Would you please to make a review on Fujifilm Digital Camera such as MX-700. I've a look at it and it really impressive to me. It is small and its CCD resolution is high (1.5M). But it has no optical zoom and it only has 2x digital zoom. It is very bad to me. I think that optical zoom is much better. I want to know the quality of photo taken by this camera under zoom condition. And I want to know if zoom is important to a ordinary camera user. In my opinion, zoom is used to get an enlarged image of objects or take photos on some un-reachable objects like wild animals. And I also want to know the relation of CCD resolution and photo resolution. Thanks a lot!!!

-- George Poon (skpoon4@hotmail.com), April 23, 1998

Answers

George-

Fuji hasn't yet sent us an MX-700 to review, but we'd certainly like them to! I played with one a little bit at PMA in February, and it seems like a nice unit (*very* solid construction), but of course, we won't know much about it until we can actually get our hands on one for extended testing. The 1.5 megapixel resolution certainly puts it at the upper end of current models, though! I'll pass your comments on to the appropriate parties at Fuji, perhaps it will help convince them to have us review the unit.

Thanks for your interest! (If, as, or when we get an MX-700 review up on the site, I'll post a reply to this message, and you'll be emailed automatically.)

- Dave E.

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), April 23, 1998.

A CD-ROM covering the MX-700 is available from Fuji at no charge. The CD-ROM is Mac or PC, and has specifications, features, operation information, accessory information, and sample files.

You can obtain the CD-ROM by calling 800-378-3854 and requesting the MX-700 Digital Camera CD-ROM. Part #EF-801.

Regards;

Len Mizutowicz Director of Product Development Electronic & Applied Imaging Division Fuji Photo Film USA, Inc.

-- Len Mizutowicz (justlen@mindspring.com), May 01, 1998.

What IS an "optical zoom"? I test drove an Oly600 and loved it. But the price was a little steep for me. Now I'm considering the Fuji MX700 but am concerned that even though the price is much better that I'll always be comparing it (unfavorably) to the Oly 600. So, I too, am anxious to be alerted when you post a review of the Fuji 700. I'm getting an unclear picture of the differences. It sounds like maybe the Fuji isn't really SLR? Can anyone address the specific differences between the two? (besides price and size/wt). Thanks.

-- Sheila Hoffman (SheilaHoff@aol.com), May 15, 1998.

Sheila (and others),

You're correct, the MX-700 is a viewfinder camera, not an SLR. As to the issue of different zoom types, "optical" zoom means the lens is actually changing its focal length, from a wide angle to a telephoto. In other words, the image being projected on the CCD sensor is actually changing size as you zoom in and out. By contrast, "digital" zoom means that the camera is interpolating (essentially averaging between adjacent pixels) to create a larger image from fewer pixels on the CCD. With a digital zoom, while the image will be larger, it's unavoidably going to be "softer", as the camera is constructing the image from less information. We haven't played with the MX-700 yet, but are due to get the Casio QV-5000SX next week, which also has a "digital zoom". Our tests on that may give some idea of how well or poorly digital zooms work in general. (Of course, there's also likely to be huge differences between cameras.)

-- Dave Etchells (detchells@imaging-resource.com), May 16, 1998.

I've taken about 100 pictures with the MX-700 now and overall I think it is the neatest thing since sliced bread. The macro is fantastic and can focus down to 3-1/2". I filled the frame with my wrist watch for example. The flash is offset and tends to blast one side of the subject material and shadow the other side. the focus is also a slight problem when you are that close and you have to play with it a bit, but hey -- the film is cheap! I have not tried the 2x digital zoom since I would prefer to do my zooming on the computer after the fact. I sometimes notice a lot of geometric distortion at the edges of shots with vertical elements such as telephone poles. they tend to lean in towards the top of the frame. It also takes a while to get itself ready to shoot when you turn it on. That is a bit of a problem if you are trying to document that Elvis sighting. A shot of the back of his cape just won't do! All these things are small nit-picking details which I am quite willing to live with. After all, this is a 1280 x 1024 x 24 camera that fits in your shirt pocket. It's also less expensive and smaller than some others. I have also taken quite a few ambient light shots in poorly lit streets at night. You need to hold very still but the results are pretty good. I do have one gripe that I think is probably valid for all these digital cameras -- Has anyone ever used a handie-talkie that required you to remove the batteries to fast charge them? Of course not. You stick the entire HT in a charger and the contacts on the bottom engage the charger. Why can't the camera manufactures do the same? The battery can be charged in the camera with a trickle charger that plugs in the side but it takes 12 hours. To fast charge the battery (2.5 hours with the optional $50 charger) you have to remove the battery and stick it in the charger. One last thing -- focusing can be a problem which I have not gotten a handle on yet. It may require a hard surface or horizontal or vertical lines. I've had great luck on speeding locomotives rushing towards me at 80 MPH but poor focus on a bunch of flowers or a fluffy dog for example. You can preview the image prior to storing it but it's hard to see slight focus problems in the small LCD screen. In bright sunlight it's hard to see anything at all. Lastly, I'd be happy to FTP some pictures if I can be directed to a location.

A related topic -- I have both a floppy adapter (FD-A1) and a PC card adapter (PC-AD2) to read the SmartMedia cards. 8 MB of files takes about 4 minutes to download via the floppy adapter (which uses batteries) and approximately 10 seconds on the PC card adapter which uses no batteries. The catch is that almost all portables have PC card (PCMCIA) slots but almost no desktop PC's do. I have an adapter on order to take card of that. It takes one ISA slot and occupies one 3-1/2" front panel slot. It'll take two PC cards and costs about $85. there are at least three manufactures selling these.

One last thing -- the software bundled with this camera is very basic and designed for people who can't tell the difference between a toaster and their PC. I dumped it all immediately.

-- Juan Rivera (rivera@soback.kornet.nm.kr), June 01, 1998.

The Fuji MX-700, in a word, is: "Outstanding!" It's a great VALUE. It's the biggest bang for the buck in June, 1998. It's the only rig pocketable. It costs nearly half what its nearest contender is--the Olympus D600L--and it takes pictures as good, if not better, and possibly more accurate and saturated. It's battery life is phenomenal. It has no zoom, except digital, though, but it also travels in your pocket with no more aggravation than a cigarette pack without the cough.

PLUS POINTS: 1.5 MEGAPIXELS! (This is the MAJOR factor in resolution (not size of the photo or lens quality), but pure resolution: The more pixels that sense the image, the sharper and more accurate the photo will be(with all other things equal). TINY SIZE: You won't use a camera if you have to always wag one around looking like a fat tourist in green shorts plus pink sweatshirt that says "I peed in Rio," with a fat Nikon around your neck like a water buffalo wearing a yoke. (You can tell who NEVER takes a creative, artistic photo: They use a fancy, heavy leather camera case and a lens cap). Buy a Rolex President if you want to impress the thieves; leave the Nikon (or at least its case and lens cap) at home if you want to take pictures, and grab the MX-700 if you really want some fine snapshots of your vacation to Baghdad. If you're going anywhere but Iraq, though, I'd suggest buying a couple of 8 meg memory cards. (In Irag, the few photos you get with the original, supplied 2 meg memory card will last until you get beheaded, which won't be very long, especially if you're a good ol' boy from Alabama--that other Third World country, like Mississippi, that is probably stockpiling ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. It's actual picture resolution (as opposed to size) in 640x480 is the best I've ever seen, and almost as good as the 1280x1024 mode. I think they've figured out a way to use close to the same number of pixels, somehow, of the larger image. Must be a smart-ass chip doing that.

It has the BEST built-in, automatic macro focusing lens currently on any digital camera that costs less than a Yugo. It focuses down to 3.5 inches and the results are truly stunning. It's sharper than a mouth full of broken razor blades.

Downside: Easy to accidentally open SmartCard door/flap Learning curve sort of strange due to the camera's vertical shape Original, supplied 2 meg card worthless except for Iraqi vacations Dadburned time/date/etc. automatically appears over the TFT screen and annoys the hell out of me. Thank God, however, that junk doesn't get put on the actual photos. Darned flash, similar to the useless time/date junk, always recycles to automatic (when needed). You have to deselect it, or select the flash on icon, whenever you turn it on, if you don't want auto flash when needed. I don't. Japs, in this regard, are worse than the Germans who refused for years to put adjustable steering wheels in Mercedes-Benzes, "because ve haf determined ze correct driving posture." When you're used to film cameras, any shutter "click" delay--and this one is only seconds--is a bummer. It beats the devil out of others out there, though. It doesn't have an optical zoom lens, which doesn't matter to me, but to some amateur photogs that's important. (Many pros seem to prefer wide-angles as their "normal" shooting lenses, so this one--equivalent to about 35 mm on a 35 mm camera--is just dandy. I wish it were more like a 24 mm, though. I wish the lens were a little faster; say, f 1.4 It's so small you have to vibrate less than Grant's Tomb if you want a sharp picture without flash in low light conditions.

It's a mighty fine camera for the money.

-- J C (wa5tum@bcc.cc.tx.us), June 22, 1998.

I've only looked at this camera in the store, and some images from it on the net, but I've been shooting photos quite awhile with other cameras, so have some idea what will come in handy and what won't. A digital zoom cuts the image quality down much lower than original image, so if I were sure I wanted only a wide/macro lens combo, this would be my choice. The whole camera is the size of a pack of Marlboros.

Two things give me pause: the resolution, true is very high, but the image is square, not rectangular, and this will be cropped, usually to give the 5x7 or 8x10 of a normal print. Other cameras with same or a little less resolution but with rectangular aspect ratio won't be subject to this considerable cropping and loss of pixels in the final print.

The second issue is the annoying slavishness to style. Everything looks chick on this camera, even the lens, which is a shame. No "ugly" threads, no cylindrical lens "snout" to grab onto with a filter, or special effect device, everything is sculpted in elegant curves that defy any attempt to mechanically affix anything to the front of the lens. Since the lens is so tiny in this camera, again, you'd think Fuji would have put a thread and a tiny telephone lens to adapt it, and I fail to see why they didn't, and they closed the door on anyone trying to do so, with their sexy design contours instead of surfaces to attach things to.

This is short-sighted style consciousness, because the camera lacks and should have an auxilliary telephoto lens attachment to make it really the king of the digital hill. Perhaps Fuji's next effort will include a tele option of some sort. I hope it's a high quality afocal (add-on) tele lens so the optical quality of their current lens is preserved.

Many great photo opportunities outdoors will be frustrated by the small scaled image, and outdoors is exactly where one would want to photograph with this highly portable wonder.

Shooting with this camera's lens one will find that a subject in a head shot will be "toaster faced", distant peaks will be more distant, and animals appear like ants because a closer approach is impossible (or unwise).

I may still get this camera and make some adapter thing to do telephoto, but I won't look forward to the project, since it probably will impact the cosmetics of the camera and ruin all resale value. (THAT, however, never stopped me before!)

Bob Luhrs

-- Bob Luhrs (bobluhrs@exchange.microsoft.com), July 13, 1998.

If you wont to use Floppy Disk Adapter FD-A1 to transfer shots to your PC know that the supplied driver is for Windows95 and does not work under Windows98(A:)-is not found unless you download a new driver vers.1.1 on Fujiphoto.com site. Than it works but to find A: with FD-A1 adapter you have to click on A: and then Flash Path is getting to be active.

On my side I would appreciate to have hints about best printer configuration to get photo quality prints. I have Epson Photo printer but the printing results are poor. (resolution, color etc.)

Thanks

-- Christophe Majewski (chri07@club-internet.fr), July 19, 1998.