Canon A620 or Fuji F11?

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Blair, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Blair

    Blair Guest

    I looked up this subject on this newsgroup but the messages are no longer
    held so I have to ask again
    I am interested in views
    Blair, Feb 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Blair

    Blair Guest

    I should have explained that I have a Fuji 4900Z which I use frequently but
    wanted a small pocket camera which I could carry on more occasions than my
    4900 and was particularly impressed with the F11 low light capability
    Blair, Feb 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Blair

    Sel Guest

    Sel, Feb 8, 2006
  4. Blair

    SMS Guest

    I'd definitely avoid the F11 due to the lack of an optical viewfinder.
    That's a no-compromise requirement.

    Other drawbacks of the F11 versus the A620 are the shorter zoom, the
    poorer macro mode, the lack of ability to use add-on lenses, the lack of
    an orientation sensor, and the type of storage (xD). The only advantage
    I can see is the Li-Ion battery on the F11, and the larger LCD (but the
    LCD is fixed, unlike the A620).
    SMS, Feb 8, 2006
  5. Blair

    Ben Thomas Guest

    If the F11 is anything like hte F10 it will be significantly superior in terms
    of image quality. Nothing is more importatnt IMHO.
    Ben Thomas, Feb 8, 2006
  6. Blair

    Sel Guest

    Yes and Blair should also look at the fuji E900.

    Sel ........ :)
    Sel, Feb 9, 2006
  7. Blair

    SMS Guest

    The F10 is not superior in image quality to the A620, except at higher
    ISO speeds.

    And BTW, there are things more important than image quality, or we'd all
    be buying Canon 1Ds Mark II SLRs.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy the A620 because of the AA batteries, they
    are such a pain in the butt that Li-Ion is a no compromise requirement
    for me. But the A620 is cheap, like most cameras that use AA batteries.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  8. Blair

    Blair Guest

    Thanks to all who replied which helped me make up my mind.
    I bid on e bay and won the F11 this afternoon. Only 20 minutes to go
    Blair, Feb 9, 2006
  9. Blair

    SMS Guest

    It's strange that Fuji isn't marketing these cameras in the U.S.. There
    are some New York Dealers that sell the F11, but it drives the price up
    when it's an import like that, i.e. $337 from Broadway Photo (which has
    a very poor rating).

    How much was it on eBay?
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  10. Blair

    SMS Guest

    Read "", it goes into great detail on the
    trade-offs between Li-Ion and rechargeable NiMH AA.

    But the short answer is:

    -Self Discharge Rate
    -Cold Temperature Performance
    -Number of charge/discharge cycles
    -Energy density

    The advantage of AA's is that you can use alkaline AA's in a pinch.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  11. Blair

    ASAAR Guest

    Biased and misleading.
    AA batteries consist of more than NiMH. For photographers that
    take very large numbers of shots, NiMH's greater self discharge rate
    is irrelevant, since they won't go a month or more between charges.
    For photographers that take a small number of shots, alkaline and
    non-rechargeable lithium batteries have far better self discharge
    rates than any rechargeable lithium batteries. In fact,
    manufacturers of Li-Ion batteries recommend periodic recharging
    (every 3 or 6 months) even if the batteries aren't used. Otherwise
    they may fail completely and no longer be able to take a charge.
    Alkalines and lithiums can be stored far longer and remain useful,
    on the order of 8 and 15 years, respectively. Rechargeble lithium
    batteries are probably most useful when their use would represent a
    middle ground, such as being used every couple of months, but not
    being left unused for much longer periods, such as 4 to 8 months.
    Lithium AA cells are far superior to Li-Ion rechargeables. But
    you know that.

    Will only be of value to pros or others that take an
    extraordinarily large number of pictures. Not many people take
    thousands of pictures per year. If a Li-Ion battery is good for 500
    shots per charge, only 4 yearly charges would be needed for a couple
    of thousand shots. Li-Ion batteries deteriorate with time, and the
    general rule is that they need to be replaced after about 3 years
    even if they aren't heavily used. For the above example, that
    amounts to only 12 charge cycles. It's far worse for people that
    buy one or two spare batteries, since over the same three years
    (totaling 6000 shots) each battery pack would only undergo either 6
    or 4 charge cycles. To be cost effective, Li-Ion batteries really
    *need* to be heavily used. My camera uses AA batteries, and I take
    about 1500 shots per year. I use NiMH batteries in it, but only
    because I bought them about the same time I got the camera. Had I
    known how efficient modern cameras are I would have been satisfied
    using alkalines almost exclusively, at a cost of $3 or $4 per year,
    and with the added advantage of not having to deal with recharging.

    Many of the cameras using 2 and 4 AA cells are very small and
    light in weight. If you want the smallest and lightest possible
    cameras, then Li-Ion is probably the way to go, although there are
    some very small cameras that use AAA cells. But many people find
    that such cameras are so small that they are unable to be held
    steadily, and while the image quality and performance can be decent,
    it's generally inferior to the slightly larger compact cameras.

    Very important for astronauts needing to minimize payload. But
    then they could also use lithium AA cells too.

    Batteries that provide power for 6 to 12 months or more and then
    only need to be replaced are far more convenient that ones that
    require chargers and periodic charging, don't you think?

    Only one of many. But as you often repeat this as if it was the
    only advantage, one has to wonder if you have a serious short term
    memory loss problem? Each of the three common types (Li-Ion, NiMH
    and disposable primary cells) have their advantages, but somehow you
    only seem to consider Li-Ion's advantages. Your bias is too obvious.
    ASAAR, Feb 9, 2006
  12. Blair

    Ben Thomas Guest

    I disagree.

    If you look at the images and tables in the comparison section of
    for the Fuji F10 and the Canon A620 I think you will find that the Fuji - which
    is only a 6 MP camera - can resolve more detail than the 7MP A620, and is less
    noisy even at the lowest ISO settings.
    Surely you jest? We'd all be buying top of the range Nikon cameras. :)
    Personally I would put up with less than perfect size and shape for better image
    quality. I would never place my preference for battery type nor appealing size
    and shape above image quality. I care about the finished result and image
    quality is the only thing that determines that, IMHO.
    Ben Thomas, Feb 9, 2006
  13. Blair

    ASAAR Guest

    I think you're going to be very pleasantly surprised with the
    A620. It goes even longer on a set of alkalines than my Fuji. As
    Canon now uses the accurate and consistent CIPA standard for
    evaluating battery performance, you can trust what the manual
    suggests you can get, and this assumes that 1/2 the shots require
    the use of the flash. If the LCD is used while shooting, the
    batteries will last for 350 or 500 images (alkaline/NiMH), but if
    the viewfinder is used instead, the batteries should last far
    longer, 1200 images (alkaline) or 1500 (NiMH). If you don't use the
    flash you should expect the batteries to last for a much greater
    number of shots. With this kind of battery life, many people will
    be more than satisfied using alkalines exclusively. It may be quite
    a while before you need to start using your NiMH batteries. It's a
    far cry from the days when some digital cameras got fewer than a
    dozen or two shots per set of batteries or per charge.

    The "genuine" charger and batteries for my Canon S20 were quite
    expensive, well over $100. You can probably get a good, reliable
    substitute for the S230 at a much lower price from many sources. I
    checked the price of a Li-Ion charger for a different camera several
    weeks ago, and B&H had one for $22. Figure no more than that,
    probably a bit less for a battery. I got a Maxell replacement
    battery for the S20 last year at J&R for $20, and it has performed
    just as well as the original one that had the Canon label on it.
    There's no need to pay Canon's inflated prices.
    ASAAR, Feb 9, 2006
  14. Blair

    SMS Guest

    There's the problem, you think that a spare proprietary Li-Ion battery
    costs $40! I buy very good quality BP511 batteries for $11.50 each. If I
    wanted to get crappy quality ones, I could get them for even less!

    A set of high quality NiMH AA cells costs about $10, not $14.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  15. Blair

    SMS Guest

    $15 for the charger ""
    $9 for the battery ""

    Yes, if you wish, you can by all Canon stuff: $35 for a CB-2LS charger,
    and $45 for a NB-1LH battery, but this would not be a logical thing to do.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  16. Blair

    SMS Guest

    Yet many people do exactly this in order to get something with AA batteries.

    There are certain features that some cameras lack that are so important
    that it eliminates the camera from consideration. The lack of an optical
    viewfinder is one. Even though the Fuji F11 does better at high ISO than
    a Canon A620, the F11 is unacceptable. You'll lose more pictures due to
    the lack of a viewfinder than is acceptable.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  17. Blair

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Can you explain how you will lose pictures if you own a camera that does not
    have an optical viewfinder?
    Ben Thomas, Feb 9, 2006
  18. Blair

    SMS Guest

    LCDs are unreadable in bright sunlight. Which is the whole reason the
    camera manufacturer goes to the expense of including the optical
    viewfinder on non-SLRs. Some people also like to turn of the LCD to
    extend battery life, but that's really a side issue.

    It's important enough to be listed as a negative in every review of the
    F10 (the F11 is a Japan-only model and doesn't have any reviews that I
    could find).


    "" see

    The other issue that all the reviews mention is the purple fringing.

    I can see the allure of this camera if you simply must have excellent
    high-ISO performance, but IMVAIO the negatives are such that it should
    be avoided. There are plenty of more capable cameras that don't have the
    problems of the F11.

    There are very few no-compromise features on digital cameras, but an
    optical view-finder is one of them.

    Oh, and in the U.S. you'll get no warranty with the F11, since it's a
    Japanese-only model.
    SMS, Feb 10, 2006
  19. Blair

    Blair Guest

    It cost £212

    Blair, Feb 10, 2006
  20. Blair

    Blair Guest

    A number of owners reported that although they would have preferred an
    optical viewer once they started using it they found no real problems
    This fact helped me make up my mind
    Blair, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.