PDA

View Full Version : S9000 Review



minimax
10-18-2005, 04:59 AM
Hi,

I am a big fan of these reviews here since years, as I think they are well balanced between technoid :-) and user oriented.

However, I was a bit surprised about the S9000 review.

Don't get me wrong, I am not into the "The xx is better than the yyy, you see it different so you must be wrong" business.....

Its all about the ISO comaprison.

I guess that expectations, after the F10, have been a bit hgh. Looking at the noise test II thought Uhhh... what a pitty, Fuji is not delivering.... but being in digital photography for quite a while, I decided to download the 1600 ISO "Test - setup" shot and see how it prints.

So havin it in Photoshop, I resized it to 18cm x 24 cm @300 dpi (sorry folks - I live in a metric world - it translates roughly to 7" x 9.5 " or so) and printed it out on my Canon Pixma and a good photo paper.

The result was very good indeed! Not as sharp as, say, the ISO 100 shot, but nothing which I have ever seen from a compact camera. Very godd.

(Just a note: I ran it through NeatImage then aand it printed out very nicely!)

So I thought this is interesting, lets see how this compares to the FZ30 ('cause I am between these two models and I think many readers are!), so I went to Jeffs review of that camera, wanted to downloard .... buuuuuut what a BAD surprise! No photo of that test setup, but only Jeffs boring chair (sorry, Jeff)! Not comparable at all.

Ok, I thought, give it a try with that famous night shots.

Buuut - oh Jeff! These shots are entirely different!!! Whereas the Fuji shots are well oversaturated whith just too bright streetlamps and windows, the FZ 30 shots are merely undersaturated!!


So at the end I am lost.... no way to compare :-(

Jeff: Anything you can do about this?

Cheers,

Andreas

(PS: I sort of dislike your conclusion, saying that the FZ 30 is usable even at higher ISO's with something like NeatImage and not saying something simmilar in the S9000 review - looking at the photos ISO 1600 seems to be usable very well, once de - noised carefully)

Richard Gill
11-02-2005, 02:57 AM
I've been looking for some time before buying and have read reviews till they come out of my ears. Started with the FZ 20 and S2 IS and handled both. Although the movie mode on the S2 nearly sold it for me the camera just dosn't feel like the real thing. Disappointed with the FZ 30 review particularly with the high ISO noise although accept that this is inherent with the type. Then handled the 9000 and it just felt great - manual zoom- just like the old times, and coupled with a reasonable wide angle and good movie mode. Would be great with IS but you can't have eveything at this price. Sample photos on the forum have almost sold this to me.

tbcass
11-19-2005, 07:05 AM
The author said that the price for the Fuji FinePix S9000 is close to a DSLR but that isn't true. The cheapest DSLR equiped with a similar lens would (considering speed, quality and focal length) would cost at least $1200 street compaired to under $600 for this camera. If it meets my needs (which it does) it is a far better deal than any DSLR. I believe that dollar for dollar this is the best camera you can buy bar none. Sure, DSLR's perform better in a few specialized circumstances but 99% of the time for the consumer that this camera is aimed at it will perform just as well. I don't think most reviewers get this point across very well. To most of us price/performance is very important.

Tom

Rex914
11-19-2005, 10:52 AM
The author said that the price for the Fuji FinePix S9000 is close to a DSLR but that isn't true. The cheapest DSLR equiped with a similar lens would (considering speed, quality and focal length) would cost at least $1200 street compaired to under $600 for this camera. If it meets my needs (which it does) it is a far better deal than any DSLR. I believe that dollar for dollar this is the best camera you can buy bar none. Sure, DSLR's perform better in a few specialized circumstances but 99% of the time for the consumer that this camera is aimed at it will perform just as well. I don't think most reviewers get this point across very well. To most of us price/performance is very important.

Tom
I agree with the general drift of your argument, but I respectfully disagree with your generalization that DSLR's are specialized tools because they aren't. You seem to be under the impression that DSLR's are only used by photojournalists or photographers shooting at sporting events. While digicams have come a long way, they are still miles away from delivering the same image quality and overall versatility that a DSLR has. If you print 4x6 or only publish to the web, then I concede that DSLR's are useless, but my big point in favor of DSLR's is that they are not complicated, specialized tools. Like anything else, they're still cameras, very good ones at that. I know that there are many normal, non-photographic oriented families out there enjoying their D50's and 350D's as family cameras, and they didn't have to spend a fortune at all for it.

With the cheapest DSLR's costing under $600 and decent kits coming for just above $600, they are going mainstream, and their price performance ratio will continue to grow over the next few years. I fully expect an entry level DSLR to cost below $500 by next year. Moreover, even now, it no longer costs $1200 to get an equivalent camera lens combo, more like $900 (Nikon D50 + Sigma 18-200 which with crop factor becomes 27.5-300, matching the Fuji's lens). As time goes on, prices fall, and as it currently stands, prices for DSLR's are falling a whole lot faster than prices for any class of digicams because they've nearly bottomed out.

In the short run, yes your argument about price is correct, but in the long run or even within the next year, it'll begin to not be correct. ;)

- Rex914

tbcass
11-20-2005, 06:38 AM
I am an advanced amateur with 36 years of experience using various 35 mm cameras, lenses and accessories (I currently own 3). I say this so you know where I'm coming from. I do not consider 35mm DSLR's to be specialized cameras. What I said was they will out perform the S9000 in certain circumstances. I also said you rarely come accross those circumstances. Maybe "specialized" was the wrong word. The idea that non DSLR cameras are only for 4x6 photos is wrong. I have a 3 year old Olympus C4000 4MP camera that takes supurb photos that equal anything I took with my 35 mm cameras up to 8x10. The Fuji certainly will outperform that. The C4000 is slow however. I don't know where your $900 price point came from I can't find that combo for less than $1100. Lets not use extreme lowest price but general pricing. I was able to find prices for the S9000 for under $500 on the web but I don't trust those sites. Besides, $900 is still more than I'm willing to pay. $600 seems right.

By next year if DSLR's fall below $500 cameras like the S9000 will also be much cheaper so my argument will still be valid. For my uses and the vast majority of users the Fuji S9000 Is a much smarter choice unless you can afford a DSLR. Personally I have better uses for my money.

The Sigma lens you mentioned is significantly slower (f 2.8 vs f 3.5) than the lens in the S9000 so it really isn't a valid comparison. Also the D50 is 6 MP vs 9 MP for the S9000. What you are compairing is apples to oranges.