Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 4, 2007, 2:21 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 62
Default

Hi there,

I'm so surprising that almost fuji fans are using S6500fd instead S9600,Why??
Isn't 9600 better than 6500fd??

Need your analysis buddies...
MacTreoUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 4, 2007, 10:14 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

It all depends on what you consider to be "better". The 9000 series seems to have developed somewhat of a bad reputation. The original 9000/9500 had a bad design problem with the command dial. Many cameras, including my own 9000, have had to have the command dial replaced. Fuji has been very good about replacing it at no charge, but nobody likes to have to send their camera to the repair center for repairs.

There has been a constant barrage of comments from owners of the 6000 series about how much less noise is produced in its images. The argument is that Fuji put too many pixels into the sensor of the 9000 series cameras. I have never handled a 6000, so I don't have any images that I can objectively compare. All I can say is that I like the quality of the images that I get from my camera. Noise has never been a problem. But I normally shoot between ISO 80 and ISO 400, so noise has not been an issue.

Looking at today's market, I kind of wish I had not purchased the 9000 because if I had just waited for about a year I could have purchased a digital SLR for the same amount of money or perhaps even a little bit less than what I paid for this camera. And as nice as my 9000 is, and as nice as the 6000 is, neither model can compare with a digital SLR when it comes to image quality.

The features that make the 9000 unique when compared to the 6000, like the hot shoe for external flash, the tilting LCD screen, and the PC socket for external flash are very nice features. I have an external flash and have found that it really can make a difference. But the 6000 series is the one that really hit the market. Those who have that model are convinced they have the better camera and devote a lot of their time to convincing others. I think the owners of the 9000 series cameras are just out taking pictures and not worrying about has the better camera.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2007, 10:27 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 62
Default

Erm...jphess.Thank you very much for the reply!!!

Seems Price for 6500 is worth to have if just wish to get the all in one lens of camera...

but if gonna invest the 9600...isn't worth to buy it because the same price even less than the price can own a DSLR like D40 or 350D.

Am i right?
MacTreoUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2007, 11:59 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

That's the way I see it. Either of the two cameras from Fuji will deliver good results, but neither one of them will compare with the image quality of a digital SLR.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2007, 9:39 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default

While a DSLR will, above a certain size print, produce a superior result, I really don't understand how anyone can argue thatthe DSLR costs the same or less than the S9100 - it isn't even close, at least in the USA.Check the prices at a couple of reputable dealers - I'll use B&H& Adorama for the USA since they are highly regarded.



Search out theleast expensive DSLR body at those places and add an equivalent 28-300mm lens. At both B&H and Adorama the least expensive camera is the Canon XTi at $450. Now find the least expensive 28-300mm lens that canget sort ofclose to the speed of the Fuji's 28-300mm f2.8-f4.9 lens, which is the slower Sigma 28-300 f3.5-f6.3 - this lens is$279 at B&H but ison special at Adorama for only $175. So the least expensive DSLR with an almost equivalent lens can be had atAdorama for a total price of $625. The S9100 at Adorama is $400 ($430 at B&H). That's a $225 difference, and in my book that ain't "the same or less". Now perhaps outside the USA the prices are different, or the taxes alter this, but those are the numbers.



Bottom line - yes, aDSLR holds an ultimate quality advantage (one that, in my comparison between the S9100 and my Canon 20D, doesn't reallybegin to show until you are printing larger than 8x10, or cropping out a small section). But the prices simply aren't at all similar here in the USA. Myself, when I'm going for ultimate quality the 20Dis what I use. But for more casual shooting, when I don't want to lug around a heavy DSLR and a big bag of lenses, or fight with dust on the sensor, you'll find me carryingmy S9100.



jZ








AutoXer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2007, 11:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

I didn't mean to even suggest that it is possible to get equivalent lens coverage for the same price. I realize that you typically get a kit lens that is equivalent to about a 28-80 zoom lens. And, YES, that is significantly highly restrictive when compared to the coverage of the 28-300 mm lens on the 9100. But putting that aside, the digital SLR will still produce significantly higher quality images. And I would rather have the digital SLR with the kit lens.

Sometimes I think some people put too much value on having a long lens. As an example, a number of years ago we were visiting the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming in the summertime and decided to ride the tram to the top of one of the mountains. One of the other passengers was carrying a rather expensive looking camera with an extremely long fixed lens attached. So what was he going to do? Ride to the top to take a picture of the pine tree at the bottom of the mountain? I go to the top of the mountain to take pictures of the Vista.

I made the mistake of purchasing my 9000 shortly after it was introduced and I paid over $500 for it. In today's market that will easily purchase an entry-level SLR with a kit lens. And for what I use a camera for I would be much happier with the SLR.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2007, 12:06 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 62
Default

Autoxer,

Wonderful reply man!!!
So you own a 20D and a S9100??

What you mention above is true.a quite huge differences of $ in between DSLR + 28-300mm lens and the S9100!!

But i think they all compare with the 350D or 400D or even D40 the entry level of DSLR...then the price are almost the same...but lens seems the short..kit lens are all in 35-55mm (correct me if i'm wrong)

So bro,do S9100 satisfied you in terms of DOF,Wide angle,Tele zoom,ISO,Colour...ofcause size print will be smaller for good quality..it's only Prosumer!!:idea:
MacTreoUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2007, 10:20 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

The typical lens that is included with digital SLR cameras is stated at 18-55 mm. In 35mm terms, this is the equivalent to approximately a 28-80 mm zoom lens. Obviously, this doesn't even begin to compare with the range of the S9100. But I wonder just how often that extra zoom range is required. I spoke with my son-in-law who has a Nikon D70 and several different lenses. He is quite a photo enthusiast. He works for The Nature Conservancy and travels extensively. He was telling me that he takes well over 90% of his pictures with the 18-55 mm lens. And the point of my previous comment was that, while it's nice to have all that extra zoom capability, I find that I don't use it all that often.

As far as image quality is concerned, I think the S9100 is a very capable camera. Especially at lower ISO settings (400 or below). Here is one of my "typical" photos. I'm not saying that it is a great image. I'm not the best photographer and I know it. But this is the type of photography I enjoy doing, and I don't need a lot of extra zoom range. As far as color is concerned, I think my S9000 does a pretty good job. This picture loses a little when it is sized appropriately for the website. But this picture could easily have been taken with the normal kit lens that comes with a digital SLR.
Attached Images
 
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2007, 11:02 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 62
Default

thanks for comment and seems DSLR sure worth to get it with the kit lens and the kit lens are more than enough for a normal shooting purpose..:|
MacTreoUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2007, 8:53 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default

MacTreoUser -



I do indeed have both a Canon 20D and the S9100.The Canon is for "real serious stuff" (I shoot small weddings and portraits part time). But there are plenty of times that I simply want to travel lighter and yet get far better quality that the typical point-&-shoot digital camera delivers, and that's where the S9100 comes in.I've compared PRINTS ofimages from both ("pixel-peeping" i.e. zooming in on-screen, makes the differences appear far greater than they actually are, or will showin a print - you have to compare actual prints),and I'm quite satisfied with imagesI can get from the S9100.



jZ
AutoXer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:41 AM.