Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 11, 2006, 7:04 PM   #11
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11

Of course I have both cameras on the highest resolution. 9500 is on 9mp producing an image of 3488x2616 and the 5000 is an interpolated 6mp at 2816x2120.

File size straight off the camera, as jpg not RAW are

9500 2.3mb

5000 1.4mb

This is exactly my point, when I reduced the 9500 image to 1024x768 the file size reduced to 217kb, obviously small enough to post yet when I reduced the 5000 image to the same 1024x768 it was still 280kb, too large to post. My point is if the image is larger in bytes for the same dimensions then it must contain more data, eg more information hence be a better quality picture.

Jeez I'm getting out of my depth here.

Toad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 9:09 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 398

I think I may have an answer to your concern, Toad:

When you say that "the s5000 image is far far better, its clearer, sharper and will zoom more before pixels are visible", I presume you are examining the pictures on the computer monitor. Did you try printing them out in full sizes for viewing?

This is what I find since the digital cameras go above about 5-6 MP - when you look at "high" pixel resolution pictures at 100% size, the computer monitor resolution becomes inadequate: it is sort of like the situation of "digital zoom" of the camera, when the resolution becomes apparently bad when you zoom in and see all the pixels.

A 17" LCD monitor has something like 1280 X 1024 = 1.3 MP screen resolution (remember there is only one optimal resolution for LCD screens). You can change the screen resolution on older CRT (like standard TV) monitors, but depending on the video card and the screen size (number of inches), you don't get much more above 1600 X 1200 = 1.9 MP. Of course, screen resolution goes ballistic with HDTV doubled as a computer monitor, but that is still only 1920 X 1080 = just over 2 MP.

When you look at a 2 to 3 MP resolution picture, the resolution of the regular monitor screen is still comparable to the resolution of the picture. However, when you look at a 4 to 5 MP resolution picture, your screen only has 2/5 to 1/2 of the resolution, therefore the picture is blown up, like a digital zoom, and you start to see the "imperfections" (pixels, jagged edges, smudginess etc.) of the picture at full size.

This effect would be profound when you view a 9 MP picture at full size on the sceen, which only has about 1/5 of the resolution of the picture.

HOWEVER: you have to remember this is only an "optical illusion" (in a way), because of the limitation of your computer monitor's resolution.

The only way to determine the true quality of the digital pictures of high MP is to print them out, at the maximum size recommended for the particular MP resolution. (But be careful: this will also be affected by tweaking the "dpi" (dots per inch, the "resolution" of the pinter or printing machine) - and that is yet another completely different story ...)

When you compare pictures taken by your S5000 and your S9500, on the computer monitor, you should only take the comparable MP resolutions (the true max. MP count of the S5000 is 3 MP, but you can also take a 6 MP interpolated and see how much noise of imperfection generated). True, you are restricted to these lower resolutions on the S9500, but at least you can see if there is any significant difference in terms of optical quality, noise of the CCD etc. (presuming the compression engine of both cameras are comparable).

I am not quite sure if my explanation is clear and understandable. If anyone has any comments or corrections please post them, most appreciate it.

blindsight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 10:09 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063

I think it has all pretty much been said. There is no way anyone can convince you of what we are saying. This whole conversation hasn't been repeated much recently, but was prevalent back in January and February when there were a lot more new users of the camera. It seems that, almost without exception, people have finally realized what we have been telling you. Frankly, I panicked when I first got my S9000. I think, deep down, I really expected to see an incredible difference in my on-screen images. And it just didn't happen. You have two choices at this point. You can either get into the manual and do some experimenting and find out where you get the best results, what mode, what f-stop, etc.. Or, get rid of the camera now. You will not get your best results in the Auto mode. One of the observations that I have read repeatedly is that the S9000 produces results that are more like what you get from a film camera. Consequently the images are inherently softer. I use Photoshop quite extensively on images that really matter. If you are looking for a simple point and shoot camera with perfect images straight from the camera every time that require no forethought or postprocessing on your part, this camera is not for you. All I can say is that every time I print an 8x10 I am amazed and very pleased at what the camera will produce. I just finished another print now, and it is very nice. I hope you will be able to find the same satisfaction.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 2:21 AM   #14
bl0at3r's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 56

hi toad, i replied in the other thread

bl0at3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 5:54 AM   #15
Senior Member
kefln's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 122

I agree whole heartedly with blindsight. Monitors just aren't to be trusted. I tried pixel peeping on the screen at first, trying to "get my moneys worth" and it nearly drove me nuts. It was only when I started printing Photo's that I started to relax and enjoy the camera...
kefln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 8:02 AM   #16
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 33


Have you set the resolution to 9MP FINE (rather than normal)?

I ask this because you say that your 9500 images are 2.3mB - the ones from my 9500 in this setting are typically 4.5mB. On occassions when there is less detail in the image they can come out much smaller but I would have guessed that given the detail in your picture the file size should have been larger than 2.3mB. The fine setting uses a less aggressive JPEG compression than the normal setting.

Also have you tried setting the sharpness to hard? I'm not suggesting that this is the way to go when compared to using USM during post processing but the 9500 does much less in-camera sharpening than typical point and shoot cameras and probably more than is done in the 5000 (I have never used the 5000 so I am guessing here).


Now that I am back home I have looked at the S9500 manual - there is a table on page 136 that gives the standard number of available frames for different media sizes - the image data size is shown as 4.5 MB for 9MF and 2.2 for 9MN.

My HP Photosmart 715 3.3Mpixel at its lowest compression gave images of around 1.6 MB, the 9 Mpixel S9500 gives around 4.5 MB - a little under 3 times as expected. The big difference between the cameras is the degree of control provided by the S9500. Unfortunately of course this degree of control not only allows one to do things that a point and shoot camera can't do, it also allows one to mess things up!

I am still learning to use the camera and am encouraged by some of the shots I have taken but especially by those posted by more experienced photographers. Read as many other threads about the camera as possible and hopefully you will become more satisfied with your S9500.
programmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 7:49 AM   #17
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15

Like some others I too replied at the other thread.
There is a very steep learning curve with this camera to use correctly the all extra features the 9500 has. It is ,and never will be , a point and shoot camera...it's not designed that way, but for the experienced and knowledgeable photographer and those prepared to grasp all its features and use them to best advantage.
There are similar threads at dpreview.com which you might benefit from.
P.S. If it helps, I spent several weeks testing and practising every day in order to be able to go out and get the shots I wanted. Now it comes naturally, the camera being almost an extension of my arm just like the s7000 was after a similar period.

dgosden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 12:39 PM   #18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063

There are those who will argue that photography should not be this difficult. "All I want to do," they argue, "is press the button, download the picture and be done." And from that kind of photography some seem to demand perfection. This has never been the case. High-quality photographs require that the photographer put forth some effort. And, with a new camera, there should be a lot of pictures taken using different settings to discover what is going to work best for you in any given situation. Thankfully, with digital photography, that only costs a little time. Last night, for instance, I looked at the sky and anticipated that there would be a spectacular sunset. So I got out of the camera and over the space of 30 minutes or so I could not 75 images. Back in my film days I might have taken a dozen or so, but that would have been the limit because I don't have a big budget for film and processing. Actually, in the six months or so that I have had my Fuji S9000, I think I have taken more pictures and I ever to live any of my film cameras. Last night's experiment produced about 10 images that I was happy with. Nothing about the others was the fault of the camera; I'm simply not a very good photographer.

For me I have found for my landscape photography that I get my best results using aperture priority automatic with an f-stop ranging between 5.6 and 7.1. I like to use the lowest ISO possible. I have even taken night scenes at ISO 80/4 seconds. This requires that I use the tripod, but I don't mind because I like the results. I do like to use the Auto mode for family flash photography. For me, it just works. And when my little granddaughter was born just a month or so ago, she really didn't like the flash going off in her face. So I switched over and used the natural light mode. The pictures were a little soft, but everyone loved them.

The S9000 is such a versatile camera. It's a shame that some of the critics of the camera are those who have never used one. And I think it's unfortunate that some people just seem to give up on the camera before they realize what potential capabilities it really has.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 7:02 PM   #19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 101

For sure you're right, I bought mine in May and made excellent pictures almost from the start, had a mechanical problem with the cam but that's fixed now and I'm ready to take on the world ...

It helps when you have like 30 years photography under the belt, the 9000/9500 is not a point and shoot camera, you can point and shoot but don't expect excellence.
I majored in photography and I have no problems what so ever switching from traditional to digital, my learning curve will be a smooth one.

But let's face it, a cam is a product made by people and some can be defective ... a cam is handled by people and people make mistakes or are at least less than perfect and when not reading the manual well ... they can make mistakes they don't know how to correct ... so, it's either the cam or the user but that they can find out by using it and learning the tool they have in their hands.

My pics are not perfect yet ... next step will be learning to harnass RAW ...


This is one of my first badge of pictures I made with the 9500, probably ISO 200 setting, can't remember, Jpeg F setting

Next one is taken point and shoot at probably ISO 400, but at Aperture ... not Auto

belgian pie is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 AM.