Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am sorry that the new purchaser seems not to enjoy the 4900. I
think that patience here should prevail and getting to know what
the camera will do will change his mind. After 3 months I am very
satisfied with the results. I have mentioned my displeasure with
the focussing and the crappy battery you are given but I would
certainly buy a 4900 again if needed.
Leon
--
leon
Kevin,I am assuming that you meant this in response to my whining. I
think that you may have a point, but I do have some reservations
about the 4900's image quality. So far (and I would like to
emphasize that it is only after a few shots) I find the 4900 a bit
suspect in the image quality department.
In every other respect I like the camera quite a bit. It has
wonderful ergonomics (although the battery is a disappointment) and
I think the focussing is on a par with other digicams I have.
Do you have any samples? Something I haven't seen a lot of is
really nice examples of what the 4900 is capable of (I'm sure they
must be out there).
Kevin
Kevin,I am assuming that you meant this in response to my whining. I
think that you may have a point, but I do have some reservations
about the 4900's image quality. So far (and I would like to
emphasize that it is only after a few shots) I find the 4900 a bit
suspect in the image quality department.
In every other respect I like the camera quite a bit. It has
wonderful ergonomics (although the battery is a disappointment) and
I think the focussing is on a par with other digicams I have.
Do you have any samples? Something I haven't seen a lot of is
really nice examples of what the 4900 is capable of (I'm sure they
must be out there).
Kevin
At the risk of claiming I have some nice examples, take a look at
http://members.home.net/stephan.larsson/pictures.htm
Please note that some of the older photos are taken with a Kodak 210
Your claim of nice examples is noted and accepted. I especially
like the photos from your deck (although I am partial since I live
in Seattle and think the Northwest is some of the loveliest
countryside in the world).
Let me ask you a few questions if I may...
1. How do you find the 4900 for noise? I don't see it in you
images, but they have been resized and that does a good job of
masking it (although the b/w shot of Mt. Baker seemed to have a
certain amount of noise).
2. I was impressed by the evening and lowlight shots, do you shoot
those at ISO 125-200 on a tripod?
3. How many shots do you get from the battery?
4. I notice you have a lot of landscape shots, have you tried the
4900 on wildlife and how does it do handheld in those situations?
5. I have heard Fujis tend to produce images that print better than
they look on screen. Has that been your experience?
Thanks for sharing those lovely shots.
Kevin
Kevin,I am assuming that you meant this in response to my whining. I
think that you may have a point, but I do have some reservations
about the 4900's image quality. So far (and I would like to
emphasize that it is only after a few shots) I find the 4900 a bit
suspect in the image quality department.
In every other respect I like the camera quite a bit. It has
wonderful ergonomics (although the battery is a disappointment) and
I think the focussing is on a par with other digicams I have.
Do you have any samples? Something I haven't seen a lot of is
really nice examples of what the 4900 is capable of (I'm sure they
must be out there).
Kevin
At the risk of claiming I have some nice examples, take a look at
http://members.home.net/stephan.larsson/pictures.htm
Please note that some of the older photos are taken with a Kodak 210
I ususally shoot with the camera on 125 ISO and 2400 Fine. I don't find noise a problem. The only time I see noise is when I crop to a small portion of the image and then enlarge signifiicantly (like in the Mt Baker shot and the heron shot on my site). There is also a spider shot on the forum (look for "Robert de Niro" which is a very blown up crop and shows noise.Steph,
Your claim of nice examples is noted and accepted. I especially
like the photos from your deck (although I am partial since I live
in Seattle and think the Northwest is some of the loveliest
countryside in the world).
Let me ask you a few questions if I may...
1. How do you find the 4900 for noise? I don't see it in you
images, but they have been resized and that does a good job of
masking it (although the b/w shot of Mt. Baker seemed to have a
certain amount of noise).
ISO 125, and all handheld.2. I was impressed by the evening and lowlight shots, do you shoot
those at ISO 125-200 on a tripod?
Depends on use. Flash seems to chew up the battery, and switching on and off does too (because the lens motor runs, I guess) but I can usually get a full 64MB card (36 shots or so) out of a battery. I have 3 batteries and use a charger, so I'm always carrying at least 1 charged spare.3. How many shots do you get from the battery?
I'm not much of a wildlife photographer, but I've ordered a B300 teleconverter and hope to do some more.4. I notice you have a lot of landscape shots, have you tried the
4900 on wildlife and how does it do handheld in those situations?
The web images are all resampled to 72 dpi. When I print my landscapes at 250 dpi or so on 11x8.5 photo paper, the results are wonderful, and every bit as good as any film process I've used or seen.5. I have heard Fujis tend to produce images that print better than
they look on screen. Has that been your experience?
I used to be a very keen photographer 15 years ago, but the problems with getting good film processing done quickly and well eventually put me off. Digital has really got me interested again. I enjoyed using my wifes 1MP Kodak, but the Fuji I truly love.Thanks for sharing those lovely shots.
Kevin
DT,And on that note...what factors might cause an image to look better
in print than on screen? This issue confuses me somewhat, since the
printed image can be done at much higher resolution, and so should
amplify whatever defects are present...or not?
DT
I ususally shoot with the camera on 125 ISO and 2400 Fine. I don'tSteph,
Your claim of nice examples is noted and accepted. I especially
like the photos from your deck (although I am partial since I live
in Seattle and think the Northwest is some of the loveliest
countryside in the world).
Let me ask you a few questions if I may...
1. How do you find the 4900 for noise? I don't see it in you
images, but they have been resized and that does a good job of
masking it (although the b/w shot of Mt. Baker seemed to have a
certain amount of noise).
find noise a problem. The only time I see noise is when I crop to a
small portion of the image and then enlarge signifiicantly (like in
the Mt Baker shot and the heron shot on my site). There is also a
spider shot on the forum (look for "Robert de Niro" which is a very
blown up crop and shows noise.
ISO 125, and all handheld.2. I was impressed by the evening and lowlight shots, do you shoot
those at ISO 125-200 on a tripod?
Depends on use. Flash seems to chew up the battery, and switching3. How many shots do you get from the battery?
on and off does too (because the lens motor runs, I guess) but I
can usually get a full 64MB card (36 shots or so) out of a battery.
I have 3 batteries and use a charger, so I'm always carrying at
least 1 charged spare.
I'm not much of a wildlife photographer, but I've ordered a B3004. I notice you have a lot of landscape shots, have you tried the
4900 on wildlife and how does it do handheld in those situations?
teleconverter and hope to do some more.
The web images are all resampled to 72 dpi. When I print my5. I have heard Fujis tend to produce images that print better than
they look on screen. Has that been your experience?
landscapes at 250 dpi or so on 11x8.5 photo paper, the results are
wonderful, and every bit as good as any film process I've used or
seen.
I used to be a very keen photographer 15 years ago, but theThanks for sharing those lovely shots.
Kevin
problems with getting good film processing done quickly and well
eventually put me off. Digital has really got me interested again.
I enjoyed using my wifes 1MP Kodak, but the Fuji I truly love.
I guess that any of the 3MP cameras is capable of good results, but
it's the photographer rather than the machine which counts in the
end. All cameras have their pluses and minuses, but I've been VERY
happy with the Fuji.
DT,And on that note...what factors might cause an image to look better
in print than on screen? This issue confuses me somewhat, since the
printed image can be done at much higher resolution, and so should
amplify whatever defects are present...or not?
DT
I used to worry about DPI and other arcane issues, but the fact is
that a good 3MP camera plus a good photorealistic printer (I use
the Epson 875DC) gives wonderful results. I couldn't believe the
quality at first!
I'll pass on that one!Maybe it is an arcane issue, but I still wonder why a Fuji digital
image would look better on paper, compared to some other brand of
camera, while apparently not reaching its full glory on screen.
DT
