REVIEW

Review: Fuji FinePix A700

Written by Ashleigh Charlesworth
Published March 10, 2007

The A700 is by no means a new camera, having been launched in October 2006. It is currently available at a very good price point, however - around £80/119Eur/$157.

The A700 is aimed at the home/first time user, and for this user the camera is good. However if you are looking for a camera to compliment your DSLR then this is probably not the camera you are looking for. I'll explain why, but first some specifications:

Specs

Sensor : 1/1.6-inch Super CCD HR at 7.3MP
Resolution Support : 3,072 x 2,304 (7.3M) /3,264 x 2,176 (3:2) / 2,304 x 1,728 (4M)/ 1,600 X 1,200 (2M)/ 640 X 480 (0.3)
Video Resolution : 320 x 240 pixels ( 10 frames/sec.), 160 x 120 pixels ( 10 frames/sec.)
Lens : Fujinon 3.0x Optical zoom lens, F2.8 - F5.2 - 8- 24mm (Equivalent to 36-108mm on a 35mm camera)
ISO Speeds : 100/200/400 via an Auto mode
Flash : Internal flash. Wide angle (Approx.1.6 -12.5ft.), Telephoto (Approx. 2.0-6.6ft), Macro (Approx.1.0 - 2.6ft).
Flash modes : Auto, Red-eye Reduction, Forced Flash, Suppressed Flash, Slow Synchro, Red-eye Reduction + Slow Synchro.
Display : 2.4" 112000 pixel Amorphous silicon TFT (around 91% scene coverage)
Storage : Internal 12Mb plus xD Card (16Mb one supplied)
Power : 2xAA

Usability

 

The reason I mentioned that this camera is more suited to the home or first time users, is that this camera takes the concept of KISS ("Keep It Simple, Stupid") to a whole new level.

The Camera has no 'manual' modes to speak of, and in its default power up state uses a quite competent auto mode. This can be overridden, however it looks like the Fuji engineers believed that end users wouldn't be messing about in the menus, and as such have spent very little time on their design and layout.

The point and shoot concepts of the camera work well; the zoom is easy to use, as is the display on the rear.

The camera is a little large in comparison to some of the other devices on the market (for example the Optio A20 which I reviewed earlier in the year).

Photos

The pictures the camera produces are a little hit and miss. In good lighting, or under ideal conditions for the flash, the camera produces photos that are at least on a par with more expensive equipment. Its abilities under extreme lighting conditions are not so good.

As you can see from the two pictures here (the right being the cleaned version), the photos do show improvement with just a little touching up. This however does not help in dark conditions. The camera just does not seem to pick up enough information for you to touch things up later.

The camera 's macro mode is also a little hit and miss. If you get the distance from the object just right, it produces some good quality shots (under good lighting). There is very little noise to be seen in the photos, even when zooming in on the image after it's been taken. This shows that the CCD of the device is quite good. It seems that the downside to the device is probably due to the lens and software.

page 1 | 2
Ashleigh currently writes for Naked Cleaner and F1 Blog. His interest lie in Technology (of all forms) and engineering. Day to day he does network security for living (yes I AM that nerdy).
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Review: Fuji FinePix A700
Published: March 10, 2007
Type: Review
Section: Sci/Tech
Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Personal Tech
Writer: Ashleigh Charlesworth
Ashleigh Charlesworth's BC Writer page
Ashleigh Charlesworth's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Ashleigh Charlesworth
Sci/Tech: Personal Tech
All Sci/Tech Articles
Ashleigh Charlesworth's personal weblog
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 13, 2007 @ 14:25PM — Raoul [URL]

Hi Ashley. I liked your review, but I also wanted to mention that I dislike photos with prominent watermarks. I understand you were trying to brand them, but still, smaller watermarks or none at all would have been much better.

#2 — March 13, 2007 @ 14:49PM — Ashleigh [URL]

The watermarkes on the large versions of the images are a lot less visible.

Cheers

Ashleigh

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/60811)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments