Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 review

Two lenses, two sensors, one screen, three dimensions

You’ve bought a 3D television yet there isn’t currently much 3D content to watch. How about shooting your own? Enter the glossy and conceptually slick Fujifilm FinePix ‘Real 3D’ W3, successor to the year-old W1, the world’s first 3D-shooting digital stills camera. It’s turned on or off by sliding open or shut its protective faceplate, so despite the zeitgeist-surfing technology it really is quite simple to use.

With a sturdy metal build it’s both smaller and lighter than its trail-blazing forebear. The W3 is ‘real’ 3D because, unlike say Sony’s NEX or Cyber-shot cameras that offer 3D panoramic effects via software trickery, the Fuji utilises two 35mm equivalent lenses and two ten megapixel sensors to produce its stereoscopic pictures. It shoots two images and combines them to produce one 3D shot.

In terms of handling there are a couple of compromises. Due to its twin lens/sensor set up the W3 is physically wider and bulkier than your regular 2D shooting device.  On the plus side it will still fit in a jacket pocket and Fuji has made the most of its proportions by incorporating a whopping 3.5-inch, 1.15 million-dot resolution widescreen ratio LCD at the rear for composition and review. Even more impressively the screen allows users to view the 3D effect prior to a picture being captured as well as afterwards, without the need for brain-fooling spectacles. So, if you don’t own the right sort of TV, at least you can enjoy the camera’s 3D imagery this way, and quite a wow it is too. The screen is razor sharp and clear, with no need to squint or wiggle the display for maximum visual impact.

 FinePix software is provided to allow a third alternative, of viewing the single 3D shot as two separate ‘left’ and ‘right’ lens images, side by side, on a standard PC. It has to be said those without a 3D computer will feel short-changed however, and sending off to Japan for lenticular style prints is a better bet. The best day-to-day compromise we found was to shoot 2D JPEGs alongside the 3D MPO files; that way we had something to marvel at on the camera or 3D telly plus a ‘normal’ non-stereoscopic version as back up for downloading and sharing conventionally.  Fortunately we noticed barely any difference in speed and processing time.

Another compromise is that, because of the need to position the lenses slightly wider apart than the average pair of human eyes to achieve the full 3D effect, the W3’s optics are located toward the outer edges of the camera’s faceplate. This meant we had to watch closely for fingertips straying into frame when taking photographs or 1280x720 pixels HD video. It was also a disappointment to find the modest 3x optical zoom/s couldn’t be used when shooting video too.

Interestingly, shooting in 3D changed the way we composed images, making us work harder. Taking photographs at a slight angle rather than face-on added dynamism. Plus looking for separate points of interest within the foreground, middle and background of each shot became particularly important if we were going to use the W3’s capabilities to their most eye popping effect. After all, each of those elements was going to appear in the final 3D image as if floating on its own individual layer.

Inevitably, though you can shoot 2D alongside 3D, or instead of via a press of the ‘3D’ backplate button that switches between formats, such ‘flat’ results aren’t as impressive as their multi dimensional alternative. In regular old 2D, shots from the W3 are comparable to results from a £100 point and shoot. This means occasional burnt out highlights, colours subdued by a milky veneer, and purple pixel fringing visible between areas of high contrast. We also found that pictures benefited from subtle sharpening. So, unless you are going to be shooting 3D in the main, there are better alternatives for the price, such as Panasonic’s Lumix DMC-LX5 to take one example.

For those who do want to provide their images with added depth however, whilst not cheap the W3 is a better-built and more effective consumer-level 3D solution than Aiptek’s plastic-y £200 i2 pocket camcorder, and begins to look like good value when compared with Panasonic’s 3D-shooting £1,500 HDC-SDT750. Ultimately though this is a product you can’t fully appreciate from reading about in a magazine: it requires physical interaction not to mention experimentation. Our feeling is that once you’ve picked Fuji’s W3 up, you’ll find it hard to put down.