S9000 / 9500 - new samples inc 1600 at uk Fuji site

I thought I'd finally register at DPReview forums after lurking around for way over two years! So hello, and here is a link which I haven't seen posted yet, with some full size images including 400, 800 and 1600 iso.

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

Like a lot of people, I'm looking to upgrade at some point in the next month or so. I'm thinking either the Kodak P880, Fuji S9500 or Pana FZ30, just waiting for some reviews to come in before making a choice.

The Fuji is really impressing me at the moment, I like these new images all the way up to 800 iso. It is just incredible what they are managing to squeeze into such a compact body / lens / sensor these days! 1600 is quite noisy, but even this could be workable when printed.

All I'm looking for is a camera which solves my current frustrations with my Kodak DX6490: waiting for the lens to extend, fiddly menu and dial, manual options buried three clicks away in the menu, electronic zoom, not enough wide angle (38mm currently), over-compressed jpegs with muddy details. Actually it takes pretty good pics, and has been a good cam to learn on.

Only room for one pixel here, but relevent for those who care.

Thanks for the pixel close up!

I have been staring at it all afternoon, and I can not find ANY noise in it. ;D

On the other hand, I did find it worthwhile to view the ISO 800 pic at the larger than proper scale, for what it said to me, at least, was that the pattern of noise in the picture was not indicative of native noise, but of a lousy application of a denoise program.

If I produced a denoised result like that, I would have started over with different perameters on the denoise program. Having no in-camera noise reduction, IMO, would be preferable to the artifacts left behnd by the camera's one-size-fits-all denoising algorithm. Be nice if the new camera allowed that option, but I am not optimistic.
--
Gingerbaker
Canon 20D
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

They are certanly better, than the girl with a flowers (more like muddy yellow patches) around her.
Why no ISO 400 shot?

Well, I've been comparing these images, from the 9mp S9500, to the 6mp F10 images displayed at this site.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=fujifilmf10_samples/

I resized images from both cameras to 1000 pixels wide (for viewing on the internet). At ISO 800 you can easily see noise, under these circumstances, for the S9500. Images for the F10 are clean.

I suspect it's a balancing act. With more mps they can achieve higher resolution. This looks great at ISO 80, but at higher ISOs noise takes over when sensor cells are too small and a camera with larger sensors, such as the F10, wins the day.

Note that I'm not comparing images at 100% resolution. I'm comparing images as they were intended to be used.

It might be nice if they had stayed with the F10 sensor for the S9500.

i think their ISO 800 sample is still better than what FZ30 can produce at 200(close to production sample from dcresource)

i think panasonic said such a thing is due to the fact that they can't get the noise away and hope that their processor can do something about it in the last minute...

and ISO 1600 is only a little bit worse than what most ISO 400 images done by other cameras

of cause F10 seems to have a better quality due to less pixel in a larger size sensor(relatively)

Both show obvious noise-processing but it is to be expected, and most of the pixel peepers who'll complain will do so because:
1. They don't like Fuji...

2. They imagine people sit around all day staring at a section of a image and getting ulcers over some noise when reality is IF the image is printed it will probably be at postcard size where the noise will not be visible!

Fuji have done well and it certainly shows that smaller CCD are improving their performance, apparently faster than improvements in the APS format sensors.
--
Cameras are NOT computers!
Olympus E1 with 14-45, Nikon Coolpix 5400, Fuji Finepix A201

1. I really wanted to like Fuji with the S5000 and with the S7000 as I really want to like Fuji with S9000. As a matter of fact I liked Fuji with the S20 pro (at last they put something remarkable together like S602 and asking a fortune for it).

2. I wanna have the best for my money and going along this logic every camera is good if you print post stamp size, we should have stayed with Canon A60 2 MP is enough.

Yes I want a good camera and will pixel peep to compare and to have the best possible for my hard earned money.

I suspect we'll be in for a similar treat from other camera manufacturers. They'll push high pixel counts for their more expensive prosumer models, but they will be outperformed at high ISOs by cheaper cameras with lower pixel counts.

I mentioned that perhaps they're increasing pixel counts for more resolution. But look at the resolution for the F10. It's nothing to sneeze at. About the same as Canon's 350D.

You must live on top of the beanstalk ;-)

D
--



A happy Fuji S5100 digicam fan
Feel free to visit my gallery.
http://photobucket.com/albums/y226/dudlew/

Sorry to say,
NOISE and artifacts similar to s7000.

alien

Thomas Niemann said:

It might be nice if they had stayed with the F10 sensor for the S9500.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. These samples definitely appear to be a step backwards in high ISO performance from the F10. The puzzling part is that Fuji has been pitching quality over quantity of pixels pretty hard for the past couple years and then they turn around and do this. The S9000 would have been more of a dSLR alternative if they had kept their priorities on quality high ISO shots. They could have gotten away with a modest increase in pixel count (7-8mp) proportional to the modest increase in sensor but 9mp appears to have been too far of a strectch.

at all
Rick

These s9k samples are much better.

It might be premature to make any easements based on so few samples but, so far: (and IMHO)...

The s9k's 3488x2616 image @ISO80 is inferior to the 3264x2448 images of the CP8800 @IS050. However, it is quite good especially when a 3x enlargement (crop) results in a pretty good 1600x1200 canvass and can make make an excellent 5x7 print. Comparing raw-to-raw outputs with post-processing latitude comparisons may or may not change this conclusions.

At high ISO settings:

The s9k's images at ISO800 are quite workable and, will produce excellent results especially with some post-processing. Noise-wise, it is about the same as the CP8800 images taken at ISO200 but, with a bit more dynamic range. I would not hesitate to handle action situations with the s9k set at ISO800.

The s9k's images at ISO1600 have a lot of noise and are clearly heavily processed (in-camera) sacrificing detail and punch. With a lot of post-processing work, a reasonable quality image is possible. I would use it only in an emergency. It is however, better than the CP8800's images at ISO400. The later I deem unusable even with substantial post-processing.

Bottom-line, the Fuji technology gains +2 f-stops over the CP8800 which makes it better for action photography even with the CP8800's VR. The s9k's larger canvass compensates somewhat for 300mm/350mm Tele difference.

======================
johnimage

the S9000 image at ISO 800 is noisier and has less detail than ISO 200 from my Sony, but it has less noise and more detail than the Sony at ISO 400, so I would put it about equal to ISO 320 or so with the Sony, maybe even a little less, cause the Sony image was taken in better lit conditions.

ISO 800 on the S9000 was also much better than ISO 800 on my Z1, more like ISO 400 or better.

ISO 1600 from the S9000 was also a little better than ISO 800 from the Sony.

Overall it was a pretty decent performance, especially up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 would be usable in a pinch and given a more "normal" subject (why they used that photo with all the fur detail to try and reslove is beyond me) would likely make nice 5x7s or even 8x10s with some work.

I think it does a decent job at higher ISOs, much better than the current crop of 8mp cameras and certainly better than the FZ30.

At ISO 80 the image of the picnic basket showed good detail and fairly low noise, although it had a decidely green cast/tint to it. I guess this is normal Fuji color?

Too bad they didn't keep it at 6mp with this size sensor and its technology. It would've been a much better result.

Actually I was hoping for the same sensor tech that the S3 Pro has with its increased dynamic range features, that would've been a real deal clincher for me.

As is, I'm not to sure this is going to be the answer for my low light needs. Too bad, though it has some nice features.

I'm happy .
more people saying bad about this camera, sooner it will get cheaper

Well I guess those shots about killed my lost. To be frank, I am a bit more concerned with controlling DOF on this camera and so far the huge depth of field I am seeing in the sample portraits is not convincing me.

I also see the FZ30 vs the S9000 looks like it has a fighting chance. I gotta say though, at iso 80, the S9000 looks very very nice.

--
Raist3d
e-volt 300, and some Zuiko lenses. Fuji F710, Panasonic FZ20
Gameplay Programmer - vid games industry

I always get the message that the address could not be found. Is this a problem with my connection. I really would like to see the new Fuji S9500 sample images...

Let me start of by saying that I have been using a DRebel for about a year and a half now. I have gone through several lenses to get a good setup (and still have no real tele). I have repeatedly said that ISO 400 is still quite good, ISO 800 can be salvaged with some work and ISO 1600 is for emergencies. I have never liked changing lenses and certainly not cleaning the sensor. And now my DRebel is in the shop for broken mirror assembly after a measly 16000 shots. I hate these mechanical parts.

What Fuji is achieving here, using a very small sensor, is nothing short of amazing. The ISO200 shot is very clean. The ISO800 shot cleans up fairly well with some additional noise reduction applied (probably not done in camera because it takes too much processing time to do a really good job). ISO 1600 is for emergencies. Hey, that's just like with my DRebel.

I have used RAW a lot on the DRebel and before you apply any noise reduction ISO 800 and 1600 are extremely noisy. These cameras do a lot of noise reduction in camera when producing jpgs.

The Fuji s9000 seems to offer a tremendous value for money, with its 28-300mm range and 9MP and such low noise. I can only say I am interested, and if the first reviews confirm what these sample images offer I am dumping my dslr and lenses for good.

And I do realize that with the s9000 you cannot achieve the shallow DOF and nice background blur. Well, for the most part I never liked that anyway and it often made me struggle to get everything that I wanted to be in focus.

Now, if only this camera had anti-shake or image-stabilization it would be a true dslr killer. It's a shame they left this out, but it must also be said that IS makes it harder to keep CA perfectly under control.

SnapperX said:

I thought I'd finally register at DPReview forums after lurking
around for way over two years! So hello, and here is a link which I
haven't seen posted yet, with some full size images including 400,
800 and 1600 iso.

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

Like a lot of people, I'm looking to upgrade at some point in the
next month or so. I'm thinking either the Kodak P880, Fuji S9500 or
Pana FZ30, just waiting for some reviews to come in before making a
choice.

The Fuji is really impressing me at the moment, I like these new
images all the way up to 800 iso. It is just incredible what they
are managing to squeeze into such a compact body / lens / sensor
these days! 1600 is quite noisy, but even this could be workable
when printed.

All I'm looking for is a camera which solves my current
frustrations with my Kodak DX6490: waiting for the lens to extend,
fiddly menu and dial, manual options buried three clicks away in
the menu, electronic zoom, not enough wide angle (38mm currently),
over-compressed jpegs with muddy details. Actually it takes pretty
good pics, and has been a good cam to learn on.

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 17.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/