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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 11, 2005, 3:29 PM   #491
Senior Member
 
SteveDak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,471
Default

Hi Proton, Looking forward to getting your feedback on the Raynox lens - especially on the mechanics issue (sorry to be boring, butmechanics & design are a thing of mine).

From your posts it is fairly obvious that you are very happy with your 9500 - haven't seen too many adverse comments from you which is great, because I've been hoping that it is a good camera. If I'm not mistaken, Ithink you've hadit for a couple of weeks now and from your posts on this forum you've done a fairlysturdy job of testing it out. For the benefit of the rest of us who are in waiting/procrastinating over buying, can you summarise in simple terms what negatives you'veidentified so far? It would be very useful to know and I know your assessment will be an honest and objective one.

I think like me, you also have the S5500 and I would be very interested to know what functional improvement/benefits you value the most in the S9500 over the former. A lot to ask but as I say, a summary of pro & cons would be great and useful to whole bunch of us, I think. Steve
SteveDak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 3:41 PM   #492
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Default

Hi--close-up photo taken with Fuji S9500 at iso 100. No alterations to photo at all apart of course for cropping to 640x480.-cheers,Don
Attached Images
 
doninuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 3:46 PM   #493
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Default

Hi-another,but this time taken at iso 80,no alterations once again apart from cropping to usual 640x480..I love this 9500 because there is no need for any complicated and unecessary post-processing which I feel is an evil that I do not wish to do.If the camera is good enough,and I feel this one is, then photos can be use as is.Unlike the D70 which I ditched on ebay to buy this---and am well pleased I did.
Attached Images
 
doninuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 4:23 PM   #494
Senior Member
 
proton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
Default

sorry SteveDak, I have a HP735 , not a S5500 , never said I had one :-)
a con about the s9500 would be the menu handling i guess, it's intensive, but with some practice I think changes can be made in a short time. A button to switch pages would have been a big plus to change settings faster.
About picture quality, hmm, I hope to get a few prints on paper this week. 1 is a portrait photo done in the garden during grey cloudy weather at 1/50 sec , iso200. The print will be A4 size, so I'm curious how the quality will be.
I think to destillate (i hope i wrote that correctly :-) ) the con's of the camera you need to learn to handle it correctly to prevent as much "user errors" as possible.
Sofar I don't see really outstanding con's.

PS a 'plastic feel' doesn't count as a con for me. The image quality and functions of a camera are more important to me :-)

http://members.home.nl/freddievtb/DSCF0793.JPG
this is a full unedited photo of leaves in autumn color. iso80, 1/90 sec, F4.2, about 200mm. (warning! 4+mb file!)
I think the left is a very tiny little bit out of focus due to DOF being just that tiny bit too little. A larger aperture would solve that issue giving a fully sharp image, also in the edges.
NOTE: settings: saturation full, sharpness hard, contrast hard
proton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 5:41 PM   #495
Member
 
MamawB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 30
Default

Hey, Proton!

Really nice Autumn leaves photo. Our crazy weather pretty much wiped out our fall colors this year. The clarity in the shot is superb.
MamawB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 6:27 PM   #496
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 41
Default

doninuk wrote:
Quote:
I love this 9500 because there is no need for any complicated and unecessary post-processing which I feel is an evil that I do not wish to do.If the camera is good enough,and I feel this one is, then photos can be use as is.Unlike the D70 which I ditched on ebay to buy this---and am well pleased I did.
While I can see your point that it is good to get usable pictures straight out of the camera, I think your anti-PP idealism is misplaced. As you probably already know, digital cameras tend to have automatic built in 'post-processing', which is very similar to the kind of processing that you might otherwise do manually on the computer. So, although there's value in having strong images that make the most of the system without demanding extra manipulation, to say that your photos have some kind of Arian Purity because they haven't been post-processed strikes me as rather silly.

Anyway, you're getting some pleasing images out of the S9500, that's the main thing.

Also, it was interesting to see proton's digital zoom image with increased detail. Proton, were you using the highest quality jpeg mode in camera for both pictures? How about when you saved for the web? Both have quite strong artifacts, I think, but the extra apparant detail is intriguing.
pterrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 6:36 PM   #497
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
Default

There are a lot of photographers that either don't like doing post processing, or feel that it is a way of cheating and not being "real" photography...

Myself, I'll cheat any way I have to in order to get the desired results. I'm not looking for style points for the execution... And I happen to love Photoshop...
dragondad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 7:05 PM   #498
Senior Member
 
proton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
Default

I used 9mp fine mode, so highest jpg quality. As said in the comments about the photo's, I simply cropped the digital zoomed photo, ofcourse it's logical that you see artifacts, on your screen the cropped picture looks a lot larger than on paper :-)
A screen has 72dpi, a printed photo has 200 to 300dpi . Print this out in 200dpi and it will look like a large stamp. Try to discover artifacts in that heh? :lol:
The other photo was cropped to about 320x240 to cut out the same part of the streetlight, then enlarged to approx. 640x480 (thus doing a digital zoom on the pc instead of "in camera").
To see what you see on your screen also on paper, you would have to print a photo of 120 x 90 centimeters in size.... or make a smaller print and look at it with a magnifierglass :-) And why would you do that? i never look at any framed photo on my wall with a magnifierglass! :-)
Anyway, any digital photo would show artifacts if enlarged enough. And the non-digital zoomed photo was a 100% crop which was enlarged 400% so any lack of detail would ofcourse clearly turn up. The DZoomed photo was cropped and enlarged inside the camera already, and on my pc I only cropped further to 640x480, also logical that artifacts would become more visible. But I have no idea why you see more noise and more detail! Maybe it has to do with the way the camera recalculates the image?

PS I checked the settings of FASTSTONE which I used for the webimages, the jpg's were saved at 90%, so a little of the original quality got lost in the process.
proton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2005, 7:49 PM   #499
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 41
Default

proton wrote:
Quote:
I used 9mp fine mode, so highest jpg quality. As said in the comments about the photo's, I simply cropped the digital zoomed photo, ofcourse it's logical that you see artifacts, on your screen the cropped picture looks a lot larger than on paper :-)
A screen has 72dpi, a printed photo has 200 to 300dpi . Print this out in 200dpi and it will look like a large stamp. Try to discover artifacts in that heh? :lol:
The other photo was cropped to about 320x240 to cut out the same part of the streetlight, then enlarged to approx. 640x480 (thus doing a digital zoom on the pc instead of "in camera").
To see what you see on your screen also on paper, you would have to print a photo of 120 x 90 centimeters in size.... or make a smaller print and look at it with a magnifierglass :-) And why would you do that? i never look at any framed photo on my wall with a magnifierglass! :-)
Anyway, any digital photo would show artifacts if enlarged enough. And the non-digital zoomed photo was a 100% crop which was enlarged 400% so any lack of detail would ofcourse clearly turn up. The DZoomed photo was cropped and enlarged inside the camera already, and on my pc I only cropped further to 640x480, also logical that artifacts would become more visible. But I have no idea why you see more noise and more detail! Maybe it has to do with the way the camera recalculates the image?

PS I checked the settings of FASTSTONE which I used for the webimages, the jpg's were saved at 90%, so a little of the original quality got lost in the process.
I appreciate that looking at these images doesn't reflect the quality of the images as one would expect to view them - sorry for any misunderstanding.

I would expect that the digital zoom picture would not be able to introduce any detail that wasn't in an ordinary full-resolution one. So like most people, I think, I always rather dismissed digital zooms, as apart from being able to compose differently while taking the picture, they wouldn't really add anything new. As it looks like maybe some of the detail which is missing from the first, non-digital zoom, image could have been lost to jpeg artefacts, I wanted to be extra sure that the detail couldn't possibly have been there when the image first came out of the camera, at a normal (full-res jpeg fine) setting. At least, I think that was what I was thinking... kind of a small point, but it would be simpler in a way to go back to thinking digital zoom was pointless:-). I'm kind of tired now, :-) g'night.
pterrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2005, 1:01 AM   #500
Senior Member
 
SteveDak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,471
Default

I received the following reply from Fuji concerning the add-on lens issue and post it here for everyone's edification;

Quote:
Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA's Contact Center. Please allow us to assist you.


The FinePix S9000 digital camera can use 58mm filters available from professional photo supply retailers. Unfortunately, you cannot attach adapter rings, telephoto lenses or wide-angle lenses to the S9000 lens. We are unaware of what Raynox has been producing for this unit and do not recommend using them until we have run tests.

We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us again. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm digital imaging products and services.
It seems my original assessment was correctas they seem quite adamant about not attaching anything but filters to the 9500 - the adapter ring comes as a bit of a surprise though. I have copied them the Raynox marketing info although I suspect they will haveprobably got on to this one themselves, already! As I said earlier, they don't even recommend their own tele-con lens, which is actually quite light and I'm sure they would not have missed this marketing opportunity without good cause (although based on 7947's recent input, there may well be lens technology reasons for this -which I'm certainly not qualified to comment on).

There mightbe an "issue" about to develop between Fuji & Raynox - I think Fuji are wrong not to spell the above out in the 9500 owner's manual & I think Raynox are equally guilty of shabby opportunism. If I were you Proton I would take this up with Raynox.


SteveDak 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 12:10 PM.