Fuji Finepix F30 vs Olympus Mju 740?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Toby Newman, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. Toby Newman

    Toby Newman Guest

    I'm trying to choose a digital camera and have narrowed it down to a
    Fuji Finepix F30 or an Olympus Mju 740.

    I've compared them like-for-like below and the Olympus wins, but I've
    had a strong recommendation for the Fuji from a friend. I'm hoping for
    some more opinion from this group to help me to decide.

    Optical zoom
    Fuji: 3x
    Mju: 5x
    Mju wins, and 5x optical zoom would be pretty cool

    Fuji: 6.3
    Mju: 7.1
    Mju wins, but I'm sure 6.3 is plenty.

    Shots per charge
    Fuji: 580
    Mju: 170
    Fuji wins by a margin. My current Nikon Coolpix 775 has terrible battery
    life so this longevity would be a great feature for me.

    Both xD, a tie.

    Screen size
    Both 2.5in, a tie.

    Fuji: 144 cubic centimetres
    Mju: 124 cubic centimetres
    Mju wins, but it's close.

    Fuji: 3200
    Mju: 1600
    The Fuji wins by a margin.

    p.s. please do not suggest a third model because I am restricted to
    these two models: The camera must come from Debenhams for logistical
    reasons and I have chosen these as the two best for my needs in that store.
    Toby Newman, Feb 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Toby Newman

    Rutger Guest

    Why not compare picture quality?

    Rutger, Feb 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Check the noise levels at the top ISO -- if you do the kinds of
    photography where you'll use it. Check the flash quality (though P&S
    tend to uniformly have mediocre flash exposures). Check the shutter lag
    numbers (on dpreview if they did a full review). Check the macro mode
    specs (if you might ever use it).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2007
  4. The Fuji delivers an image with a high level of detail. I don't know
    the Mju, but I wouldn't be surprised if the amount detail they really
    resolve are on par.
    The Fuji has a bit higher resolution there, but to be fair they have to
    be viewed side-by-side.
    Given the small sensor on the Mju and Fuji's low-noise capabilities, it
    seems a pretty safe bet that it is a wide margin.

    The Fuji's really shines in low-light situations. If that is a priority
    for you, choose that camera.
    Toke Eskildsen, Feb 20, 2007
  5. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    I'm not familiar with the Mju 740, but there's more to ISO than
    the numbers indicate, and more to resolution than the number of
    pixels in the sensor. Many cameras at their highest ISOs are nearly
    unusable, but the high ISO is included because it helps sales, not
    usability. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Mju 740
    produces noisier images at ISO 400 than the F30 does at ISO 800,
    which would widen the ISO margin between these two cameras. Also,
    when dpreview tested an earlier version of the F30, the 6mp F10 was
    compared with several other 7mp cameras from Canon, Sony and Nikon,
    and the F10 outdid them all in its resolution tests:

    The F30 tests showed that it is a better camera than the F10, and
    the review concludes (in part) with:

    Unfortunately, dpreview hasn't tested the Mju 740, so it's hard to
    compare these two cameras. But at least as far as resolution is
    concerned, even with more pixels, if it provides more it's unlikely
    to be by more than a very small margin, and it may even provide less
    resolution than the F30. It almost certainly will not come close to
    the F30's low light performance. The Mju 740 may excel in other
    areas, but you haven't stated the kinds of photography that you're
    interested in, so it's really impossible to say which camera would
    be best for your purposes. Making your choice based on a checklist
    isn't the best way to choose a camera. Are all items on the
    checklist evenly weighted, or are some attributes more important
    than others? Will you be shooting mostly indoor pictures, mostly
    outdoor pictures or an even mix? While the Mju's wider zoom lens
    might be "pretty cool", if it results in more vignetting, distortion
    and chromatic aberration would it be a fair tradeoff?
    ASAAR, Feb 20, 2007
  6. Toby Newman

    Toby Newman Guest

    I don't have access to one of each camera, so I could not perform a fair
    like-for-like test.
    Toby Newman, Feb 20, 2007
  7. Toby Newman

    JakeC Guest

    The ability to perform well under more kinds of lighting situations
    means more shooting opportunities for the photographer.
    JakeC, Feb 21, 2007
  8. Toby Newman

    JakeC Guest

    I always think that image quality should an important factor in choosing
    a camera. None of the faults listed above seem to tell me anything about
    JakeC, Feb 21, 2007
  9. Toby Newman

    Paul Guest

    www.imaging-resource.com has reviewd:
    "Like its stable mate Stylus 750, the Olympus Stylus 740 has stunningly

    looks, but I was disappointed in its performance. Color just seemed

    and I came home with far too many blurry images for a camera that has image

    stabilization. I really wondered if the review unit was just

    But it wasn't a mechanical issue. The thumbnails were very blurred, even

    the image itself was not. Our laboratory test shots reveal terrible

    with focus across the frame, so it wasn't just me. The Olympus Stylus
    740 shows

    some of the worst lens performance we've seen in a modern digicam."
    Paul, Feb 21, 2007
  10. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    Wow. That's got to be the worst review I've ever come across, and
    the other models in the 7x0 line aren't much better. I suppose that
    the cameras are the same and whether you get a Stylus or an Mju
    depends on what part of the globe the camera is purchased. I wonder
    if the lenses are really that bad? The problems might also be due
    to something warping the sensor. It'll be interesting to see how
    other reviewers rate the 740. I guess that this thread's question
    has been answered for now, with the F30 still looking good.
    ASAAR, Feb 21, 2007
  11. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    It's hard to take anything that kinga writes seriously. Most of
    his comments are absurd and often contradictory.
    ASAAR, Feb 21, 2007
  12. the only argument for Olympus, if you need it
    no. the noise of the Fuji is much lower, not only a margin better ;-)


    Andreas Grassl, Feb 21, 2007
  13. Toby Newman

    Toby Newman Guest

    You can get a 2GB xD card now for comparitively little money. How many
    megabytes will a 6 megapixel image be? I'd have thought that would be
    Toby Newman, Feb 21, 2007
  14. About 3MB (fine quality) or 1.5MB (normal quality)
    Andreas Grassl, Feb 21, 2007
  15. It was certainly my biggest holdup in buying my F11. And I only got the
    one, a 512MB. I've got something like 3GB of SD for my wife's Nikon P&S
    and my palm pilot, and I'd really like my next P&S to take SD. (My DSLR
    takes CF of course).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 21, 2007
  16. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    That probably won't come about for a good number of years, if at
    all. And if kiosks don't have xD slots in the year 2015, my CD to xD
    adapter will still provide a solution. Unless the Kiosk also
    eliminates CF slots, that is. :) Even then, anyone that owns xD
    cards would almost certainly have a compatible card reader and could
    copy all of the images to be printed to an SD card. That's what I
    do now as a matter of course. I never have printed anything
    approaching 50% of the shots I've taken, and it would be a real pain
    to select which images to print from the kiosk from the card I used
    in the camera. I always make a copy of what I want to print in a
    new directory on the computer and then copy it to an SD card, since
    I have a bunch of spare 512MB cards for my mp3 player. That way
    everything on the card can be selected at the kiosk, and I can be on
    my way in just 2 or 3 minutes.
    ASAAR, Feb 21, 2007
  17. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    Not very persuasive. And do you normally print to it using an SD
    card sneakernet or use a computer to printer USB cable? Canon
    cameras don't use xD cards and Canon is under no obligation to ever
    support any card type other than what their own cameras use. Owners
    of kiosks on the other hand would be shooting themselves in the foot
    by making it more difficult for some photographers to be their
    customers. It would be a different matter if adding an xD slot to
    their equipment wasn't cost justified, but that's not the case. You
    and I know how inexpensive card readers are. Just a week or two ago
    Radio Shack had a special on thumb drives, and you could get an xD
    or an SD version for $5. Removing xD slots from kiosk designs would
    probably cost more in engineering costs than the few dollars that
    would be saved by eliminating a couple of dollars worth of hardware.

    Out of curiosity, do you not know how much those adapters cost, or
    is there some hidden point you're trying to make? If it's that
    they're prohibitively expensive, you could simply copy the pictures
    to a reusable CDRW disk. Unless, that is, kiosks of the future also
    eliminate CD drives. If CDRW disks present compatibility problems,
    non-reusable CDR disks could be used instead, if 20 cents per disk
    wouldn't break the bank.

    I highly doubt that you don't have the experience and knowledge
    necessary to copy files to a card. Nor do I think that anyone
    owning a camera and computer could be classified as a "peon" that
    couldn't afford to buy a $10 SD card. And the number of photos that
    that $10 card could hold, when printed as 4"x6" snapshots, would not
    only cost far more than $10 but it would be a recurring expense,
    whereas the $10 card would be a one-time expense. If you, or the
    hypothetical xD card owner would probably lose an SD card in the
    clutter of the computer room/office, the xD card used by the camera
    would be just as likely to be lost. What you're essentially saying
    is that technology has gone too far, and what will save us is we are
    forced to return back to the good old days, since it would be so
    much harder to lose several dozen 35mm film cassettes where one tiny
    SD card could hold as many shots as all of those cassettes. <g>
    ASAAR, Feb 22, 2007
  18. Toby Newman

    ASAAR Guest

    Ok, that isn't necessary. I have several xD cameras and I'll
    trade you one. :) Seriously, I didn't think this was about trying
    to force the use of an xD card in a camera that uses CF cards. I've
    done that though, mainly to see if it would work, and I can say that
    the xD cards tried in several Canon Powershots worked perfectly. I
    thought that the discussion was headed in the direction of trying to
    show that purchasing a camera that uses xD cards would be unwise if
    someday soon no kiosk would accept xD cards. If that happened, I'd
    still be able to read my xD cards using either my computer's
    built-in reader or an external USB reader, and then would be able to
    copy files onto whatever card types are still readable by the kiosk.

    It does seem logical, but my guess would be that there's inertial
    in the system and new kiosk designs lag the introduction of new user
    hardware. USB key and thumb drives are more recent innovations and
    maybe the next kiosk generation will accept them, if there aren't
    any that already do.

    Well gee, that's the kind of situation that cries out for the need
    to buy more! <g> Was it a bad disk, one that wasn't completely
    compatible with the drive or maybe the drive had problems?
    ASAAR, Feb 23, 2007
    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.