Just ordered the fx-7

Jon Rule · June 12th, 2009, 04:53 AM

Part of the problem with reviews and comparisons of the FX7 is to what it's getting compared with. At the time I was getting mine, lots of people were saying go for the FX1000, as if it was only slightly more, but it was nearly £800 extra. There are lots of better cameras than the FX7 especially in low light, but I've not seen any at the price.

Steve Struthers · June 12th, 2009, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Rule

Part of the problem with reviews and comparisons of the FX7 is to what it's getting compared with. At the time I was getting mine, lots of people were saying go for the FX1000, as if it was only slightly more, but it was nearly £800 extra. There are lots of better cameras than the FX7 especially in low light, but I've not seen any at the price.

Well, in my neck of the woods, £800 is not an insignificant sum of money - it works out to $1472.01 CDN. When the pound was trading at $2.00 or more to every $1.00CDN, the difference would have been almost a whopping $1800.00.

David Stoneburner · June 12th, 2009, 10:45 AM

I just got my FX-7 about a month ago and really like it. After doing the research, I concluded that it's the best camera in that price range. The FX1000 was over what I could afford to pay. I usually don't shoot in that low of light, and if I did I would use lights or except what I get.

Garry Moore · June 20th, 2009, 01:05 PM

Darn, I'll take a cracked, the worst in low light, non progressive Fx-7 anyday.

Martyn Hull · June 21st, 2009, 01:50 AM

Oh well i have a progressive cam as well and dont like progressive at all .

Mike Burgess · June 21st, 2009, 08:42 AM

I have an FX7 and have to say that in "low light", such a wide range of light levels for that term, the cam is not too good, but is workable....to a degree. Have shot outside at night on a fairly well lit street, and the resulting picture was OK, not great, but OK. Picture was grainy, with some color; and that was on full auto.

Daylight? Now that is a whole different matter.

Mike

June 20th, 2009, 01:05 PM	#19
Garry Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Aurora, IN Posts: 45	cracked FX-7 Darn, I'll take a cracked, the worst in low light, non progressive Fx-7 anyday.

June 12th, 2009, 04:53 AM	#16
Jon Rule Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 37	Part of the problem with reviews and comparisons of the FX7 is to what it's getting compared with. At the time I was getting mine, lots of people were saying go for the FX1000, as if it was only slightly more, but it was nearly £800 extra. There are lots of better cameras than the FX7 especially in low light, but I've not seen any at the price.

June 12th, 2009, 10:45 AM	#18
David Stoneburner Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 493	I just got my FX-7 about a month ago and really like it. After doing the research, I concluded that it's the best camera in that price range. The FX1000 was over what I could afford to pay. I usually don't shoot in that low of light, and if I did I would use lights or except what I get.

June 21st, 2009, 01:50 AM	#20
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	Oh well i have a progressive cam as well and dont like progressive at all .

June 21st, 2009, 08:42 AM	#21
Mike Burgess Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Traverse City, Michigan Posts: 416	I have an FX7 and have to say that in "low light", such a wide range of light levels for that term, the cam is not too good, but is workable....to a degree. Have shot outside at night on a fairly well lit street, and the resulting picture was OK, not great, but OK. Picture was grainy, with some color; and that was on full auto. Daylight? Now that is a whole different matter. Mike