FX48 or Fuji F200EXR?

[Ngo]

I am deciding between these two cameras. I am leaning towards the FX48 because it has HD video recording (wonder if it can zoom in this new model). The F200EXR seems to be getting more buzz. Any opinions will be appreciated because I am still a newbie.

Thanks.

 

[Brian Cockerill]

I, too would be interested in any views . I like the look of the FX40 (48) and would imagine it is better built than the Fuji 200. However, my daughter has a simple Fuji 420 and I am always impressed with the softness of the colours. Also, many say that Fuji are the masters of low light and this is when i take most of my pictures. So does this mean the F200 is the better camera? If i wanted to buy the FX40, what justifications could i have for doing so over the F200? Any help appreciated.

 

[Jim Rucker]

Zoom capability and quality of sound, too. The LX3 sound is not that good. Hope they can improve on this. My Canon 880's sound was great.

 

[Brian Cockerill]

Jim. When you were saying zoom and quality of sound, was that in favour of the FX40 (48) or the F200? What about build quality. Also, I think the FX40 has a faster lens? Which would you go for?

 

[Jim Rucker]

I was referring to the 48 and hoping that the sound quality will be better in this model than the LX3, but more looking ahead to the upgrade LX3 and improved HD and 30fps and sound. But I think feedback on sound quality of the 48 should be an indicator as to where Pany is going sound quality-wise.

 

[isu89]

I am in the same boat, and my top consideration right now is the upcoming dmc-zs3 from panasonic. I think it will be a great all-around except matching the f200 in low light conditions (I am coming from a recently broken f30, so I'm spoiled on that feature). Nevertheless, the AVCHD lite was the winner for me, along with the generous zoom. I am still considering an LX3, but the lens cap and the range are not quite there for me as a spontaneous all around "family cam"

 

[Brian Cockerill]

isu89- that's some praise re F30 and low light. Why would you expect the TZ7 (here in Europe) to be better at low light than the F48(40)? How do compare the quality of build of the Pannys as against the Fuji cameras? People say the quality of Fujis declined post F30/31. My wife has a F10 and it is well made. I find the TZ5/4 a little big and would want something that could easily slip into a shirt pocket.

 

[Ngo]

if the FX48's image quality somehow is like the LX3 I think this will be a very popular camera due to its compact size.

 

[Ravefiend]

current:
DMC-FX500 - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/05/16/8444.html
DMC-TZ5 - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/04/21/8300.html
DMC-LX3 - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/07/29/8921.html
new:
DMC-FX40 - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2009/02/17/10205.html
DMC-FX550 - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2009/02/19/10236.htm

Might want to compare this samples in specific:

DMC-FX500 -



; --> 3,648×2,736 / 1/15秒 / F5.9 / -0.3EV / ISO100 / プログラム / WB:オート / 22mm

DMC-TZ5 -



; --> 3,456×2,592 / 1/13秒 / F4.9 / -0.7EV / ISO100 / プログラム / WB:オート / 47mm

DMC-LX3 -



; --> 3,648×2,736 / 1/2.5秒 / F2.8 / 0EV / ISO100 / プログラム / WB:オート / 12.8mm

DMC-FX40 -



; --> 4,000×3,000 / 1/2.5秒 / F4.9 / 0EV / ISO100 / プログラム / WB:オート / 13.2mm

DMC-FX550 -



; --> 4,000×3,000 / 1/3秒 / F4.9 / 0EV / ISO100 / プログラム / WB:オート / 13.2mm

So all pics taken at ISO100, I'd say that eg. the DMC-FX40 (DMC-FX48) having its new Venus V image processor IS looking promising.

 

[GeorgeZ]

Looking at the first samples I come to the conclusion that it's the same as last year when I had to decide between the F100fd and the FX35.

I like HD video and the compactness of the Pana but the problem was: even at base ISO the images were noisy and the zoom lens was a joke (Leica?). Often times you cannot tell too much difference between 2 cameras but if you look at a zoom photo taken with a F100fd and a FX35 you'll be blown away at how bad and soft the Leica lens is and just how good the Fuji. Also, 25-Pana-mm equal pretty much 28-Fuji-mm, so no difference there.
Better lens+better sensor=Fuji, so I got the F100fd.

From what I have seen the new Venus engine is even better, but still lots of noise and its reduction artefacts @ base ISO and the Fuji sensor also got better.

Between the TZ7 and the F200 I would be harder pressed to make a choice. It has a better lens and super Video functionality.

 

[Gwen22]

--

The biggest difference in term of IQ beetween the FX48 and the F200 is the sensor size. The sensor of the F200 is much bigger wich lead to better High ISO capability and better dynamic range.

That's said the only video I have seen from the F200 is awful, by the way if video matter it is better to avoid the F200 at all price.

 

[stars09]

Besides low light conditions, is it true that FX48 is comparable to LX3?

I doubt it, but if yes, I think I'll get one now...

 

[David Chien]

My pick FX48.

1) Fuji is good if you're trying to take low-light shots w/o flash and better than most other digicams out there for this at ISO 400+.

2) However, for all other uses, like daylight shots, low light shots with auto flash, etc, you basically get the same performance from the smaller, slimmer, more pocketable FX48.

3) Add to that the fact that the FX48 can detect pre-programmed faces of family and friends and adjust AF/AE priority for them, and can take HD movies, it's simple which one to go with.

4) In Japan, the FX series is one of the long-time sellers year after year - reliable (according to this year's Consumer Reports - the most reliable brand of digicam), lots of features (intelligent Auto, named face detection), pocketable (light and small enough it doesn't feel like the mini-rock the Fuji is), and is the only one with true 25mm wide angle zoom.

5) And unfortunately, the F200 still can't beat the F31fd at higher ISOs (thus, if you're really after a P&S that has great low-light, high-ISO, no-flash shot capabilities with superb battery life, go find a used F31fd on ebay.com instead!

In the ol' days, the FujiFilm digicams with SuperCCDs up to the F31fd level used to be great digicams to consider for day and low-light, but nowadays, pretty much every digicam will do a decent job all around, and the top of the line digicams of any brand will pretty much do a very good or better job all around.

 

[stars09]

My pick FX48.

1) Fuji is good if you're trying to take low-light shots w/o flash
and better than most other digicams out there for this at ISO 400+.

2) However, for all other uses, like daylight shots, low light shots
with auto flash, etc, you basically get the same performance from the
smaller, slimmer, more pocketable FX48.

3) Add to that the fact that the FX48 can detect pre-programmed faces
of family and friends and adjust AF/AE priority for them, and can
take HD movies, it's simple which one to go with.

4) In Japan, the FX series is one of the long-time sellers year after
year - reliable (according to this year's Consumer Reports - the most
reliable brand of digicam), lots of features (intelligent Auto, named
face detection), pocketable (light and small enough it doesn't feel
like the mini-rock the Fuji is), and is the only one with true 25mm
wide angle zoom.

5) And unfortunately, the F200 still can't beat the F31fd at higher
ISOs (thus, if you're really after a P&S that has great low-light,
high-ISO, no-flash shot capabilities with superb battery life, go
find a used F31fd on ebay.com instead!

In the ol' days, the FujiFilm digicams with SuperCCDs up to the F31fd
level used to be great digicams to consider for day and low-light,
but nowadays, pretty much every digicam will do a decent job all
around, and the top of the line digicams of any brand will pretty
much do a very good or better job all around.

--

I went and check out on the Canons, and it seems the SD880 and the SD960 (Ixus 110) fair quite well themselves too. Besides less noisy, they do quite well for night scenes and are marginally sharper. I felt that the colors are more well defined (from sample photos, eg black looks black and not greyish)

The Canon Lens are of course not as good as the Leica lens, and more prone to purple fringing, but that seems to be less noticable in normal prints.

yeah ... maybe you are right that most cameras nowadays will do ok.

But since we have the chance to pick... and there so many choices, would like to ask around for advice from the experts

Thanks.