The F1 is expensive, unusual, handy, complex, black and may remain switched on for four hours on a single charge - which the camera can also? She is so ergonomically that I have taken this many more hours sightseeing without belt - have simply worn just in your hand!
6M pixels - are more needed? Whoever takes something clever, I do not mean the costs borne by personal views Internet forums, but books, will answer this question quickly - enough thickness unless posters are made.
Blauäugig I bought the F1, without knowing much of LDR, HDR, RAW formats, gamma curve, Bayer grid, and, and, and,. For me, the F1 a new world and came across many reviews that I have read about the F1 and other cameras, suddenly got very strange facets. Since jpeg images are compared with each other? ...
... And since we have arrived exactly beside the point: For "average consumer" (this is not meant to be derogatory), this camera is nonsense! Since there are better, cheaper, simpler, and super hard / soft flushed JPEG images, depending on your taste.
Anyone looking for a technical camera, who is not afraid to learn in front who has to watch the F1. Only create the topic High-speed movies is almost inexhaustible. We were able to clarify some issues with the help of F1 in our company. Oh, ordinary pictures can also make ... the lack of wide-angle I replace by panoramic images (sometimes even as HDR) which I then further processed.
Now this camera is getting on in years. Whether Casio ever again as a camera builds dare I seriously doubt it will be too few users. Thus, F1 will remain an oddity and for this reason alone I would buy me back. Who does not need high-speed (want / can do without it / do not apply for it has) would be with the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 super served (my personal choice).
