Thread: Pixels
View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-07, 10:38 PM
David P David P is offline
Occasionally gets wet...
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: S London
Posts: 536
David P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold waterDavid P is a scuba diver - cold water
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cussy
many have noted here on YD the reported low light characteristics of the Fuji F50 versus the F31 - this is simply because they have attempted to cram too many pixels onto a chip, IMO
Indeed - I'm very annoyed with the needless growth in pixels. The F40/F45 is much more attractive than the F47 and certainly the F50 as a result. The reviewer's sad comments in the conclusions at Fujifilm FinePix F50fd Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review - effectively, "we hoped for better from Fuji, but were disappointed" - are telling. The F31 is a great compromise in terms of low light performance vs. quality, and seemingly a high point that's unlikely to be reached again.

Me - I hope pixels alone will never be a buying factor. My Canon 30D has quite enough... It's back to "what the camera does with them".

Nice article, Christian, thanks. Useful sanity.
__________________
David P.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote