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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 2, 2005, 2:26 PM   #401
Junior Member
C_Doc's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14

Here's looking at you... and you... and you... and you... and..

Cropped and resized for the forum... RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!
Attached Images
C_Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2005, 3:07 PM   #402
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5

I have recently purchased the S9500 from the original Dabs UK deal (£350) and am very pleased with it so far. As I have had many digital cameras in my past and very keen on fair reviews I agree that this one (Digital camera info)appears to bevery biased. I was suprised with the poor results of the resolution test results so downloaded the chart for comparison. I found that the image downloaded was only 1.2 meg which is odd as a typical 9 meg fine photo with this camerais about 4.5 meg, perhaps someone could explain this! I also note that the field of view differs between different reviews which is most important when trying to compare results!

I also suspected the shutter lag results (0.22 secs) as I could detect none on mine so I found the test screen http://www.shooting-digital.com/colu...st/default.asp

This consistently gave me less than 0.1 secs (pre focused)which I felt was accurate. I also own the Fuji E550 which I find gives a very 35mm like results at 12meg and I can demonstrate that the S9500 can beat its resolution under most circumstances.

tony1620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2005, 7:49 PM   #403
Senior Member
proton's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211

yesterday (2nd oct.) I was at the German Queen (the rockband) Fanclub Meeting.
I just came back from there (it's now 2.48am local time).
There was a great Queen Tribute band and ofcourse that was the perfect occasion to test my S9500 ! I am quite tired now so I'll check my pix (over 300) tomorrow and will upload some for you all. I think I made some nice gems :-)
More later,

zzzzzzzzzz............zzzzzzzzzzzz..........zzzzzz zzzzz..........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :G
proton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 4:20 AM   #404
Senior Member
dijkx's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 109


can't wait to see your pics
dijkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 5:25 AM   #405
Senior Member
shutterbuggy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188

New pics found.
shutterbuggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 5:53 AM   #406
Senior Member
Goofas's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 734

WOW! Did I ever start a popular post. Glad to see the S9000 is such a fine camera.
Goofas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 7:45 AM   #407
Senior Member
proton's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211

Here are a selection of photo's from yesterdays concert. They are resized for internet, not other editing done. EXIF info still inside the pictures.

My experience with this camera compared with the HP735 (a compact model) which I used for the Queen concerts this summer:
- great zoom! because its manual I can zoom in fast and precise , MUCH better than motorised zoom using buttons !! This way I can zoom in fast whenever a nice pose or so occurs on stage. Less chance of missing nice scenes.
- on my old camera I had iso400 and to prevent blurring I had to support the camera on the fence I was standing behind. For this camera, same applies, iso400 is a bit too slow for moving musicians on stage. So iso800 is recommended, ofcourse you'll probably need to adjust to photo afterwards to get rid of some noise.
- Flash : I used the internal flash and at iso200 or iso400 you'll get nice results, no "bleeched" images, but the lights on stage are also a bit visible, you'll get a combination of flashlight and colored stagelights.
- iso1600 should only be used in circumstances in which it's the only way to get a decent photo. There's ofcourse noise and you'll still can make a reasonable picture of it when resized and denoised. But it's not good for large prints.
- Batteries: I used 4 AA's from the brand TOPCRAFT , DIJKX might know this brand. It's sold in a shop called ALDI for 2.29 euro's per 4 (that's less than 2 US dollars!!).
The batteries are 2100mah , they are new and were charged for the first time yesterday. I made pix the whole evening, using also flash and LCD screen, PLUS the high-speed setting (which drains the batteries I read, but I think that's not true). In total I made over 350 photo's, and the batteries are still NOT empty!

PS I also have many blurred pictures, that's becaused i was ofcourse experimenting with settings. Most blurring was due to motion of the musicians on stage. Focussing works quite well. Next time I'm sure I'll get more sharp pics.

proton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 10:10 AM   #408
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37

Hi Hi HI====YES YES YES I had a Canon 300d with the Std Lens and a Sigma 28-300. Bought the Fuji 9500 when I returned from a month in EGYPT.DDDDDDDDDDust. OH MY!!!!! was I cheesed off cleaning that sensor. Fortunately I had my TRUSTY s7000 with me. I bagged the canon and used the FUJI. The 9500, after 3 weeks usage is so good I sold the canon and lenses. If you go the DSLR route be prepared to shell out megga bucks for some decent lenses, just to be on par with the 9500. I mean it ,the 9500 is a must have camera. A strange oddity with FUJI cameras, on screen the pictures do look noisey, not in the prints THO'. AND I mean 20"x16" prints. WOW and that manual ZOOM, worth buying the camera for that alone never mind the fast start-up.
carlton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 10:25 AM   #409
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37

Hi Any news yet on ADOBE upgrading PHOTOSHOP CS RAW CONVERTER to include the 9500.======If anyone has NEWS let me KNOW:idea:
carlton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 10:32 AM   #410
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063

I follow the Adobe forums, and Thomas Knoll (I believe the founder of Photoshop) was looking for a raw image from the 9000. He said that the 9000 and the 9500 actually produce different raw file formats. I provided him with a link to one of the raw files that was posted in this forum. I received an e-mail back from him telling me that he had downloaded the image and is working on an update that will accommodate the camera.
jphess 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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:47 AM.