Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2006, 7:39 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

zygh wrote:
Quote:
Gozinta, the OP referred to the fact that he/she wants to take pictures of people indoors. Well, as P&S go, usable high ISOs are way more important than OS. I used to have and use a FZ30 and I know what I'm talking about. Now, when we're referring to dSLRs, then we're talking a whole new different pie-cake.DSLRs already have a decent high ISO performance. OScomes in handy when you're doing tele shooting. BUT,if I were to choose between anoisy camera (like Panasonic, Kodak and even Canon)with OS and a "clean" camera (Fuji) lacking OS, guess which one I would choose? So, speaking from this point of view, the OS is negligeablecomparedto ISO performance. At least as far as P&S go and referring to Maureen99's expectations of use from that particular camera. Too many newbie's are fooled by OS when it comes to picking a "do-it-all" P&S.

I'd still go for the S6500. That camera would provide both tele (bird shooting, 300mm equiv.) and wide (indoor shooting, 28mm equiv.(!)) while delivering the goods as far as high ISO performance is concerned (at least that is what is expected as long as it uses the same sensor configuration as the F30) so that OS would never be missed.
Let me say this: I think Fuji makes an excellent camera. I seriously researched the S9000, S9100, and S6500fd for my next camera. If I weren't going with a DSLR, I'd probably get the S6500fd myself.

With that said, I don't fully agree with what you've said above. While the Fujis do have better high-ISO performance than many other P&S cameras, they do still exhibit noticeable noise above 200 ISO. If I can take a clean photo at 200 ISO with anti-shake, that's better than taking a noisy photo at 400 ISO.

Anti-shake, image stabilization, or whichever name it goes by, isn't going to be a miracle cure to bad technique. But it seems to be well documented that it does help quite a bit.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 8:46 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
Let me say this: I think Fuji makes an excellent camera. I seriously researched the S9000, S9100, and S6500fd for my next camera. If I weren't going with a DSLR, I'd probably get the S6500fd myself.

With that said, I don't fully agree with what you've said above. While the Fujis do have better high-ISO performance than many other P&S cameras, they do still exhibit noticeable noise above 200 ISO. If I can take a clean photo at 200 ISO with anti-shake, that's better than taking a noisy photo at 400 ISO.

Anti-shake, image stabilization, or whichever name it goes by, isn't going to be a miracle cure to bad technique. But it seems to be well documented that it does help quite a bit.
I guess we have to define noticeable noise but it always helps to post examples of what you mean.

Here several photos from another thread that you may have already seen. They were taken with a Fuji F30. I don't see any noise at ISO 400.... in fact at ISO 1600 though the photos may not be as crisp, I wouldn't call it noise. At leasty not to the extent of undesriable.

Keep in mind that these photos are on a website that has file restrictions, which means the originals are even better. Also, I would imagine that you might get even better results from the other Fuji cameras being mentioned in this thread


Here is an ISO 100 sample.





Here's one at ISO 400. Though I was running the camera on Auto ISO, I don't know why the camera picked it.... it was taken on the same day within 15 minutes of the previousISO 100 shot, maybe it got shadier out, but I have no complaints about the quality of the image at ISO 400.







The next three shots were takenindoors in low incandesant light at ISO 1600




ISO 1600





....and yet another ISO 1600

By the way, some people have suggested that the Fuji colors are flat. The color you see is just the way it was in person.... at least on my monitor. As far as I am concerned comparing color satuaration levels on most P&S cameras is deceiving because that is mostly a result of in-camera processing, which in most cameras can be boosted by changing settings or modified during post processing. In some P&S cameras the quality of the colors and contrast is greatly affected bythe qualityof the lens, but that mostly applies to the larger models with brighter high quality optics.






meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 9:41 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

Those shots are nice. I'm not suggesting that the noise is unacceptable. I'm simply stating that increased ISO (and it's accompanying noise) is not, IMHO, always a suitable alternative to optical image stabilization.

I can't find any reviews on the Fuji S9100 or S6500fd, but there are several available for the S9000. Here is a quick cut-n-paste from two of those reviews:

From Steve's Digicams:....."Image noise is usually present in consumer digicams at high sensitivities, and the S9000 is no exception. Noise can be detected in shadows at ISO 200, in highlight areas at ISO 400, and is noticeable throughout the image at settings of ISO 800 and 1600. There's also a noticeable loss of image detail at ISO 800 and 1600, the result of in-camera noise reduction. "

From dpreview: ......"it's fair to say the S9000 is the about as close any manufacturer has ever come to producing a fixed-lens camera that offers real SLR-like handling and operation. It certainly looks like a DSLR, and at lower ISO settings it produces results you have to look at very closely before you can see they're not from one. On the other hand it is in many ways frustratingly far from offering a true alternative to an SLR; high ISO performance is good for a small-sensor camera, but simply doesn't compare to even the cheapest entry-level SLR."

Again, I think Fuji makes a great camera. I just don't like how they market a high ISO setting as a replacement for optical shake-reduction.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 9:47 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

gadgetnut, the thing is that with a dSLR-like there are always bigger compromises to be made than with dSLRs. Knowing this and reading what the OP expectations of a cam were, I just thought that the S6500 would give best results. Ofcourse OS and ISO performance compliment each other but when it comes to choosing one or the other, which one would you choose? I'd go for ISO without a moment's hesitation. OS can always be partly replaced by the use of high ISOs/tripod/monopod.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 10:13 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

zygh wrote:
Quote:
gadgetnut, the thing is that with a dSLR-like there are always bigger compromises to be made than with dSLRs. Knowing this and reading what the OP expectations of a cam were, I just thought that the S6500 would give best results. Ofcourse OS and ISO performance compliment each other but when it comes to choosing one or the other, which one would you choose? I'd go for ISO without a moment's hesitation. OS can always be partly replaced by the use of high ISOs/tripod/monopod.
I agree...It is worth the giving up image stabilization to get high ISO. I had a PanasonicFZ30 and image stabilization was not enough to make me keep the camera. The noise on that thing was gross. The FZ30 had more noise at 400 ISO than my Fuji does at 3200 ISO. Most cameras have one more ISO setting than they are capable of... meaning unusable unless you feel it is better to have a noisy picture than no picture at all. The FZ30 had a max setting of 800, but it was beyond unusable. What good is a camera that can't take pictures over 200 ISO? If you need a "daylight only unless I use a flash"digital camera, it is the best thing going. It's a shame, because there were a lot of things I liked about that camera. If I hadn't dumped the FZ30 for a DSLR, I would have definitlypickedone of the Fuji Ultrazooms. The Fuji is tough to beat in low light.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 10:13 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

zygh wrote:
Quote:
Ofcourse OS and ISO performance compliment each other but when it comes to choosing one or the other, which one would you choose? I'd go for ISO without a moment's hesitation. OS can always be partly replaced by the use of high ISOs/tripod/monopod.
I guess we just disagree on that point. That's cool. See, the same exact thing could be said in reverse. "High ISO settings cansometimes beavoided by the use of image stabilization. I.S. canalso replace the need for a tripod/monopod in many cases."

"But hey, if someone wants to give me a Fuji6500fd, I'd jump all over it! :|
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 10:32 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
zygh wrote:
Quote:
Ofcourse OS and ISO performance compliment each other but when it comes to choosing one or the other, which one would you choose? I'd go for ISO without a moment's hesitation. OS can always be partly replaced by the use of high ISOs/tripod/monopod.
I guess we just disagree on that point. That's cool. See, the same exact thing could be said in reverse. "High ISO settings cansometimes beavoided by the use of image stabilization. I.S. canalso replace the need for a tripod/monopod in many cases."

"But hey, if someone wants to give me a Fuji6500fd, I'd jump all over it! :|
I think Zygh's major point is if you have choose on over the other, HighISO is the one to keep.

Though they both can help reduce the need for a tripod, if I had to give on up, it would not be high ISO.

In indoor low light situations like the pictures I posted of those flowers, image stabilization would not have helped. Those shots could note have been taken without high ISO unless you resort to the use of a flash. Now those are only test photos of flowers so who cares, but that could just has easily been photos of a dance recital where a flash is not allowed and image stabilzation isn't worth anything without high ISO. In a situation like that,high ISO will work without image stabilization but not the other way around.

Here is a high ISO (1600)picture that could not be taken with image stabilzation alone. A flashwas not allowed at this event. Even if it was, a flash in this case is undesireable because it would wash out the colorful stage lighting. In this case a tripod and or image stabilization alone could not have taken this shot.




meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 11:02 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
Here is a high ISO (1600)picture that could not be taken with image stabilzation alone. A flashwas not allowed at this event. Even if it was, a flash in this case is undesireable because it would wash out the colorful stage lighting. In this case a tripod and or image stabilization alone could not have taken this shot.
I agree completely. I don't think you could ever eliminate the need for high ISO settings. I think almost all digicams have higher ISO settings available now, including the cameras which also offer image stabilization. I don't think you'd ever have to pick one or the other. It's just some cameras have IS and some don't.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 11:10 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
I agree completely. I don't think you could ever eliminate the need for high ISO settings. I think almost all digicams have higher ISO settings available now, including the cameras which also offer image stabilization. I don't think you'd ever have to pick one or the other. It's just some cameras have IS and some don't.
The fact that a camera gives the user the ability to select a highrr ISO value is one thing. The fact that that particular ISO value is usable is a whole new different thing. And this is where Fuji blows away the competition.. as far as P&S is concerned.

Please, do some more researchon the matter. Read some good reviews, see for yourselfsome test shot samples.


zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 11:45 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

zygh wrote:
Quote:
Please, do some more researchon the matter. Read some good reviews, see for yourselfsome test shot samples.
Oh believe me, I have. I was seriously considering either the S9000, S9100 or the S6500fd as my next camera. I know they aregreat cameras....no debate there at all. I also know that they do a better job in low light than most in their class. I just do not believe that bumping up the ISO is a suitable replacement for IS. Especially when there are several excellent cameras which have both.
gadgetnut 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 8:02 AM.