> > I almost bought myself one, but finally settled on a Fuji F11, mostly
> > for the better low-light performance. (UPS tracking says it's reached
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Really, where did you buy it? I thought that only the F10 was
> available in the USA.
The F11 isn't officially released in the US, hence it's hard to find,
especially at first-rate dealers. I ended up buying from Broadway
Camera, which is not something I'd do under ordinary circumstances.
They looked like the *most* ethical place offering the F11 in the US
that I found -- for example, their website not only says they include
all standard accessories, but they list what those are for each camera
(and the list for the F11 matched overseas sites). There was one
place that seemed to specialize in importing Japanese gadgets that had
it, but they wanted $379 (Broadway had it for $286).
And I did in fact get it, a day and a weekend *earlier* than they'd
suggested on the phone, and for the price listed.
> You'll have to let us know how well it works, as there are some that
> deny that it really has better low-light performance, saying that it
> would violate the laws of physics and that Fuji must simply have
> used more in-camera noise reduction. I think that a better sensor
> is part of what they've done, and might have bought an F10 if only
> it had a viewfinder and used standard batteries.
I'm kind of pleased to not have the viefinder, just on general
principles. I approve of LCD preview. I'm sure in the occasional
bright situation I'll regret it, but I bought it for the low-light
capabilities after all. And it lets the body be smaller, which I like
(at least down to this size; smaller can certainly be overdone).
To start with, it has a bigger sensor than most -- though only pretty
marginally (I see it listed as 1/1.7", with an awful lot of others
having gone form a 1/2.5" up to a 1/1.8" lately). I wish they'd done
it as a 4MP camera, though -- entirely adequate for snapshooting, and
the same size sensor at 4MP should be considerably less noisy.
I'm with you on the batteries. If the Canon A610 had used CF instead
of SD, I probably would have bought that instead (completely
sacrificing available light performance; but gaining more zoom,
tilt/swivel LCD, and standard batteries). But for me SD is nearly as
exotic as XD, all my previous digital cameras use CF.
I haven't looked at any of the photos critically on a big monitor yet,
and haven't shot it against anything else either, so no opinion yet on
the actual image quality.

Signature
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
ASAAR - 31 Dec 2005 09:42 GMT
>> Really, where did you buy it? I thought that only the F10 was
>> available in the USA.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> place that seemed to specialize in importing Japanese gadgets that had
> it, but they wanted $379 (Broadway had it for $286).
I'll have to keep them in mind for some other items not sold in
the USA. I now recall seeing their full page ads nestled between
the larger ones from Adorama and B&H in some photo magazines.
> I'm kind of pleased to not have the viefinder, just on general
> principles. I approve of LCD preview. I'm sure in the occasional
> bright situation I'll regret it, but I bought it for the low-light
> capabilities after all. And it lets the body be smaller, which I like
> (at least down to this size; smaller can certainly be overdone).
I don't know that it necessarily lets the body be smaller. More
likely it lets the LCD be bigger. :) There are times when I've
used the LCD because the shot couldn't be taken using the
viewfinder, but I feel (whether I'm right or mistaken) that I can
hold the camera a bit more steadily using the viewfinder. And with
the camera plastered in front of your face it confers the valuable
"cloak of invisibility", useful even if imaginary.<g>
> I haven't looked at any of the photos critically on a big monitor yet,
> and haven't shot it against anything else either, so no opinion yet on
> the actual image quality.
Until I start getting large prints made, my 4mp Fuji provides far
more detail than is needed for most of my prints, which rarely are
larger than 4" x 6". I compared prints made from the highest
resolution image files (1.9MB) to those whittled down to 1/4 the
number of pixels, and even smaller files made by using JPG
compression. There was no visible difference, although I didn't use
my 6x magnifier or 20x loupe. I did take one similar shot using VGA
resolution (640x480 pixels) and the print from that one had
differences that were easily spotted, but the quality wasn't bad at
all. I guess 4" x 6" hides a multitude of sins that 8" x 10" would
easily expose. :)