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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 9, 2005, 11:00 AM   #161
Senior Member
 
gaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 209
Default

Carlton, thanks very much for coming back to us. You could well have spent some time away from us with your new toy.

Have you experienced the blank screen phenomenon mentioned by early reviewers on DPReview?

Cheers

PS:

Ripon is a nice little historic place, esp. around the cathedral.

I recommend the Old Deanery hotel & restaurant, full of charm and character.
gaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 12:52 PM   #162
Junior Member
 
benji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Carlton, if it was a choice between the Nikon 8800 or the Fujifilm S9500 which would you reccomend and why?

Cheers.
benji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 1:09 PM   #163
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 48
Default

The blank screen reviewer threw a fit in the forums for about a week, complained to extreme extents about the blanking. It is not that big of a deal to anyone else and then all of the sudden she kept the camera after rants of hatred for it. So you can take that with a grain of salt.
djgiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 1:36 PM   #164
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Carlton

Knowing more about your background certainly gives your opinion more valuable. I would like to make a statement which may help beginners out there see the differences you have been talking about.

Basically digital cameras fall into three very general categories:

Consumer digicams - may have EVF or optical finder, many options buried in menus, push buttons or electronic ringsto operate zoom, optical zoom ranges from none to 12X. These cameras can be very excellent picture takers but are often slow in operation, few offer a RAW mode and they can be somewhat unsatisfying to previous film SLR users due to their quirky handling.

DSLRs - fast, good lenses, "real camera" handling (manual zoom for one thing), most important controls usually accessible without resorting to menus, excellent image quality (the worst of them are merely fantastic). Sensors do pick up dust however and need to be cleaned and there is always the temptation to buy that next lens.

Bridge cameras - Nikon would like us to see the 8800 as a bridge camera but it is really just a very good digicam as is the Olympus 8080 and, to a lesser extent, the Canon Pro1. The real bridge cameras are the Konica Minolta A100, A200, A2, the Sony F-828, the Fuji S9000, the Panasonic FZ30, even the Kodak P880and the new Sony R-1. Why? Because these cameras offer handling closer to a DSLR with manual zoom controls and greater speed (although a couple of these models are still way too slow). These cameras have image quality that is only marginally better than a digicam (some like the Nikon 8800 and Olympus 8080 are in the same league in image quality, while older models like the Sony F-828 have some image and performance issues). I guess the point that I am making is that handling of a camera can be just as important as the image quality once you reach this level (all of the cameras I have listed can take great pictures but some are better in certain situations than others and none of these are perfect.). They offer DSLR like handling with good image quality and digicam advantages such as LCD viewers, and in some cases, video capture.

The bridge cameras that are now hitting the market, such as the S9000, I believe are a real alternative to the DSLR unless you really need the fastest, most flexible, camera available. An ISO 1600 shot from almost any modern DSLR is going to be cleaner than a Fuji S9000 image at the same speed BUT when you look at the prints produced the quality difference is not enough to warrant the added expenditure to match the Fuji with a DSLR kit.

I am still torn between the S9000 and a DSLR body, The fuji offers such an advantage in simplicity that it may win over slightly cleaner images and a true SLR viewfinder. (low magnification penta-mirror models are better than EVF but still not near as good asmy older film SLRs for clear sharp viewing, give me a real pentaprism please).

I apologize for rambling, I think it is time for me to take out the S7000 and go take some pictures.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 2:50 PM   #165
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

Well, I got my own answer to the question about whether or not Photoshop would open the raw files from the 9000. Nope, it seems that Fuji has changed the file structure. I don't even know if my version of the Fuji software that came with my 5100 will convert it. I will try it when I get home from work tonight. S7Raw would display the embedded JPEG preview, but it would not open the file. I wonder how soon some of these vendors will start taking Fuji seriously. In fact, I wonder when Fuji will get serious and provide a real raw converter.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 3:08 PM   #166
Senior Member
 
shutterbuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188
Default

If I'm not mistaken, Xnview can read RAW and RAF files.
shutterbuggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 3:38 PM   #167
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

You are correct, Xnview did open the raw file that I downloaded. And I converted it to a TIF image that I was able to open with Photoshop. But the image size reported by Photoshop was really weird. The upper two boxes reported 1600x1200 pixels, and the bottom two boxes reported 1600x1200 inches with a resolution of 1 PPI (yes, 1 PPI). So I wasn't really able to determine just how good the conversion was. Compared to the raw images that I converted from my son-in-law's Nikon D70, this was a rather poor conversion. It will be interesting to compare when a different converter can handle the file.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 3:45 PM   #168
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 67
Default

Monza76 wrote:
Quote:
I am still torn between the S9000 and a DSLR body, The fuji offers such an advantage in simplicity that it may win over slightly cleaner images and a true SLR viewfinder. (low magnification penta-mirror models are better than EVF but still not near as good asmy older film SLRs for clear sharp viewing, give me a real pentaprism please).
Have you taken the Sony R-1 into consideration? Why, or, why not?

nymano.
nymano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 5:13 PM   #169
Senior Member
 
proton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
Default

For me, the R1 is out of the question, only 120mm zoom, no AAA batteries, more expensive than the S9000/S9500
proton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2005, 6:16 PM   #170
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

jphess

xnview is probably only opening the imbedded jpeg, Picasa does the same thing with S7000 RAW files, looks like it has converted the file but it is only opening the jpeg.

Nymano

the Sony R-1 costs about $300 more, has no movie mode, has only a 120mm telephoto end, uses proprietary Li-ion batteries, and (sorry to say this since it sounds so superficial) looks downright ugly. It also appears that it has only a three shot buffer. I will not pay that much extra cash for a camera which offers cleaner images from its big sensor but loses out on all of the other specs. I will rarely use ISO 1600 let alone 3200.If I want that level of image performance I will get a DSLR at about the same price.

Ira


Monza76 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 5:34 PM.