Fujifilm FinePix S · announced July 2003

The Fujifilm FinePix S7000: the SLR-shaped camera that wrote twelve megapixels from six

DPReview and PhotographyBLOG title it the FinePix S7000 Zoom; Imaging Resource and Reviewed.com drop the Zoom. We found no regional alias.³⁶⁴⁷

In late 2003 Fujifilm gave the four-AA, SLR-shaped S602 a 6.3-megapixel sensor that saved 12-megapixel files, and kept the 35 to 210 mm f/2.8 lens. Reviewers praised the viewfinder and the flash's reach, then split on whether the extra pixels meant more detail or more noise.

Launched

July 2003

Launch price

$799 list (DPReview), $799.99 (PhotographyBLOG), MSRP $799 (Imaging Resource); Fujifilm's own page not read¹²⁴

Sensor

6.3 MP CCD

Lens

35–210 mm, 6×

Card

xD-Picture Card, CompactFlash Type I, CompactFlash Type II

Battery

4 x AA (alkaline or NiMH)

Specs and sources

Meet the camera

It looks like a small SLR and has no mirror, so you frame on a 0.44-inch electronic viewfinder of 235,000 pixels or on a 1.8-inch rear screen of 118,000.¹³ Imaging Resource found the body almost entirely structural plastic yet solid in the hand, at 121 by 82 by 97 millimetres and 600 grams.⁴ DPReview gave 597 grams with batteries, and PhotographyBLOG about 500 grams without batteries or card and said it was not in the pocketable category.³⁶ DPReview said it looked almost identical to the S602 Pro Zoom of November 2002, and listed the visible changes as a new Photo mode button, the removal of the Pro's PC sync terminal, a gold Super CCD logo and revised markings on the lens barrel.³

Fujifilm announced it at the end of July 2003 as the successor to the S602, at a list price of $799 for October (PhotographyBLOG printed $799.99); the press text quoted by DPReview said the price would be finalised closer to the retail launch.¹² By the 2004 reviews it was cheaper: DPReview put street prices at $599 in the United States and £549 in the UK, Reviewed.com gave a suggested price of $559, and PhotographyBLOG gave a UK list price of £599 and said the current retail price was around £400 to £450.³⁷⁶ Photo Review gave an Australian list price of A$1,399.⁸

Why this one was interesting

The only six-megapixel prosumer

DPReview called it the only prosumer digital camera with a six-megapixel sensor, and Imaging Resource said its 12.3-megapixel output was higher than any consumer camera then on the market.³⁴ PhotographyBLOG set it against the Canon PowerShot G5, Nikon Coolpix 5700 and Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom, not against SLRs.⁶

Twelve from six

The sensor's light-collecting sites sit on a diagonal honeycomb, so the camera computes the missing pixels between them to build a square-pixel image of 12 megapixels; smaller sizes are shrunk from that.³ Photo Review gave 6.63 million photosites for the sensor behind the 12.3-megapixel files.⁸ Fujifilm claimed the 12-megapixel output matched the quality of a six-megapixel sensor, and PhotographyBLOG left readers to judge.⁶ The S602 had done the same trick from three megapixels, as our FinePix S602 Zoom review explains.

What was lost

Imaging Resource noted that the S602 had special modes up to ISO 1600 that traded resolution for less noise, while the S7000 stopped at ISO 800.⁴ Its shutter lag was a little longer than the S602's, and the reviewer thought the colour fell short of the older camera's.⁴ The S602 took SmartMedia, and the S7000 swapped that slot for xD-Picture Card.² Above all, Imaging Resource thought the lowest ISO setting of 200 too high, since rivals started at 100 or even 50.⁴

The dark: its weak point

Noise was the reviewers' main quarrel. Imaging Resource called it the camera's Achilles' heel: at ISO 200 it might not be far worse than rivals, but those rivals could drop to ISO 100 or 50, and the noise was bad enough to erase subtle detail.⁴ DPReview said the camera appeared to pair noise reduction with less sharpening, so that the detail in a portrait of George Washington in its test scene was "smoothed away" at ISO 400, and that ISO 800 bins pixels at a forced lower size.³ PhotographyBLOG found ISO 200 acceptable, noise appearing at ISO 400 and little difference between 400 and 800, yet its overall verdict said noise was well controlled at every ISO setting.⁶ Reviewed.com's lab found noise relatively low at ISO 200 and 400 and the camera severely limited when light was dim, while Photo Review said low-light shots were clean and almost noise-free.⁷⁸

The long exposures were kinder. Imaging Resource got usable pictures down to 1/16 foot-candle (0.67 lux) and found noise at ISO 800 surprisingly low there. The autofocus gave up at a little under one foot-candle, though, and the viewfinder faded at about 1/8.⁴ DPReview measured its lowest light for focus at about 5.4 lux at wide angle and 7.6 at full zoom, and counted the lack of an assist lamp as a fault.³ Reviewed.com called the external sensor above the lens the equivalent of an assist illuminator, while Imaging Resource described it as a passive sensor that works from ambient infrared.⁷⁴

Real photographs taken with this camera at ISO 800, which forces the 3-megapixel size; the sensitivity and camera model are read from each file's own EXIF data. All four were uploaded by the same Commons account, credited under three related names (Ziko-C, Ziko van Dijk and Ziko).

Like that look? See recent eBay sold listings for this camera ↗

On eBay right now

Live listings for this camera, supplied by eBay and updated automatically. We earn a commission if you buy through them.

The little wins

How it drew the picture

DPReview found good detail from the 6-megapixel files, at least a match for a five-megapixel prosumer, while the 12-megapixel ones added a little resolution and a grainy look that reviewer disliked. It measured 1,450 lines per picture height horizontally at 6 megapixels and 1,650 at 12, and found red channels could clip.³ Imaging Resource saw strong detail to 1,600 lines, good colour overall, splotchy skin outdoors and a contrasty tone curve that cost dynamic range.⁴ Reviewed.com's Imatest run gave a real resolution of 4.73 megapixels, 78 per cent of the claimed figure, and a colour score of 6.07 it called mediocre.⁷ PhotographyBLOG, by contrast, found pictures punchy, a little soft out of the camera and printable to A3.⁶

Photos taken with this camera (cooling towers, a town hall, merino sheep, a harbour, a ceiling fan, a ruined castle, a mountain valley, a limestone quarry and an academy building), from Wikimedia Commons, credited under each picture. Their EXIF ISO is 160 in five cases and 200 in four, and their sizes run from 1,600 × 1,200 to 4,048 × 3,040.

The reviewers disagreed on the lens as well. DPReview found no purple fringing problem and measured 1.8 per cent barrel distortion at wide angle and 0.8 per cent pincushion at the long end.³ Imaging Resource called fringing a little high, faint but eight or more pixels wide, and measured 0.5 per cent barrel on one page and 0.4 on another, with 0.7 per cent pincushion.⁴ PhotographyBLOG said fringing was low.⁶

Where it let you down

The oddest fault was a battery drain: DPReview found that a normal CompactFlash card left in the slot slowly ran the batteries down even with the camera off, while xD cards and the IBM Microdrive did not, and Fujifilm offered a free repair on units made before 15 December 2003.³ DPReview found its flash pictures underexposed, though without a colour cast, and noted the camera offers flash compensation; it also wanted a histogram in record review, said the supplied RAW converter offered no functionality, and timed full magnification in playback at about 11 seconds.³ It said the power switch could be frustrating, and PhotographyBLOG disliked that you must press the EVF/LCD button each time you switch between shooting and review, and called the autofocus one of the noisier it had used.³⁶ Reviewed.com marked manual focus down as cumbersome and had to retry autofocus at times.⁷

Speed depended on who timed it. Imaging Resource got 0.71 seconds of shutter lag at wide angle and 0.91 at telephoto with full autofocus and called it about average; Reviewed.com got 0.46 seconds, DPReview 0.7 seconds for a full press without priming at wide angle with centre autofocus, and Photo Review about one second.⁴⁷³⁸ Start-up took 3.2 seconds for Imaging Resource, 3.1 to 3.2 to a live view for DPReview, 3.47 for Reviewed.com and about 4 for Photo Review.⁴⁷³⁸ Imaging Resource also noted the camera's FAT16 file system caps cards at 2 GB, and Photo Review that RAW saving locks the camera.⁴⁸

What the reviewers said in 2004

The timeline

• 28–29 July 2003DPReview and PhotographyBLOG report the announcement: $799 list, on sale in October.¹²
• 15 December 2003Cut-off date for units eligible for Fujifilm's free CompactFlash drain repair.³
• 16 January 2004Imaging Resource first posts its review; its news item follows on the 19th.⁴⁵
• 18 January 2004DPReview publishes its review.³
• 12 April 2004PhotographyBLOG publishes its review.⁶

Should you buy one now?

Buy one if you want a big, well-handling 2003 zoom with manual controls and a superb viewfinder, shoot mostly in good light, and will use the 6-megapixel size. It launched at $799;¹ what one sells for now is a question for the sold listings, not for us. We have not tested a unit, we could not read Fujifilm's own pages, and our coverage rests on three dated full reviews, one undated review (Reviewed.com) and one undated summary page (Photo Review). Fujifilm's later compacts took a different road with noise: the F10 used a 6.3-megapixel Super CCD HR of the same 1/1.7-inch size and went down to ISO 80, as our FinePix F10 and F11 reviews show, and the FinePix S5200 carried the four-AA mini-SLR shape into 2005. Before you bid, check these:

• The name. It looks almost identical to the S602 Zoom,³ so check the model name in the listing and on the camera.
• The CompactFlash drain. A CompactFlash card left in the slot drained the batteries on early units, per DPReview; check the seller's production date and use xD cards.³
• The power. It takes four AA batteries, with NiMH recommended; the box held alkaline cells and, per Reviewed.com, no charger;³⁴⁷ see AA rechargeables on Amazon ↗.
• The card. It takes xD-Picture Card and CompactFlash, and Imaging Resource says the file system tops out at 2 GB;³⁴ see our memory card guide.
• The cable. Reviewed.com says the box held a mini-B USB cable and an A/V cable;⁷ see our Fujifilm cable notes.
• The finder and screen. DPReview said the screen's shiny cover is hard to read in sun;³ check both for dead pixels and that the EVF/LCD button switches.
• The lens. It telescopes out on power-up; check it extends and retracts cleanly and that the focus ring turns.

If you are wondering why cameras like this are being hunted down again, we tell that story once, in Pictures that never left the card.

See recent sold prices on eBay ↗Shop on eBay ↗AA rechargeables ↗

Sources

1. DPReview staff, Fujifilm FinePix S7000 Zoom announcement (28 Jul 2003): list price, October availability, specification list
2. PhotographyBLOG, Fuji announce FinePix S7000 by Mark Goldstein (29 Jul 2003)
3. DPReview, Fujifilm FinePix S7000 Zoom review by Phil Askey (published 18 Jan 2004; all pages read: introduction, specifications, design, controls, timing, noise, lens and image-quality tests, comparisons, conclusion)
4. Imaging Resource, Fuji FinePix S7000 review (all 12 pages, read in the print-friendly version; first posted 16 Jan 2004; MSRP $799; no author named on the pages we read)
5. Imaging Resource news by Dave Etchells, Full review posted for Fuji FinePix S7000 (19 Jan 2004)
6. PhotographyBLOG, Fujifilm FinePix S7000 Zoom review (seven pages, dated 12 Apr 2004; author not named on the pages we read; the design page holds only photo captions)
7. Reviewed.com, Fuji FinePix S7000 digital camera review (undated page; Elena Rue listed as tester; Imatest results)
8. Photo Review (Australia), Fujifilm FinePix S7000 (undated summary and specification page; the full text was not available to us)

Coverage note: we could not read Fujifilm's own announcement or manual, so launch facts come from DPReview and PhotographyBLOG, and the two undated pages (Reviewed.com, Photo Review) are used only where marked. Camera photo by Caltrop (CC0); other photographs are credited under each one, all via Wikimedia Commons. Links to eBay and Amazon are affiliate links.