F300EXR now in Singapore

Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Central, SG
Hi, All

Just some very brief first impressions of the F300EXR, which hit the shops here today. The price was attractive so I bought one without hesitation (promotional launch price 469 Singapore dollars, vs. 539 Singapore dollars list; 1 US dollar = 1.3 Singapore dollars approx.).

First impressions are good -- it seems very well made, has a good heft, is slightly larger and feels slightly heavier than an F70. The screen is beautiful and bright, and I expect it'll be quite easily visible in daylight (it was dusk by the time I left the shop). The lens zooms out pretty quickly to max. Focus at wide is very fast, though probably not as quick as Fuji claims. At full tele, focus hunts a bit -- no surprise here -- but is still noticeably faster than other compacts.

The flash always pops up when you power up the camera, even if you'd previously set the flash to "always off". It won't stay down when you press it right down. It's very easy, of course, to forget and leave your finger on the flash while powering up, but the flash unit doesn't feel very prone to damage -- I don't foresee it becoming a problem, at least for me.

The mode dial is more "notchy" than the F70. Some scene modes have moved -- for example, Pro Low Light is now in Adv. mode. The playback, display and F-button are now capsule-shape rather than round, which I find less easy to operate. The scroll wheel is a bonus -- lets you go from one picture to the next easily, though it doesn't work when you've zoomed in your pics (a pity). The scroll wheel also operates aperture and shutter speed value in M mode.

The salesperson at the store demonstrated the 360-deg. panorama function to me; it seemed to work very well.

Pro-focus works very well on the F300 -- it was useless on the F70. You can set three degrees of blur, but level 3 gives unnatural results. Pro-lowlight works very well too, as it did on the F70 -- very useful when panning, say, moving vehicles at night.

I've yet to test the camera in good light ... perhaps this weekend!
 
Hi, I am from singapore too. I have the F72. But would like to get my hands on the FX300, mainly because of the panorama feature.

If you can, pls post some pics (unedited and without tripod) so that I can see how good is the camera. I was told the pic quality lose out to the F72

Pls post some pics of the following :

1) profocus mode (pics of different degrees)
2) pro low light
3) panorama

Thanks
 
Hi, Keith and Mariorenz. Sure, will try to post pics in a few days -- very busy at work now, frantically preparing for start of term!

I've found image quality very disappointing so far -- very smeary, noticeably worse than the F72. That said, I've only tried it at night (as I got it after work), and I should add that I haven't used the F72 much since I got mine, so I don't know it well enough either.
 
Lucky guy!

Please try the camera in Program mode, M size, Auto DR, AUTO ISO (800) and take pictures in different situations (outdoors, low light, candid, landscape,...). A comparison with the F72 that you own too in the same conditions, and with similar configuration would be great.
Can't wait for your full size samples, and congratulations on your purchase.
--
Photography has to remain a pleasure, keep PP minimal!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/altruisto/
owning a Nikon D90, Canon S5IS, Panasonic LX3 and TZ4 and Fuji F70exr
 
Lucky guy!

Please try the camera in Program mode, M size, Auto DR, AUTO ISO (800) and take pictures in different situations (outdoors, low light, candid, landscape,...). A comparison with the F72 that you own too in the same conditions, and with similar configuration would be great.
Can't wait for your full size samples, and congratulations on your purchase.
--
It will be interesting to see the samples but I'm not holding my breath..from what I have seen so far it might be a notch better than the F80 (in some ways) but not a lot more than that. But we'll see soon enough with some more samples.

I curse the day Fuji went from a 10mp density on this size sensor to a 12mp one it did nothing for IQ and only hurt it. NR seems to have increased recently which is a shame..and yet again some thorny issues remain..such as no control over contrast/saturation/sharpness...no movement on even a review histogram.

Disappointing to say the least. If only Fuji had someone in charge who really understood what photographers want or at least partly. Lots of potential with EXR wasted with over dense small sensors..and not a hint of what some really want, and F200 with a fast WA lens and bigger sensor even raw.
 
not a hint of what some really want, and F200 with a fast WA lens and bigger sensor even raw.
A faster lens would be nice, but unless Fujifilm implements some kind of relief in the form of:
  1. mechanical tilt and shift, or
  2. software perspective correction (which effectively makes a wide angle lens much less wide angle), or
  3. at the very least, allows the photographer to set the camera so that it does not always default to the widest angle (and very un-useful) setting whenever the camera is turned on,
then WA is more a liability than a benefit. It makes for really crappy portraits (not that this stops most photographers from using wide angle almost exclusively for portraits), and it makes rooflines reach out to touch each other:



Really, Fujifilm needs to let the user decide the focal length to which the lens defaults on start-up.
 
  1. at the very least, allows the photographer to set the camera so that it does not always default to the widest angle (and very un-useful) setting whenever the camera is turned on,
Hardly a deal breaker or rare is it?

As it happens the CX-3 I reviewed has user custom settings that do store the focal length you pick. Nice feature I liked it.
then WA is more a liability than a benefit. It makes for really crappy portraits (not that this stops most photographers from using wide angle almost exclusively for portraits), and it makes rooflines reach out to touch each other:
But then WA is great for landscapes and scenic shots! Who said anything about a fixed WA lens I'm talking about a 24-105mm or around there zoom.
 
But then WA is great for landscapes and scenic shots!
You're kidding, right? WA is just terrible for landscapes.

Here are two shots -- no, they were not shot from exactly the same site, but my position when I shot the second was just a couple of hundred yards from where I shot the first, and the camera was pointed in the same direction -- that I took in 2008 looking southeast from US 20 (standing beside the road) at locations just east of Sisters, Oregon. They were both shot with a Fujifilm S100fs.

The first was shot at 7.1 mm focal length (28 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).



The second was shot at 22.2 mm focal length (87 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).



The mountains are the Three Sisters; South Sister (the peak at the right in the second shot) is a bit over 10.000 feet at its summit.

How about them mountains in the first shot!
 
But then WA is great for landscapes and scenic shots!
You're kidding, right? WA is just terrible for landscapes.
Prime,

All you have demonstrated is that a camera by itself cannot take good photos. It takes creativity and imagination. Merely setting the camera at 28mm and taking a photo will not result in a good "landscape" image. You have to create it. The camera cannot do this.

The fact is, there are an untold number of spectacular wide angle landscape shots. Many created using a 28mm lens.

The second image you posted does show the mountains better as well as the clouds. But I do not find it a particularly compelling image.
 
The fact is, there are an untold number of spectacular wide angle landscape shots.
The number is untold because good wide-angle landscapes are like unicorns and the Tooth Fairy. By defiinition, landscape photography emphasizes the landscape . But wide-angle lenses emphasize subjects that are in the foreground and make distant objects -- the landscape -- minuscule.

Yes, there are "spectacular" wide-angle shots. Wide-angle lenses do have their place in the sun. But very, very few decent landscape shots have been taken with wide-angle lenses. There are horses for courses, and for landscapes , specifically, a wide-angle lens almost always is the wrong nag to ride.
 
did u get it from comex? or from sim lim square?
South Asia, 3rd level Funan DigitaLife Mall. I doubt there're better deals at Comex and I didn't bother scouting around for deals.

For some reason, this store has always sold Fujis at very competitive prices. I got my F72/70 there at $299 in June. In fact I also got my F200 and took a friend there for her F30.

The $469 price includes F300EXR, 8GB Toshiba Class 4 SDHC card, extra OEM battery, camera pouch, mini-tripod and cleaning set. The list price is supposed to be $539 -- still lower than the $549-599 I was expecting. The salesman was learning the camera when I popped by, and said he'd already sold a few that day.
 
Lucky guy!

Please try the camera in Program mode, M size, Auto DR, AUTO ISO (800) and take pictures in different situations (outdoors, low light, candid, landscape,...). A comparison with the F72 that you own too in the same conditions, and with similar configuration would be great.
Can't wait for your full size samples, and congratulations on your purchase.
Thanks, Altruisto! I hope to find time this weekend to take a few proper pics -- meanwhile, frantically busy at work. Important camera launches always seem to coincide with peak periods at work for me ...

Just had a look of a pic I took of my car this morning -- ISO100, M size Fine, DR400, and it's pretty smeary. Some ISO800 shots I took last night were terrible ...
 
Lucky guy!

Please try the camera in Program mode, M size, Auto DR, AUTO ISO (800) and take pictures in different situations (outdoors, low light, candid, landscape,...). A comparison with the F72 that you own too in the same conditions, and with similar configuration would be great.
Can't wait for your full size samples, and congratulations on your purchase.
Thanks, Altruisto! I hope to find time this weekend to take a few proper pics -- meanwhile, frantically busy at work. Important camera launches always seem to coincide with peak periods at work for me ...

Just had a look of a pic I took of my car this morning -- ISO100, M size Fine, DR400, and it's pretty smeary. Some ISO800 shots I took last night were terrible ...
sigh , the news just gets more depressing about this camera. ISO100 shots are smeary too? My goodness, whoever runs Fuji's imaging department really should be called out onto the carpet and beaten.
 
You're kidding, right? WA is just terrible for landscapes.
No I'm not kidding and I think there are a significant number of good landscape shots at WA that support that point. Not that you always use WA or indeed need to, let's just say 28mm is likely much more useful for this kind of work than say 200mm is!

Let's not forget group shots (hate them myself but have to do them at times) WA does help a lot there too. Interior shots as well very much WA land.
The first was shot at 7.1 mm focal length (28 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).
The shot does not work because there is nothing there that pulls your attention. Foreground is entirely devoid of any interest (that's pretty much fatal for WA work) no leading lines, central horizon (can work at times but not this one), no perspective nothing really.

We've all taken shots like that but again for scenic work at WA you pretty much have to have "something" going on foreground to add depth to the shot.

So rather than prove WA sucks for landscapes you've simply shown it's very easy to take boring photos (with all respect I'm sure you can do much better here)
The second was shot at 22.2 mm focal length (87 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).
It's better but it's still not really what I would call gold medal award winning stuff. Nor really even "pretty good" it's just a bit better than the first shot.
How about them mountains in the first shot!
Lots of stuff matter a whole lot for landscapes, light, composition, perspective, leading lines..not always every one but you've discovered why some folks love landscape photos, they're hard to do well!

You're in for a tough fight suggesting WA is not good for landscapes very few landscape shooters would agree with you. And WA means different things to different people at the best I'd say it's "below 38mm" though it really starts from 35mm and 28mm would be considered the "norm" for WA.

When you get below that 24mm is also popular though possibly tougher for scenic work but can work wonders at times, under 24mm UWA is difficult and the foreground becomes even more important in a shot esp as the perspective effect on the foreground is exaggerated significantly as well. Still useful at times though.

But 28mm is the bread and butter of scenic work. I had a 35-135mm Oly bridge 35mm camera (not cheap either) and I got along fine with that for a long time, but 28mm and below really does open up possibilities even more thus it's a very useful important focal length not just for landscape work either.
 
You're kidding, right? WA is just terrible for landscapes.
No I'm not kidding and I think there are a significant number of good landscape shots at WA that support that point.
Only in the sense that there are significant numbers of hens' teeth. Or if one redefines "landscape" so broadly that the term loses meaning. The last time this discussion came up, someone quoted a professional photographer describing the usefulness of a wide-angle lens for shooting blue-footed boobie birds in the Galapagos Islands at under two-foot lens-to-subject distances as proof that wide angles are great for landscape photography. Makes one wonder whether there is any kind of photograph that is not a landscape.
Let's not forget group shots (hate them myself but have to do them at times) WA does help a lot there too. Interior shots as well very much WA land.
As I noted upthread, wide angle lenses do have uses; no doubt, there are times when there is no reasonable alternative, and in those situations, a wide angle is the right tool for the job. In those situations, I use wide angle lenses (or settings) myself, I really do. But my point is not that there is never a time when a wide angle is the right tool, but the entirely different proposition that it is only very rarely -- so rare as to approach never -- that a wide angle setting is the best tool for a landscape .
The first was shot at 7.1 mm focal length (28 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).
The shot does not work because there is nothing there that pulls your attention. Foreground is entirely devoid of any interest (that's pretty much fatal for WA work) no leading lines, central horizon (can work at times but not this one), no perspective nothing really.

We've all taken shots like that but again for scenic work at WA you pretty much have to have "something" going on foreground to add depth to the shot.

So rather than prove WA sucks for landscapes you've simply shown it's very easy to take boring photos (with all respect I'm sure you can do much better here)
The second was shot at 22.2 mm focal length (87 mm equivalent in 35 mm format).
It's better but it's still not really what I would call gold medal award winning stuff. Nor really even "pretty good" it's just a bit better than the first shot.
The shots were not posted here for their artistic value, but rather to illustrate the very same point that you make that "for scenic work at WA you pretty much have to have 'something' going on foreground." Rattymouse's gratuitous insult and your more measured comments illustrate why advertising agencies use lorem ipsum when making presentations to clients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum

You have, however, underscored my point: in almost every well-composed wide angle image, foreground rules. The foreground is the point of interest in the great majority of wide angle shots, and any landscape element in the photo is primarily there for background or context.



I do not call the shot above a "landscape"; it would be a real stretch to call the shot above a "landscape."

Now, it happens that the shot above was not taken at a focal lenth that anyone would call wide angle; it was taken at 16.8 mm with an F70EXR, which is 91 mm in 35mm format equivalence. Moments earlier, I had the F70EXR set to 6 mm (equivalent to 32 mm), and that photo -- where the background really is a landscape -- did not work nearly as well:



Should you choose to comment on the photos in this post, please remember lorem ipsum .
You're in for a tough fight suggesting WA is not good for landscapes very few landscape shooters would agree with you.
You're right. We are in full agreement as to the fewness. But accomplished landscape shooters (and the greats, like Ansel Adams) agree that WA is not good for landscapes, and our agreement derives from the scarcity of accomplished landscape shooters (and I do not presume to number myself among them yet).
 
sigh , the news just gets more depressing about this camera. ISO100 shots are smeary too? My goodness, whoever runs Fuji's imaging department really should be called out onto the carpet and beaten.
Sadly, yes ... but I think it's due to DR being 400%? ISO400 at DR100 looks like a watercolour too if you pixel-peep.

Sorry I haven't had much opportunity to use the cam, but a few more quick, unscientific observations about the lens, mostly good news:

-- it seems pretty distortion-free even at 24mm, no doubt because of in-camera processing;

-- purple-fringing is extremely well controlled, much better than F70;

-- the old Fuji star effect is back--almost--except it's an ugly, messy shape.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top