Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 28, 2007, 1:45 PM   #11
Senior Member
genece's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111

That would be a matter of opinion ...Fuji does not handle noise better, they use a larger sensor....and the super ccd sensor...which is questionable at best...

But the new Ultrazoom has neither a larger sensor or the super ccd....so lets wait and see if its what its cracked up to be.

genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2007, 6:35 PM   #12
Senior Member
rduve's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504

Yes, it is truly a matter of opinion. I think my little Fuji F11 with the Super CCD is excellent and handles noise quite well. I gather the new Fuji s8000 would do a similar job. But ultimately why not just get an image stabilized DSLR with an ultra-zoom lens, as the real solution for low light indoor shots? Prices are below $500 these days. Maybe another 200-300 for 12x lens.

In any case, if the choice is between the FZ8 and the FZ50, I take it the FZ50 might be a little better, but neither is a good choice for indoors low light situations.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 7:50 AM   #13
Senior Member
genece's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111

Perhaps I came across as saying I do not think fuji does a great job with the F series of cameras.....they do indeed. But the reason for that (IMHO)is a larger sensor and perhaps,the super ccd sensor, neither of which seem to be in the new ultrazoom.

And I do agree that without a flash the FZs are not really indoor cameras......but unlike lovelife I like the results of my FZ30 better than my FZ10 or 20, which would lead me to think the FZ50 would also be better.
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 9:17 AM   #14
Junior Member
dmartin@newarts.com's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19

My solution to the FZ50* (wildlife, exteriors, etc) VS a Fuji (interiors low light, etc) was to get both!

I am very happy with this solution & carry a pocket Fuji (I got an F20 for $140) everywhere - "just in case." I use the FZ for long reach & other demanding circumstances.


*actually I have an FZ30 - machs nichs to the argument.
dmartin@newarts.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 12:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
Serafin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 201

I dont think this quite qualifies as low light. But this was shot at 400ISO and 1/30. But I think the FZ50 can do quite nice shots at 400 ISO. Despite the talk about the so called noisey sensor. But most of the time for low light I usually take my Fuji F31.

My wife wanted me to take this shot in a dim room so she could match up furniture and other pictures with this painting. I have to tell you shooting it in RAW it is dead on with the color after some photo shop.

Serafin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2007, 12:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
DigitalGal's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 696

I have FZ50 too.. for not too long time though.. And I must agree with Dave - it is a great camera for outdoors ( I prefer to use it outdoors).. indoors I don't like it too much.. I ll add a couple of shots I made with it for trial.. [line]A mirror shot around the midnight under tungsten light..

[line]And these two are taken in a dark corner of the room of small window.. with just a daylight..

[line][line]I think, this camera is not for a serious shooting in low light.. i have no idea about Fuji though.. as far as I have read while choosing between Fz50 and Fuji s9600.. they both are about the same in this field.. Good luck in choosing!

DigitalGal is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:18 AM.