F31/F40 not enough difference to me...

PeterNMIF said:

I think we are pretty much on the same wave length.

Click to expand...

Very much so.

PeterNMIF said:

The F20 is
actually pretty limited overall (for me, because I miss a histogram,
backup OVF, adjustments to sharp, contrast etc I have on my SD800
Canon) but for the social shots I discussed it is absolutely the
best. Slip it in your pocket, take it out without being observed,
shoot without flash, and return to pocket.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Same with most Fxx digicams - great for shooting good quality indoor social event pictures quickly and quietly without using flash, and therefore with minimal intrusions and stresses. When using them this way, you don't have to feel like a photographer or be treated like a photographer, and you can remain a guest and fully enjoy the parties. Fxx digicams may still be the only cameras that enable you to do that.

PeterNMIF said:

Yes, I took 50 pix at a party and then wrote down all the exif stuff.
I had been dismayed (initally) with the 1600 max ISO (with no option
except in portrait mode of a 800 ISO limit) but the realized it would
only bump to preserve the necessary 1/focal length speed, perhaps a
bit faster to be conservative.

For example, at an indoor daytime party: All wide shots (8mm = 36mm
equv) were shot at 200, 400 and 800 (no bump to 1600 because of F2.8
lens at 8mm focal length let in enough light) and speed ranged from
1/60, 1/70, 1/90 and 1/100. The 1/100 was with ISO 800. I realized
camera bumped to ISO 800 to preserve the 1/60 minimum speed (unless
of course if it tops out at ISO 1600 and needs more light it will go
lower), because if kept at ISO 400 the speed would need to be 1/50th.
I would have been happy with ISO 400 and 1/50th, but "hey" this is an
auto camera grin

Click to expand...

A really good auto camera would let you customize your Auto ISO, so that you could set your Minimum Shutter Speed for your Auto ISO at full wide to 1/50s or 1/35s (1/35s or 1/36s so that you can follow exactly the 1/focal length rule of thumb). Of course, it could be set to another speed. You could then control how aggressive or not your Auto ISO bumps up ISOs. Fuji really should take that one step further.

PeterNMIF said:

At the other extreme:

At zoomed in at 24mm (this is the 3x max = 110mm equivalent) the ISO
went to 1600 a few times to maintain at least 1/125th to keep lens
stable. Part of the reason is now the lens is at F5-ish. So, one
needs to accept higher ISO. Example is 1/150th at 1600 ISO when
zoomed in. In this case a ISO of 800 would have resulted in a 1/75th
speed which is lower than the 1/focal length "rule of thumb". Since
the focal length was the equiv. of 110mm, this explains why the
1/125th is the minimum desired speed when fully zoomed in. (Except,
if when bumped to ISO 1600 there is still not enough light, then
speed will drop commensurately.

Click to expand...

That I noticed too. I thought you have tried every Focal Length and figured out exactly the Minimum Shutter Speed for each Focal Length. Maybe you did.

PeterNMIF said:

I admit that for me this a bit too conservative, but not by much.
And since ISO 1600 looks no worse on this camera than ISO 400 on my
other pocket cameras, I am happy.

Click to expand...

Too bad there isn't Auto ISO 800 on the F20 for you. You would have capped most shots at ISO 800.

If I were Fuji, I would put a firmware upgrade for F30 and F20, to add Auto ISO 800. I think some of you would pay $10 for that, wouldn't you? Better yet, add Customizable Auto ISOs (3 customizable Auto ISOs: Auto 1, Auto 2 and Auto 3) to F30/20/31/40 .... via a firmware upgrade and sell it for $20. If Fuji were losing money on some models (which I think they did or still do), that would be a better move for them instead of coming up with another money losing model. This would at least make some money for them.

PeterNMIF said:

What surprises me further is that I shoot without much thinking this
way. I don't worry about anything. Just shoot. The fact that there
is no histogram or controls for contrast, saturation etc would be
intolerable to me for landscapes, but for social snaps the fact that
I have no choices makes it all the more easy to use when I would just
as soon enjoy the social gathering than think about the camera.

Click to expand...

Better yet is if you can customize your F20 beforehand (mostly on its Auto ISO behavior) - set it once, forget about it, and go to many parties (you may come back to change the settings once in a while if your taste changes). And you know your F20 will do exactly what you like it to do.

Agree completely that enjoying the social gathering is the most important thing!

CMD is me said:

CMD is me wrote:
Someone else asked about a TZ5 vs S5 for video. I have the S5 and the
TZ3. The TZ3's audio is TERRIBLE... that's sort of off topic, but
wanted to help out.

Click to expand...

Help out who in this thread? The comparison was F31 v F40 of still images in this thread. Even at that......how can you help out anyone for a TZ5 v S5 video comparison by given feedback to your TZ3? The TZ3 is a totally diifferent camera to the TZ5. The TZ5 blows the doors off the TZ3 in so many ways including video where it can voom and use HD. And I find the audio is pretty acceptable on the TZ5. I buy a digital camera first and foremost of still images. When the video requirements or expectations nearly matches or exceeds the importance of taking still shots.... then it will be time to invest in a camcorder IMO.

--
*****************************************
Packy

packy said:

packy said:

CMD is me wrote:
Someone else asked about a TZ5 vs S5 for video. I have the S5 and the
TZ3. The TZ3's audio is TERRIBLE... that's sort of off topic, but
wanted to help out.

Click to expand...

Help out who in this thread?

Click to expand...

From the first page:

vero wrote:

" I saw that you also have the TZ5, which one do you think is better for good IQ pictures and video? Thanks again,Vero."

packy said:

......how can you help out anyone
for a TZ5 v S5 video comparison by given feedback to your TZ3? The
TZ3 is a totally diifferent camera to the TZ5. The TZ5 blows the
doors off the TZ3 in so many ways including video where it can voom
and use HD. And I find the audio is pretty acceptable on the TZ5.

Click to expand...

I was only commenting on the audio. The TZ5 is said to have just as bad audio as the TZ3 when it comes to body isolation (noises if you or the body touch anything, motor noise, etc). Reading tons of posts, most people really have a problem with the TZ5's audio quality and don't feel it's improved much -- that's why I commented. I didn't comment on the video since I haven't used one. Since you feel otherwise, you may want to post a comparison in one of the other forums if you haven't already. There is a lot of interest in the TZ5. I've even considered one since the NR/IQ seems to have improved.

Again, I didn't mean to promote an off topic thread, but merely trying to offer help to others.

W3, Thanks for you good reply and additional thoughts, from an equally excited Fxx user!!

My experience at all focal lengths suggest that 1/focal length is being protected by the camera as it bumps the ISO. I just gave a few examples on the extremes of wide and tele.

I thought you might be interested in a couple of images the subjects had absolutely no idea I was taking, both at the ISO 1600 chosen by the camera!!!

Here's the link to a gallery with only the 2 images:

http://pfrailey.zenfolio.com/p948230535/

Here are 2 images at 1600 (the F20 set at Auto(1600). Both were slightly cropped to improve composition, I think grin .

First one ISO 1600 at 1/60th which is minimum speed and for social shots I am happy with this speed even though this is at widest angle, which is 35mm equiv. which would imply I could handhold at 1/35... but then I would worry about subject blur.

Second shot at ISO 1600 was 1/170th. At first I thought ISO 800 at 1/85th would have been a better choice for the camera to have made... but then I realized because I had zoomed nearly to 100mm equv., it was trying to protect a speed of 1/focal length. So again, a good choice made by the camera, given its limitations of adjustments (rather course adjustments... an ISO 1250 would be nice).

Of course, my wish list (which would never happen) is a Fxx camera with OIS and only 6mp. Imagine a F20 with that!

Peter F.

Thanks for posting these. Again these show the that 'F' series cams do much better than any other P&S out there at ISO1600 (I was going to post a Canon 1600 shot - but I'll refrain) Nice shots for a small P&S - isn't it nice to get 'natural' shots without a flash (artificial light added)?

Not to start an F20/F40 debate but 'keepin' it real' I'd have to say that the F40fd would have done as good or possibly a tad better in the shots you posted. WB of the F20/30/31 are slightly better than the F40 but the F20/30 also use a slight bit more in-cam NR compared to the F31. But what's intersting is that the F40 appears to use a bit more NR than the F31 -but- has just as much retained detail (in my tests)

The F20 was/is a great camera -but- given the choice (now) I personally would pass over the F20 and get an F40 as I see no advantage to getting the F20. They are priced about the same and the F40 adds an improved LCD, SD/xD slot, effective face detect, AUTO800, less PF with overall better outdoor IQ and high ISO's just as good or better in some ways than the F20/30/31 plus a bit more resolution (and cropping ability)... Just my 2 cents from owning them all.
Matt, PA, U.S.
TZ5, S5IS and F40fd
http://www.pbase.com/photofreak777/root&page=all

(Note: Camera's listed above are subject to change without notice and no camera's were harmed in the making of this message)
taken with my good 'old' S5IS:

I don't like F40 high noise reduction, even in nicely exposed ISO100 pictures,
NR kicks in, giving the impression of graininess.

Dcresource.com review explains it in more detail:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f40fd-review/

'The FinePix F40 produces virtually noise-free images up to ISO 800, allowing for high quality mid to large-sized prints. What you will find instead of noise is the artifacting caused by noise reduction, which gives images a grainy and sometimes "fuzzy" appearance.'

What I didn't care for:

• Fair amount of noise reduction artifacting, even at ISO 100

--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://foto.tom.st ,
http://pixel-peeping-tom.deviantart.com

The F40 is a tremendous value.... now that it is discontinued they are drying up so better get one fast if you're thinking about it. I also couldn't see spending nearly triple the amount for an F31 when the F40 can do 90% of the job at 1/3rd the cost. The SD card capability also made it a better choice for me being I had a big supply of those memory cards already.

--
JT

Canon A640
Fuji F40fd

No offense to you Tom (and others) but this is an exaggerated point. Even the F20/30/31 when pixel peeped have faults and yes the F40 has more NR than the F31 -but- the F20/30 also use more than the F31. The F40 at ISO100 is fine and as the test shots I've compared show - the F40 even competes quite well right thru ISO800/1600 against the much 'sought after' F31. Even with the extra (clever) NR, it retains excellent detail and resolution. Less noise, good detail retention and resolution plus nice looking prints (even small ones at ISO800/1600) - what's wrong with that?

For whatever reason people here don't want to recognize that there are other camera's for low light than the F20/30/31 (or that they are comparable IQ wise) and the F40 is 'catching on' here and possibly other places lately because people are seeing it's a decent Fuji effort and offers quite a bit for the price tag ... Matt

JT said:

The F40 is a tremendous value.... now that it is discontinued they
are drying up so better get one fast if you're thinking about it. I
also couldn't see spending nearly triple the amount for an F31 when
the F40 can do 90% of the job at 1/3rd the cost. The SD card
capability also made it a better choice for me being I had a big
supply of those memory cards already.

Click to expand...

Yes the best current Fuji value out there right now IMO. $150 vs $350-400 is a huge difference. I'd agree with 90% at 1/3 cost scenario -but- will add that the F40 seems to do better outdoors than any other Fuji 'F' (or 'E') that I've used - less PP required with less PF, better metering, punchy colors (if you like those) and a better LCD for 'bright' conditions. BTW thanks for 'chiming in' JT - it looks like you know a good value when you see it (which is apparent by the A640 you own - one of Canon's best) ... Matt

JT65019 said:

--
JT

Canon A640
Fuji F40fd

Click to expand...

PeterNMIF said:

I thought you might be interested in a couple of images the subjects
had absolutely no idea I was taking, both at the ISO 1600 chosen by
the camera!!!

Here's the link to a gallery with only the 2 images:

http://pfrailey.zenfolio.com/p948230535/

Here are 2 images at 1600 (the F20 set at Auto(1600). Both were
slightly cropped to improve composition, I think grin .

Click to expand...

Nice.

I certainly have no objection if you choose to stick with F20's Auto1600 as your "set once and use it for all lighting conditions" Auto ISO, particularly when the F20 doesn't have Auto800.

PeterNMIF said:

First one ISO 1600 at 1/60th which is minimum speed and for social
shots I am happy with this speed even though this is at widest angle,
which is 35mm equiv. which would imply I could handhold at 1/35...
but then I would worry about subject blur.

Click to expand...

The worry about Subject Blur may not always be necessary. Say for your first picture of serving food, a little bit of motion blur of the serving spoon, if you could use 1/30s or 1/20s instead, might give a more dynamic look and feel to the scene and could actually improve the picture, while the rest of the subjects should look fine. Only when the faces or major part of the subject have a lot of quicker movements that you have to consider the effect.

Here are more pictures (taken by F100) that I borrow from another poster to illustrate the point that Subject Blurs may not always be bad things. Sometimes they may even produce some desirable special effects:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=27744183
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=27744401

PeterNMIF said:

Second shot at ISO 1600 was 1/170th. At first I thought ISO 800 at
1/85th would have been a better choice for the camera to have made...
but then I realized because I had zoomed nearly to 100mm equv., it
was trying to protect a speed of 1/focal length. So again, a good
choice made by the camera, given its limitations of adjustments
(rather course adjustments... an ISO 1250 would be nice).

Click to expand...

Well, there are more approaches to improving the Auto ISO. This could work under Manual or Shutter Priority (for low light, Aperture would be at its max under the focal length). You choose your shutter speed and the digicam's AE system would float the ISO to the exact value for the proper exposure. It could be done. (It is like Shutter Priority, but floats ISO to the exact values instead of Aperture for proper exposure)

PeterNMIF said:

Of course, my wish list (which would never happen) is a Fxx camera
with OIS and only 6mp. Imagine a F20 with that!

Click to expand...

Agree with that completely. But with good OIS, you obviously would want to take advantage of slower shutter speeds with lower ISOs. Who is going to determine what you are going to do to what degree? With good OIS and at full wide, you may be able to do 1/4s or 1/6s, some would want 1/8s, others would need 1/15s, 1/20s .... etc. They all would be somewhat slower than the current Auto ISO's Minimum Shutter Speeds. And nobody wants to manually set ISO each time. In order to automate, you would have an even more obvious need for Customizable Auto ISOs to allow you to set the Minimum Shutter Speeds to your own liking (to automatically take advantage of OIS). Whatever Minimum Shutter Speed is set at full wide, it should be faster proportionally with increased focal length.

Interesting reading the comments from a previous post about the price/value of the now discontinued F31 compared to the later F40. IMO the price used F30/31 fetch is ludicrous. This I believe is all down to the hype around the camera and how much better it is compared to the F40, F50 and so forth. Please don't mis understand what I am saying, the F30/31 is still a great camera but I believe the F40 and even the newer F100 to be equally good in their own right.

I think the reality is after going through this thread the F40 in many way's is as good as the F30/31. If everyone were to read this thread then I suspect there would be a leveling of price between the products!

I agree the F40 is tremendous value and would say why on earth pay £200 uk for a second hand obsolete camera!

Just my view on things!

Steve

Hi Matt.

Just wanted to say thanks for a very educational thread. The tests you did were very eye opening for this F31 user! I've read with interest this and your many other comparison threads (i.e. G9 vs. G7) and think you provide invalueable reference material for those interested in facts over hype.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

PS. I'll of course still be keeping my F31 but I just won't feel as superior!
--
James
Canon S3, SD800, A95 & Fuji F31

stephy said:

I agree the F40 is tremendous value and would say why on earth pay
£200 uk for a second hand obsolete camera!

Click to expand...

Aye, that's why I got the F40. I looked up the F3X because everyone was ranting about it and I was generally dissapointed at high ISO comparisons of other cams (particularly Pannys, I so loved the shape and features of the FX3X line but the sensor is poo), but couldnt find it anywhere. And even IF I could have found it, it would probably exceed the price of an new F100 and honestly, I'd take the F100 over it in a heartbeat.

I so wish Fuji would come up with a budget camera line that just about matches the current F40: the newest SCCD generation at 8 mpx, a short (ie cheap) 3-4x zoom lens but with 25mm wide angle (to steal all attention from Panny) and of course IS.

bluenoser23 said:

Hi Matt.

Just wanted to say thanks for a very educational thread. The tests
you did were very eye opening for this F31 user! I've read with
interest this and your many other comparison threads (i.e. G9 vs. G7)
and think you provide invalueable reference material for those
interested in facts over hype.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your kind comments. Hey we've got to draw our own conclusions - and for me unfortunately it sometimes means getting a hold of these camera's myself and putting then to the test. I'm not one for a lot of hype and a 'mine is the best and there is no other' philosophy! I'm like Thomas - I doubt until I see for myself - always testing and playing - LOL!

It was enlightening/interesting for me as well - as I thought the F31 would easily beat the F40 at higher ISO's (as many here had been saying) But in reality it really doesn't do that IMO. I just hope people out there looking for an alternative/companion to an 'IS' camera (Canon, Sony, etc..,) that will only shoot still subjects in low light and likely give decent results only upto ISO400 will take a look at the F40fd. For the price it's one heck of a camera bargain and is starting to catch on as possibly another Fuji 'classic'... Matt

bluenoser23 said:

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Click to expand...

No problem - it was sort of fun but yes time consuming as well.

bluenoser23 said:

PS. I'll of course still be keeping my F31 but I just won't feel as
superior!

Click to expand...

Of course you will - it's still a classic camera - the only Fuji 'F' that has a respectable 6MP's, A/S modes and face detect!

bluenoser23 said:

--
James
Canon S3, SD800, A95 & Fuji F31

Click to expand...

merka said:

merka said:

I agree the F40 is tremendous value and would say why on earth pay
£200 uk for a second hand obsolete camera!

Click to expand...

Aye, that's why I got the F40. I looked up the F3X because everyone
was ranting about it and I was generally dissapointed at high ISO
comparisons of other cams (particularly Pannys, I so loved the shape
and features of the FX3X line but the sensor is poo), but couldnt
find it anywhere. And even IF I could have found it, it would
probably exceed the price of an new F100 and honestly, I'd take the
F100 over it in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

It's hard to complain about the F40's overall IQ/features for the cost - that's for sure!

merka said:

I so wish Fuji would come up with a budget camera line that just
about matches the current F40: the newest SCCD generation at 8 mpx, a
short (ie cheap) 3-4x zoom lens but with 25mm wide angle (to steal
all attention from Panny) and of course IS.

Click to expand...

They'll never go back now - it's 12MP's now - then 14 - then 16, etc.., The F100 isn't to far off the F40's IQ from what I've seen (pink band aside) ... Matt

I agree. I compared images from both cameras last year and reached the same conclusions.

For whatever reason, the F40 is underrated. It didn't help that Dpreview chose to not review it. Had they done so, the F40 would have picked up more of a following IMHO.

Photofreak7 said:

At the risk of being yelled at by some here (and getting other
opinions and possibly disagreement) I still must say that after
comparing these two camera's at all ISO's I see such a small
difference (in fact in some ways I think the F40 is better) that I am
putting the F31fd up for sale. For the huge price difference I can't
see spending $250 more for the F31fd.

Click to expand...

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

and restarting what I thought was a dead thread.

Don_D said:

I agree. I compared images from both cameras last year and reached
the same conclusions.

For whatever reason, the F40 is underrated. It didn't help that
Dpreview chose to not review it. Had they done so, the F40 would
have picked up more of a following IMHO.

Click to expand...

Yes a DPreview review of the F40fd would have been eye-opening for many I think and at least would have given the F40 a bit more credibilty. The F31's WB and colors are slightly better at high ISO's and the noise a bit less hateful -but- it's not enough of a difference IMO to justify the extra cost for the F31 (unless you need the A/S modes and don't mind xD cards) ... Matt

Don_D said:

Photofreak7 said:

At the risk of being yelled at by some here (and getting other
opinions and possibly disagreement) I still must say that after
comparing these two camera's at all ISO's I see such a small
difference (in fact in some ways I think the F40 is better) that I am
putting the F31fd up for sale. For the huge price difference I can't
see spending $250 more for the F31fd.

Click to expand...

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

Click to expand...