PDA

View Full Version : Fuji S9000 New Samples (even full size ISO 800 & 1600)



zero
08-13-2005, 06:45 PM
Here are some samples from the Fujifilm S9000.

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/s9500/index.php?page=sample_images&lpage=/digital/cameras/range.php&flash=7


The picnic basket shot is stunning. The ISO 200 shot of the girl looks good as well. Yes, the ISO 800 shot is noisier then F10, but I still think it is usable and less noisy then many ISO 400 P&S cameras. What do you'all think?

So far, I love this camera, Features & Images look good to me! ( So far, the only P&S I really liked was the Canon G6, now I like this one as well ).

Rex914
08-13-2005, 10:13 PM
Not to rain down on Fuji, but I'm not impressed by the ISO 800 and 1600 shots. There are these very weird artifacts going on that destroy the details. The picture is still perfectly usable when downsized for small prints or for the web, but 100% crops are out of the question. This is unfortunately a step back for Fuji. They really should have not jumped the MP bandwagon and ruined their chance at delivering a smashing product.

I will still hope to see better samples in official reviews, but these preliminary photos already show a lot.

nickphoto123
08-15-2005, 05:21 PM
Hello All,

I printed out several of the samples.

I am extremely impressed. The 800 shot is excellent.

When viewing the 800 shot please remember the color temperature of the lights smooths detail almost as much as any in camera noise reduction.

I'm not waiting, I'm buying the S9000. Soon to be Former F-828 user.

Regards, Nicholas

eastbluffs
08-15-2005, 06:59 PM
I also printed a couple (looking for such a camera recommendation for a friend).

Not bad at all; but not nearly as good ISO performance as most DSLR's. And this is the top quality achievable to be sure (proper tripod, exact lighting, top professional protographer, ideal color and photo composition, factory tuned prototype, etc). I would expect the every day hand-held user to get less than this, making this just another on the pile of same-o-same-o. Now, if they had IS ...

zero
08-15-2005, 08:30 PM
Did any of you by any chance print the ISO 800 shot? If so, how big did you print it? Did you like it?

I am curious how ISO 800 shot would look at 8x10. I am just too lazy to print it myself :D.

WhoIsThat
08-15-2005, 08:36 PM
Having examined the samples of S9000 at ISO 1600 and Rebel XT at 1600, both at full resolution, the winner is clear. Well, it was going to be clear anyway, but the difference is quite significant.

Each offers different advantages. I love using LCD to compose images which is not available with XT. On the other hand, the low light performance of XT is ahead of S9000 by a large margin. (Yes, I absolutely reviewed the available full-resolution images from both in detail0.

decisions, decisions... Argh. :mad:

nickphoto123
08-16-2005, 04:54 AM
Hello All,

Was that a $1,600 'L' lens on the 1600 XT image?

I would like to see a series of ISO images of a bride & groom in a church.

We have alot to explore with the S9000.

IS will not prevent Subject Movement, and would only delay the shutter lag.

It seems Fuji has read the many forums on the web and created a camera that addresses many of the concerns photographers have about their camera's functioning and image quality.

The Specs of the S9000 cover almost all of my needs, and miss the mark regarding a 7 second flash re-cycle time (I hope this was a typo),
no announced write time for RAW image capture, unable to copy from one card to the other in camera,etc.

In life, timimg is everything. With the Specs of the S9000, I am willing to get one and start taking better images than I am now with my F-828.
To wait on the sidelines for the 'Ideal' will cause me to miss too many photographic moments.

All IMHO,

Regards, Nicholas

cdifoto
08-16-2005, 05:05 AM
Not to rain down on Fuji, but I'm not impressed by the ISO 800 and 1600 shots. There are these very weird artifacts going on that destroy the details. The picture is still perfectly usable when downsized for small prints or for the web, but 100% crops are out of the question. This is unfortunately a step back for Fuji. They really should have not jumped the MP bandwagon and ruined their chance at delivering a smashing product.

I will still hope to see better samples in official reviews, but these preliminary photos already show a lot.

I have to agree. Those artifacts would not be acceptable to me. That's ridiculous even at ISO 80. They look best as thumbnails.

StanleyL
08-16-2005, 09:56 AM
I have to agree. Those artifacts would not be acceptable to me. That's ridiculous even at ISO 80. They look best as thumbnails.Gotta agree regarding ISO 800 and 1600. Can't imagine them useful as anything but thumbnails. A lot of consumers would be happy with the ISO 80 shots, that is if they can get them same as the professional with tripod who took those. If they chose to publish those shots, then you would expect that to be their best.

I don't see the debate on this one. Its an average P&S with long zoom that lacks IS, complete with crappy low light performance. If it doesn't suffer from bad shutter lag, my elderly mother would be happy to use this for travel shots, but I would leave it at home.

zero
08-16-2005, 11:29 AM
To me, the samples look good. The ISO 200 shot of the purple flower is quite amazing as well (on Fuji Japan site). The closeup shots of the model (black dress green background) had good details captured, I can even see individual strands of hair. The fishing pole shot on Fuji Japan had some really good details captured (especially on the circular metal part) as well.

Most P&S cams don't even shoot at ISO 800 (some even get really noisy at only ISO 200 ) but this one does shoot at ISO 800 and I think it does a decent job.

StanleyL
08-16-2005, 02:05 PM
To me, the samples look good. The ISO 200 shot of the purple flower is quite amazing as well (on Fuji Japan site). The closeup shots of the model (black dress green background) had good details captured, I can even see individual strands of hair. The fishing pole shot on Fuji Japan had some really good details captured (especially on the circular metal part) as well.

Most P&S cams don't even shoot at ISO 800 (some even get really noisy at only ISO 200 ) but this one does shoot at ISO 800 and I think it does a decent job.Not to say its not better than many P&S, but also not an impressive improvement, or even the top of the crop.

Looking at the individual hairs on the first ISO 80 shot (I suppose that's the one you mean), they seem munutely jagged and dusty as if oversharpened, the facial features are a bit soft. The focus seems set just a tad behind her head as the neckless and dress seem in focus but not the facial features. Overall, and this may just be me, the in-focus areas look overprocessed and electronically pushed, as one might expect given how small the pixils must be.

The ISO 1600 looks like sand paper and the 800 (to me) like very fine sand paper.

Fuji needs to get out of the megapixil war and make more meaningful changes. Then they'll have something. Again, this isn't bad and my mother would love the results - and there are other aspects to camera performance that photos don't show (like speed and consistancy) so maybe it really is something special, but these photos don't rock my boat.

zero
08-16-2005, 04:55 PM
Looking at the individual hairs on the first ISO 80 shot (I suppose that's the one you mean)

Thanks for the reply. Yes ISO 1600 sample does look really noisy. The 1st picture on the UK site is a different one. I can't find which Fuji site had the picture I commented about. :confused:

Edit: Found it.
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9500/images/sample1.jpg

StanleyL
08-17-2005, 02:27 PM
Thanks for the reply. Yes ISO 1600 sample does look really noisy. The 1st picture on the UK site is a different one. I can't find which Fuji site had the picture I commented about. :confused:

Edit: Found it.
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9500/images/sample1.jpg
I agree, this one looks better. I was just going to your original address at:
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/s9500/index.php?page=sample_images&lpage=/digital/cameras/range.php&flash=7
On second review, the ISO 800 looks perfectly usable for a small print (maybe 3.5 x 5) for a clean print and 4x6 for consumer quality. Only the ISO 1600 looks grainy even on a 2x3 inch display.

The ISO 80 shot, when viewed at actual full pixel, looked overprocessed but would probably be fine at 8x10 to all but the ultra-critical eye. The one you reference with at
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9500/images/sample1.jpg
actually looks pretty good at actual pixel display but terribly off at 1024x768.

Sorry to be so hypercritical if you find the results exciting. There's just other comparable products out there that offer as good or better results and, with IS, better consumer features.

Lets hope Fuji puts the lid on their MP-happy marketing department for the next round since they have all the pieces for a really great product.

zero
08-17-2005, 04:02 PM
Sorry to be so hypercritical if you find the results exciting.

No, you are not hypercritical. Everyone has a different way of looking at the picture. Thats why I posted the link and asked what people thought about it.

Even though these pictures look nice to me, I would have to look at the sample pictures that the hands-on reviewers post to make a proper judgement.

reyval2k
08-26-2005, 09:42 AM
It's so weird... With Anti-blur technology available for the S5200, why didn't they incorporate this in the S9000? That would have made the S9000 an ultimate must-have.

OliverH
08-26-2005, 04:07 PM
They did incorporate it into the s9000/s9500. See the specs under 'scene modes' here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072803fuji_s9000zs9500z.asp

The problem is that 'anti-blur' is nothing more than a fancy way of saying 'auto-ISO-increase' and does nothing to actually stabilize the lens. Too bad Fuji decided to pay their marketers as opposed to their designers. How many people would NOT pay an extra $150/150 pounds for a stablized 10.7x lens? Dummies. (going by the difference in the street price between the s9500 and fz30 - fz30 is available here in Canada, the s9500 is preorder only)

Oliver

Maikel
09-02-2005, 12:35 AM
I saw the sample pics and I'm not at all impressed. Even the ISO 200 shots show artifacts and the ISO 80 picnic basket shows noise where there shouldn't be any.
I'm convinced that Fuji uses a more effective software to soften the effects of high ISO than its competitors. I'm sure without these filters a S9000 ISO 400 picture would look very awful - just like pictures of a camera of any other brand.
Since 2 months I own a DSLR and now I know how a clean and sharp image can look like. No tricks, no magic and some noise at ISO 800 - that's it!
I cannot understand why everybody believes in a revolution in digital photography only because of some (efficient) software algorithms.

regards
Michael

nickphoto123
09-03-2005, 03:43 AM
The improved noise performance is also a function of the phyical structure of the Super CCD by Fuji.

I would like to see a poll of people who have:
1) only looked at the S9000 images on a screen and by
2)people who actually downloaded and printed the images.

I am in group #2 and I am extremely impressed with the S9000 images at various ISO's.

Regards, Nicholas

Mr.Jingles
09-04-2005, 01:26 PM
Hi,
Just joined the forum. I am thinking about getting a S9500. Anyone got any advice about this camera. I have been using a S7000 for over a year now.
Mr.Jingles

texinus
09-05-2005, 08:35 PM
Way to noisy, as noisy as FZ30.
I have a dream, the FZ30 with the finepix f10 sensor!

goletitout
09-06-2005, 12:57 PM
Absolutely right. And I have one more dream : a canon digital elph with the Fuji F10´s sensor und manual settings ;). But this dream won´t ever come true. It´s such a pity that all the companies are still bound to follow the Megapixel race.

JTL
09-06-2005, 10:10 PM
Give me the same sensor with 5MP (so that ISO 1600 would actually be usable), add image stablization...then I'll buy one...heck, I'd buy two! And I'd pay full price...heck, I'd pay more than full price (Fuji mis-marketing wonks, are you out there? :D ).

Katerine
09-08-2005, 11:47 AM
I see a lot of people frowning on the s9000's artifacts, however... this has to be taken in context with the image resolution.

anyone who's going to spend $700 on a digital camera *hopefully* will also have adobe photoshop on their computer... you all know that little basic included filter to reduce noise? well that would remove all the pixel sized imperfections in the image. the only drawback is that it also *slightly* blurs the image.
(i'm pretty sure the relavent functions are also available on lesser post processing software)

but at 9mp, slight bluring isn't much of an issue. just resize the photo to say 5 or 6mp and voila, artifact free, blur free image that can be printed quite large.

I haven't tried it yet with the samples, but I will soon. and i'll post results. I'm more an amature photographer but professional graphic designer, so I imediately say "no no, you can do so much with resolution!" when i see people critisizing cameras for too high a megapixel count.

one thing not mentioned... an 8gb cf card should capture about 2 hours of video, obsoleting my camcorder.

oh, and agreeing with everyone else, i'd definately pay extra for IS in this camera.

nickphoto123
09-08-2005, 04:40 PM
Hello All,

More pixels enable more cropping.

Image Stabilization is useless for moving subjects.

28 mm to 300 mm equivalent on a DSLR would cost +- $800 for low end glass, $2,500 +- for top quality glass.

Sync at ALL speeds !!! PC socket!!!!

My head started spinning reading all about the new $1000 Sony R-1 today.

I finally settled down and decided I will get my S9000 for all the sound reasons I had in my head when I woke up today (you may remember that I am a Sony F-828 user).

The Sony R-1 may lead Fuji to an APS sized Super CCD camera.
The S9000 will put me in a good position, for only $700, to sit back and let the market go by until the quality gets so good that I would then upgrade.
I am not in this position with my present F-828.

Regards, Nicholas

JTL
09-12-2005, 09:46 PM
Wow, so many people are ignoring the real issue with this camera...what good is ISO 1600 if the images look like crap? Does not everyone in the entire universe agree that the same sensor with less pixels would produce better images? This is not rocket science. 9MP, however, is a marketing gimmick that many are willing to fall for...

Fuji obivously has figured out that enough people value numbers over actual image quality.

And people can rationalize about the lack of IS all they want. But the truth is that EVERY camera that has IS produces clearer images with it on rather than off at longer focal lengths. Period.

nickphoto123
09-13-2005, 05:01 AM
1) Cropping is the most important photographic tool IMHO.
9 MP makes this easier.

2) Almost every camera's 1600 is what you call "c....".
I printed the 800 pics and they are fantastic, better than my Fuji NHG
film days.
Why do many shooters expect a high ISO to overcome poor exposure?
If you properly expose a 1600 shot the noise on the S9000 is printable.

3) IS, what do you do for moving subjects? Please answer this. The IS crowd never answers this statement, I may be missing something.

Regards, Nicholas

JTL
09-13-2005, 07:04 AM
I also most respectfully disagree as well, but healthy debate only helps define the market in the long-term, so it's good to discuss these things...

1. For me, image quality is more important than cropping. I ask anyone who reads this...what good is it to crop a lousy image?

2. Your statement regarding ISO 1600 is NOT true for several latest generation DSLRs. In the P&S world, who has ISO 1600 besides Olympus and Fuji (and Sony to come)? I say that ISO 1600 on the Fuji F10 is pretty damn good for a P&S camera and is a remarkable achievement for a camera of its size. If the S9000 had a 5-6MP sensor you would still have plenty of crop room, but the noise level would be significantly lower. You can't deny this. You can pretend it’s not true, but it is a fact none the less.

3. Your argument is based on a fallacy. IS is not intended to stop motion blur so to argue that it doesn't is not logical or valid. IS meant to stop camera shake. And, my statement from my previous post stands: EVERY camera that has IS produces clearer images with it on rather than off at longer focal lengths. Period. Once again, you can pretend that this is not true, but it is.

The S9000 is bound to be a good camera that will take good images. But, it could have been a great camera that beat the pants off of everything else out there. They missed the mark and chose to get caught up in the MP race instead...that's all I'm saying...and this is what happens when marketing wonks drive the decisions rather than visionaries...:)

Shooter
09-13-2005, 09:38 AM
Good posts from both sides of the table. I would argue that the reality is somewhere in the middle. The Fuji seems to have both upped the MPs and improved ISO response. The high MPs will be critical for the measurebators that rely only on one number. However, as other image quality aspects have been improved the camera is very good for those of us that look beyond the one number.

I find the ISO 800 images to be very useable… actually quite good. ISO 1600 on this camera will be a backup for extreme situations… like it is on many DSLRs and ISO 3200 is on other DSLRS such as the EOS 1D, which is probably the best consumer cam ISO performance. The images at 800 are better in terms of noise than ISO 200 on most point and shoots and ISO 400 on the expensive / quality point and shoots.

I would add that 400 ISO is good for action shots and low light. 800 ISO allows city light shots / street lighting to be hand held, at least at larger apertures. I know because in Vegas I took great handheld ISO 800 shots with a 50mm lens, just have to be still.

I would remind you JTL that only 15 years ago 800 ISO film speeds produced ‘unacceptable grain’ for some people but were a great tool for others, especially at regular prints. I personally was never blown away by film above ISO 1600 either.

One of the problems of digital images (although not really a problem) is that it is incredibly easy to zoom right in and find flaws. In fact show me a picture from the best professional dSLR and a five year old can take three seconds to zoom right in and find poor quality, high noise, etc.

In fact Ken Rockwell pointed out that one of the stupid websites which shows how important high megapixels is, used a crop factor that would result in a 9 foot by 12 foot print from a 3 megapixel camera to demonstrate quality problems. Try not to make the same mistake with ISO.

nickphoto123
09-13-2005, 05:33 PM
Now that was a good exchange of opinions.

Regards, Nicholas

JTL
09-13-2005, 07:19 PM
Now that was a good exchange of opinions.

Regards, NicholasThe way it should be...thanks for the dialogue!:)

OliverH
09-14-2005, 07:19 AM
I just wanted to chime in on this. Thanks for the great posts, JTL and Nick. To a degree, I agree with both of you. JTL, you're right - Fuji *should* have offered IS, imo, as well as reducing the sensor pixels while using the same CCD to reduce the potential for noise. I think that should have been their direction. Unfortunately, I don't work for Fuji. My suspicion is that someone talked with the marketing department a little too early in the process and was convinced that it would be easier to sell a higher MP camera with high ISO capabilities at a lower price point (due to nonexistence of costly IS mechanisms) rather than selling to photography enthusiasts only (who, of course, would be the only ones interested in a 6/7 mp camera with a lens that big with IS... of course). At least that's likely how their marketing dept. sold it to the designers.

My problem with this whole situation is that I need a new camera. I've got a wedding (mine) coming up next year with some serious honemoon pics just a-waitin' for me in Spain and I'm not going to waste 'em on my Pentax 550 (which is a decent enough p&s). So what are my options, really? There's nothing out there with better specs than the Fuji, though until the announcement that Minolta will no longer be sold in Canada (!!!) as of October 1, I was still leaning towards the A200. I'd like there to be IS, but in lieu of that, I'll take the higher ISO capabilities and learn to shoot better with that tool. I still think that there are so few situations where I'd use over 400 ISO, I'm still planning on shooting everything between 80-400. I simply don't want the hassle of having to post-process so many shots as I think that 800+ is still pretty useless, not withstanding the fact that I can't see the need for it in 99% of the shots I take. I just want some nice, clean, *printable* photos at 400 and below. That would make me pretty happy.

Oliver

abstractpat
09-15-2005, 08:32 AM
Hello all. I'm new here, but I've read about the same postings on almost all of the review site forums and they all say the same thing-"If only this camera had a 5mp-6mp sensor, then it would be worth something." Well, I guess what most people haven't thought about is that there is a menu function in which the user (you or I) could set the image size in terms of megapixels. Of course, this doesn't necessarily make up for the sensor having smaller pixel sights unlike the Sony with its APS sized sensor, but the Sony also doesn't have a PC flash sync for studio, a cable release, multiple exposure option, a 28-300mm lens, a movie mode, what else am I missing....

Food for thought

goletitout
09-15-2005, 10:43 AM
It´s true that by lowering the resolution, the noise pattern becomes finer, and so the noise becomes less visible...so the higher noise isn´t that annoying any more. This is something I also see on my Canon SD500. If I lower the resolution to 5 MP, oder to even 3 MP (wonderful 3MP...better than 3 MP on cameras with 3 MP higherst resolution), the pics show a lot less noise. You could also do this with the Fuji.

JTL
09-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Hello all. I'm new here, but I've read about the same postings on almost all of the review site forums and they all say the same thing-"If only this camera had a 5mp-6mp sensor, then it would be worth something." Well, I guess what most people haven't thought about is that there is a menu function in which the user (you or I) could set the image size in terms of megapixels. Of course, this doesn't necessarily make up for the sensor having smaller pixel sights unlike the Sony with its APS sized sensor, but the Sony also doesn't have a PC flash sync for studio, a cable release, multiple exposure option, a 28-300mm lens, a movie mode, what else am I missing....

Food for thought
It's not only number of pixels that matter...its pixel size that matters...lowering the in-camera res setting does nothing to change the size of the pixels. Anyone with an ounce of working knowledge will tell you that larger, less-densely packed pixels are preferable to smaller more densely packed-pixels. And, I'm sorry, at this stage of the game there is simply no excuse for not having IS...

It is a lost opportunity. Hopefully they decide to get it right next time and give us the "perfect" ultrazoom...

It's a very good camera none-the-less...just not world-beating...

OliverH
09-16-2005, 08:22 AM
I just wanted to mention that my local camera shop (1 block from my house) got this camera in last week and I was able to play with it a bit.

It felt good. The zoom is smooth, though slightly more 'slippery' than I was expecting. That's not a bad thing, though, as it'll make it easy to go from wide to tele in short order. The manual focus is a beautiful thing. I've missed a manual focus ring for a long while. I was only able to play with it in-store with a memory card (but not mine), so I have no pics to share. The LCD seemed pretty good, though was 'smeary' due to the low light in the store. The response was fast, and the ergonomics are excellent, especially the thumb surface on the back and the large grip, making it very easy to hold. I particularly like how easy it is to change the ISO and other necessary functions using the F button. If you have very large hands, this camera may be a bit difficult for you - I have medium sized hands and it still felt somewhat small. That's what I'm looking for though - I don't want a DSLR-sized camera. The LCD felt very solidly built and 'snapped' into its various positions.

I wish I could tell you more, but I'm not quite ready to buy one yet. If anyone is wondering about a particular something and would like me to check it out again, I suppose I could be persuaded.... :)

Oliver

- edit: I will try to dig up a CF/xD card this weekend and post some in-store pics for everyone.

Shooter
09-16-2005, 11:55 AM
Good run down OliverH. See if you can take the camera out for a five minute photo spree, better yet, time your visit for sunset. Might as well get all ISOs taken care of so we can get it all out in the open.

I too will bring an xD in as soon as the local shop has one of these.

jinx jinx
10-10-2005, 04:19 PM
I also most respectfully disagree as well, but healthy debate only helps define the market in the long-term, so it's good to discuss these things...

1. For me, image quality is more important than cropping. I ask anyone who reads this...what good is it to crop a lousy image?

2. Your statement regarding ISO 1600 is NOT true for several latest generation DSLRs. In the P&S world, who has ISO 1600 besides Olympus and Fuji (and Sony to come)? I say that ISO 1600 on the Fuji F10 is pretty damn good for a P&S camera and is a remarkable achievement for a camera of its size. If the S9000 had a 5-6MP sensor you would still have plenty of crop room, but the noise level would be significantly lower. You can't deny this. You can pretend it’s not true, but it is a fact none the less.

3. Your argument is based on a fallacy. IS is not intended to stop motion blur so to argue that it doesn't is not logical or valid. IS meant to stop camera shake. And, my statement from my previous post stands: EVERY camera that has IS produces clearer images with it on rather than off at longer focal lengths. Period. Once again, you can pretend that this is not true, but it is.

The S9000 is bound to be a good camera that will take good images. But, it could have been a great camera that beat the pants off of everything else out there. They missed the mark and chose to get caught up in the MP race instead...that's all I'm saying...and this is what happens when marketing wonks drive the decisions rather than visionaries...:)

Do you think then that the Fuji 5200 which has a 5mp sensor will produce better pictures than the Fuji 9000??

tbcass
12-25-2005, 06:17 PM
My rating is based on what you get for the price. A DSLR may be a little better but equipped with a comparable lens even the cheapest would cost hundreds more. For all but the most demanding applications the S9000 will do just as well. I have 40+ years as a serious amateur photographer. I have owned 4 SLR Film cameras and an Olympus C4000 Digital. The C4000 takes fine photos but I became frustrated with it's limitations (shutter lag, difficult to get at manual settings, slow shot to shot times, limited Zoom) The s9000 solves all those problems.
I have to say this camera is not for everybody. Out of the box the pictures have little in-camera processing and may look a little flat if you're used to a point and shoot. That's because most serious photographers want to do their tweaking out of camera. There are in camera settings that allow you to liven up your pictures but if you are looking for that in your face high contrast saturated color look many point and shoot cameras give out of box you won't get it. If however your looking for natural accurate color rendition look no further. For a camera of this price I found noise levels almost non-existent at 80 and 100 iso, very low at iso 200, low at 400 useable at 800 and high at 1600. The controls were easy to use and most of the common settings could be accessed with one button push. There is some softness in the lens at the corners (typical of long zooms) but it was visible only when blown up to huge size on screen (about 2 feet by 3 feet) Do not judge this camera on initial reactions. At first I was disappointed but after learning the controls and tweaking the settings I can say I am very happy with my purchase and would recommend it highly to any serious photographer.
:)

pitfall
12-27-2005, 06:28 PM
This has been a very informative thread and a number of valid points have been made...both pro and con. The S9000 isn't the perfect camera but which one is? I don't want to be saddled with a huge gear bag holding multiple lenses and I don't want to miss photo opportunities fiddling around changing them. Having tested the other fixed-lens cameras in the same class as the S9000 made it a clear choice for me. The IS on its competitors didn't overcome the problems even at lower ISOs and none offered the great working range lens (for my own purposes) of the Fuji. That is not to say that I wouldn't welcome IS on the camera or a less dense sensor or a faster burst mode or various other modifications. To be fair, I'd change various things on the other ones too. Can't wait to see what the future holds....just think how far digital photography has come in such a short time. For myself, the S9000 will have to do for now, and I think it will do just fine. Maybe even a little better:D !