4.5 mp).

Click to expand...

The Fuji 6900z resolution is certainly excellent, but it's simply
not in the F707 class. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page17.asp

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Click to expand...

Sorry was't trying to down the 6900 it is very nice but, I have found the skin tone and low light issues more than I like to deal with. Otherwise it is s great bang for the buck. The Fuji takes beautiful shots all-around, just look on the Fuji forum and it is appearent what a nice camera it is. Alas I owned a F505V in the past and it made me partail to the F series, for some reason beautiful pics came out of that camera with minimal effort.

shemp said:

The type of shot matters, too. Corners are much sharper with the 707!

sh

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

I've looked at many 6900Z pictures. They are decent 3MP pictures, but IMO they don't come close to capturing the detail of 707 pictures.

Ron Parr

Ron Parr said:

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

I've looked at many 6900Z pictures. They are decent 3MP pictures,
but IMO they don't come close to capturing the detail of 707
pictures.

Ron Parr

RON thanx for comment, BUT I go back to my original question. WHAT am I missing. Is there a place to compare side by side --707 and 6900Z??

Click to expand...

I love DPREVIEW what a greeeeaaat place to view 9 million comments, I think it is TERIFIC!!!

jIM cOLE said:

Member said:

RON thanx for comment, BUT I go back to my original question. WHAT am I missing. Is there a place to compare side by side --707 and 6900Z??

Click to expand...

I love DPREVIEW what a greeeeaaat place to view 9 million
comments, I think it is TERIFIC!!!

Click to expand...

I just spend a while looking at the shots in Phil's F707 gallery and his 6900Z. The 6900Z shots look good, but the 707 shots look like they have more detail to me. The 6900Z shots somewhat fuzzy to my eye.

Phil's 707 shot of Joanna is an example. I've never seen a sharper, more detailed portrait of Joanna in all of Phil's galleries.

Ron Parr

jIM cOLE said:

WHAT am I missing. I have tried the top TEN digital cameras. I am
waiting to try the 707, BUT the pics from the 6900Z are Soooo much
clearer and sharper than the posted 707 pics. ??

Click to expand...

Hello Jim,

I'm a very happy Fuji 6900Z owner.
It takes a litte w

I invite you to look at the pictures I made with it. From the beginning until now (already more than 3000 pictures). You will see that the pictures become better and better when I master the camera more and more. 5it is my first digital)

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/digitalfriends/skitchalbum.htm

Thanks for looking.

Skitch
http://www.digitalfriends.cc

jrouss said:

Have you seen the 6900s indoor flash pics? Red skin tones are very
noticable.

Click to expand...

LOL! Am I hearing it in Sony forum??! ;-)))