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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 21, 2007, 11:58 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 51
Default

Actually, I was searching for some S9600 high ISO pics. And then I saw high ISO pics from S9600 and FZ50.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...00hSLI1066.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...50hSLI1600.HTM

My questions are:

1. Is ISO1600 from S9600 "that bad" or is it "good enough"?

2. Looking at those two pictures (from the links above), IMHO, FZ50 looks "clearer but blotchy" (are these the correct term?) while S9600 looks "grainy and the detail is lost". Take a look at the label "Benissimo Pepper Oil" bottle. I can read it on FZ50 but on S9600, I can barely say those are letters?

They said Fuji's SuperCCD had good low light ability and I thought they were saying that the ISO1600 is better than the others. I thought wrong, didn't I?

PS: I hate to see my S9600 losing the game...or is it winning?
DChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 22, 2007, 12:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Going to 1600 ISO is always going to give you an inferior picture due to the graininess. If thats your last option then use it. But only then. Try to keep the ISO to 100 or up to 400 Max if you can.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2007, 11:11 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

But the best thing you can do is go ahead and take some ISO 1600 test images yourself. Evaluate the results and then decide if they are usable for you. You have the capability, it isn't going to cost you anything, so go ahead and try it and then decide.

I have taken some acceptable ISO 800 images with my 9000. No, they are not perfect images. But they captured the moment and that is what I needed. There will always be a camera that will take better quality images and than any camera that you have. If that is your biggest concern, get away from digital photography completely. There are too many people doing too many comparisons on every camera available. And they can prove anything that they want to. You have made the choice for a camera. Stop worrying about whether or not there is something better and enjoy what you have.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2007, 3:59 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

If you want great ISO 1600 images, you'll need to buy a DSLR.

If you stick to smaller print and viewing sizes, you may be able to get by with something else. It's all very subjective.

Also try some of the noise reduction software around. For example, install the standalone trial version of Neatimage. It's free for personal use and doesn't expire:

http://www.neatimage.com

Also try the Community Edition of Noiseware. It's free for personal use. Scroll down past the trial versions of their commercial products on their Download page and you'll see the free Community Edition near the bottom.

http://www.imagenomic.com

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2007, 5:23 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 51
Default

Thank You, All.

I agree, ISO 400 is "the limit", but I've gone as high as ISO 800 and they're not that bad. But I haven't got the "guts" to use ISO 1600.

Thanks for the links. I've heard about Neatimage but I've never used it. I'm gonna take ISO 1600 pics and try those software.

I have S9600 for almost a year, take 1000 picsbut I'm still learning photography...slowly...very slowly.

Thanks again.
DChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2007, 5:31 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

With a digital camera it doesnt take 'guts' to use it. Its not like film where you waste the shot and opportunity to take it again. Although your LCD isnt the greatest you can see instantly whether your pic is any good at all. So just keep taking pictures. The more you take the quicker you will learn for yourself your cameras limitations.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2007, 10:13 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 9
Default

ISO 1600 with a non-DSLR is for emergency use only. I already had some of these "emergencies". And some of the pics I took were acceptable (in my point of view). But it depends on what you expect and what you want to do with the picture. To get the best results it would be good to use raw and something like neatimage.

The image of FZ-50 looks better, I agree, but I think this is due to a stronger noisereduction and a much stronger sharpening afterwards. S9600 does very little in-camera-postprocessing, this gives you more possibillities to process afterwards.

By the way: you can improve all of your s9600 pictures by postprocessing!
StefH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 8:49 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default

Having made an actual test with an S9600 I can add that shooting in RAW mode makes a small but definite difference in low light noise levels vs. JPEG and also delivers a bit better resolution too (this when 16x20 prints are compared).

Jim

AutoXer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 10:18 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 51
Default

Jim, what software did you use to view and P.P. the RAW files?
DChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2007, 4:53 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Default

I shot images of an identicalsubject, using a fixed f-stop to prevent resolution variations in the lens. I shot atevery speed in both JPEG and the Fuji RAW. I used the Fuji software to open the RAW images and convert the RAW images to TIF so I could take them over to Photoshop Elements (you could likely do the printsfrom within the Finepix software, but the "much-lauded" Fuji software in my opinion s a royal pain in the butt to use - whomever lauds praise on this software is nuts!). I then sized the images to 16x20 and cut out an 8x10 area from the center and printed these on a good HP Photo Printer. Incidently, I firmly believe this is the proper way to compare anything digital, because stuff that seems to make a huge difference on-screen at 100%often are very subtle or nonexistent on a print. Anyway, at all speeds the RAW images had a very slightadvantage in resolution of fine detail, and at high speeds the noise level was slightly but definitely lower.



Now, whether or not there is enough difference to justify shooting RAW if you never make a print larger than 8x10 is open to debate (in my opinion, there isn't).



Jim


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 4:09 PM.