Cheap compact vs more expensive compact but the specs dont add up?
 

I bought I new compact (mainly for underwater photography) recently which is the Fujifilm F200 but I've also just won in a raffle a Samsung ES20.

First thing to notice is that the F200 is about £200 - 250 and the ES20 is about £70 so of course one is better than the other but when I look at the specs acouple of things dont seem to quite make sense but Im guessing its because Im a beginner!

F200: http://fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digit...f200-exr/Specs
ES20: http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/c...pec&fullspec=F

Here are some specs I've noticed seem to differ in a way I wouldnt expect? I know these settings dont set in stone how good the camera is but why are they like this:

F200 - ES20
Shutter speed: 8 ~ 1/1500 sec - 8 ~ 1/2000 sec (You may never need it but why is the maximum faster??)
Aperture: F3.3 ~ F14 - F2.8 ~ F6.1 (Maybe not a greater range but why is the maximum aperture only 3.3??)

Theres other specs but there the ones that popped out at me, could anyone give me an explanation. I dont want anyone picking faults with either camera because they dont like them for some reason Im just comparing specs.

Thanks,

Technical

Technical, firstly I'd like to say hello and welcome to WPF.

There's a lot more to a camera than what you can print on a spec sheet. How good is the lens design? How noisy is the sensor? How well has the item been designed to cope with being dropped etc? How long (age/number of chage cycles) will the battery last before it doesn't hold its charge? What level of after sales support can you expect if it goes wrong? How well designed is the user interface? All these things cost money, but cannot be quantified on a spec sheet.

To answer your specific questions:
1) Why has the cheaper camera got a faster shutter speed? Because the manufacturer thought it would be a good selling point on a spec sheet and decided to cut costs elsewhere to achieve this figure.
2) Why has the cheaper camera got a faster aperture? Because the manufacturer thought it would be a good selling point on a spec sheet and decided to cut costs elsewhere to achieve this figure.

The camera that is right for you is the one that YOU get on best with. It may be the cheap one, it may be the expensive one. Only you can make that choice.

Thanks for the great reply.

Yes I understand there are other factors and sometimes the specifications sheet is useless. I mean the sensor is alot bigger for a start!

But what I was saying is I thought they where 2 very important specs that would be of maximum importance and could effect the performance overall significantly in some circumstances, not that it would make the cheaper one better.

I just thought Id enquire and see if there where any hidden explanations other than marketing reasons...

Thanks,

Technical

Hi there, and welcome to the forum. I will second Yelvertoft's post and explainations.
As someone who helps to explain these mysteries to people buying in the shop, I find it a constant battle to convince people that whilst a camera having amazing specs on paper vs another, it's not always be the key to nice crisp sharp images. As another example, certain Samsung and Kodak models offering features like very high pixel count (often 12mpixel and above), HDMI connection, widescreen LCD, a billion shooting modes etc, quite often don't offer the same results other (even older) models with a quarter the mpixel count, smaller LCD screens and fewer modes. Switching both on and uploading a sample picture usually separates the wheat from the chaff.
I took great glee in clearing an older Panasonic TZ series camera with 7mp vs a newer Kodak 'HD' model with 14mp, using this very method