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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2005, 11:13 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default

Yes, and I did say this, the FZs flash is not very good and as I pointed out the S9500 beat it hands down on flash shots which was exactly as it should have been, it was the difference with theoverall softnessof the daylight shots that bothered me.

And yes, the Fuji does overexpose, I've been playing with the S9500 most of the day and thebest settings so farare tounder expose by 1/2 stop and set the sharpness to "hard".


I have a very limited choice of subjet as I am mainly housebound but I'll see what else I can try it on
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 1:36 PM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
Default

Hi

I am not a pro, but never use Auto, or even P. I use manual settings as and try to make the camera what I want to do, not what it thinks I want to do. Sometimes I succeed:-)



Bestest wishes

Crystin
CrystinJoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 3:44 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 126
Default

CrystinJoni, it's great that you are working in manual. You can get so much more out of a camera that way. But a camera that offers auto/program modes - particularly a camera at the Fuji's price - should work well in those modes.

Like a lot of people interested in the 9000, I'm concerned about some of the user comments about image quality. I'm very encouraged by the reports of excellent quality RAW images. But I find it troubling that so many 9000/9500 owners are reporting washed out details and over-compressed JPEGs.
B1ue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 5:57 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

Hey frazzle...I'm still waiting for the lowlight Sunrae pics you promised...you know - the comparison shots you took that prove the superiority of the FZ30 in low light situations. As far as the outdoor pics you posted, you're right about one thing...they certainly are embarrasing - for the photographer! If that was the best I could do, I certainly wouldn't post it on the world wide web...or did you mess it up intentionally with photoshop? I thought you were some kind of professional photographer...or do you just say you test cameras for a living? Or maybe selling your homemade cameras in NYC from the land down under? I'm beginning to think Nefius was right...sounds like crap.

Maybe you could do us all a favor and post one pic of you putting your mouth where your money is...

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 4:22 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
Default

I believe the washed out issue is because the Fuji is slightly overexposing. If the exposure was taken down a half stop or so, it may well cure that. Until I get one myself, I am not sure, but I am going to download some of the comparison images this weekend and look a the histograms in Paintshop Pro 9. I appreciate what you say about auto settings, but each camera has it's strengths. Both cameras can be used across a range of exposures and settings, and surely it is performance across the range that is importand, as opposed to a specific point.

Another concern I have is that the test shots have used zoomed shots, andthe Panasonic has IS, which the Fuji does not.

I will wait for the reviews to come out, and comapre those.



Bestest wishes

Crystin
CrystinJoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 4:46 AM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
Default

Mr Hun, your rather aggressive nature puzzled me, that is until I read this:

http://www.realm-of-shade.com/zarathustra/attila.html

Then it all became clear. As you seem to be somewhat of an authority onphotography and other related topics such as CS2, perhaps you could indicate a link to your website? Have you any images posted?

Low light comparisons involved a Canon D60 with a CMOS sensor some eight times the size of the FZ30`s CCD. Far less noise but no chance of a good shot. Posting any results madewith the Canon is pointless as it bears no resemblence to a 9500.

If you feel comfortable with the Fuji, then by all means use one. I`m sure it has some redeeming features.

I realise you may have trouble with pronunciation, but frazzle I am not!
razzledog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 5:21 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
gaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 209
Default

Both, we are not interested if your orientationsare more "Doggie" or "Mongol", or if you eat at the Panasonic or the Fuji canteen. :lol:

This thread is about comparing 2 cameras, with pictures taken in same conditions, with measured comments, not blunt remarks.

Look forward to adult discussions.


By the way, I have seen nice macros with both cameras...
gaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 1:46 PM   #48
AWT
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Default

I propose the rules for the grand shoot-out are as follows:

1. Camera tripod mounted,shutter on self-timer

2. Manual ISO100 sensitivity

3. Aperture priority, lens at full aperture

4. Distance from camera to subject - 5 metres

5. Focal length 135mm (35mm equiv)

6. Photometry set to frame average

7. Incandescent lighted indoor 'still life' subject

8. Auto WB

All we need to agree on before proceeding is a colourfuleveryday object that we all have to hand..
AWT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 7:11 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

Thanks for telling us what this thread is all about, Gaul, but you didn't originate it, sailfree did, in his (or her) first and only post to this forum. Sailfree's only concern was which camera was less noisy in low light. And who elected you spokesman for the group? Are you the new S9000 vs Panasonic DMZ-FZ30 Moderator? Blunt remarks? Adult discussions? Stop being a pooh-pooh head, and let's have some fun here. If you want to be a drip, start your own thread. Don't be angry with me, I just want to see which camera has more noise in low light...without all the BS. Speaking of BS...

Then along comes drizzledig, who (on 9/27) claims he has already made this determination:

"Ishot test pics with both cameras a few days ago and was amazed by the difference in image quality. There is NO comparison in my opinion. "

[obviously, the S9500 and FZ30, since those were subject of this thread]

You were the first to ask to see the low light pics from the Fuji, Gaul. Nafta also asked to see some Fuji low light pics.

This is what you got back from the dog:

"No other camera could have handled such a shoot. The essence of movement was what I was out to achieve, so I am more than happy with the results. The only other camera that is able to shoot like this is the FZ20. If I were to publish the comparison shots between the 9500 and the FZ30, it would be highly embarrassing for the Fuji!"

[Essence of movement...yeah - in other words, I really like blurry pics. That's what we're waiting for - the Fuji shots - go ahead and embarrass the Fuji]

That's when I asked to see the Fuji pics.

After nefius suggested that the mutt hadn't really tested the Fuji, the mutt replied:

"I have nightmares about constantly switching AA`s, plus they ALWAYS fail right when you need them, whymanufacturers persist with them is a complete mystery.I can`t see Canon or Nikon using AA`s to power the 5D or the D2X type of camera. If theycontinue to utilise these awful excuses for batteries, why not open up the battery compartments to allow fitting CRV3`s or rechargable Lithium-ion types? AAchargers not only can`t decide when charging is complete, they have also beenresponsiblefor burning down the oddhouse or two!."

[what did all that have to do with noise in available light situations?]

Then, on 9/28, we get this tease from dogbreath:

"Rest assured, identical pictures, only vastly different in quality will be posted soon!"

[I can hardly wait]

Finally, on 9/29, the frizzypooch struts his stuff with 2 lame pics of the Croydon Bake House.

[not exactly the low light comparison pics we were all expecting]

Thinking I must be impressed with his pictures, rasterwoof lashes out:

"Wha` d `yer say now Rhinni? I always put my mouth where my money is! If you need any more pics, just let me know. Cheers, mate!."

[I think he might have meant put his money where his mouth is?]

Tasselterrier then responds to AleX-R-'s criticism of his methods:

"The guyobviously didn`t have over 50 years experience in all things photographic. The fact that the test cameras both did their own thing hadeverything to do with the end result. Lens sharpness is the maincriteria for overall performance, in the case of the Leica, it quite outshines the Fuji. ( I mean f4.9 is rather ridiculous compared to f2.8)"

[I have no idea what he is talking about, there since both cameras have an aperture range of F2.8 to F11, and in his pics, the Fuji was set at F4.9 and the FZ30 was set at F5.6...what is ridiculous?]

Then, floozieyap totally loses his mind:

"There seems to be more Fuji95ers here than Panaheads,oddly enough."

[duh]

Again, I asked for the low light comparison pics.

Then, suddenly and without warning, drippingdoogie lauched a vicious and totally unwarranted attack on my sensibilities...he called me MR. Hun. How insulting!!!

Then he tries a little canine psychology:

"As you seem to be somewhat of an authority onphotography and other related topics such as CS2, perhaps you could indicate a link to your website? Have you any images posted?"

[as if I needed to have my own website to recognize a good BS story when I hear one]

Confession time:

"Low light comparisons involved a Canon D60 with a CMOS sensor some eight times the size of the FZ30`s CCD. Far less noise but no chance of a good shot. Posting any results madewith the Canon is pointless as it bears no resemblence to a 9500."

[Far less noise? I thought you said the FZ30 even blew the DSLR away? You didn't compare the FZ30 against the Fuji? I think you did, and are afraid to show the pics.]

C'mon doggiedroppings, let's see those low light S9000 pics you took!

I took an interest in this thread, to see some available light pics taken with the S9000...in three weeks of waiting, I have yet to see one.

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2005, 7:22 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
gaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 209
Default

rinniethehun wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for telling us what this thread is all about, Gaul,
Quote:
light pics taken with the S9000...in three weeks of waiting, I have yet to see one
You are welcome!




Low-light pictures with S9000 finally coming:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...16&page=19

gaul 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 1:28 AM.