I agree with your take on the situation Steve. FWIW I'm fairly convinced that the 1.02 firmware upgrade did a little more than just add support for large CF cards, despite what Fuji is saying. What has your database on S9000/9500 serial numbers suggested to you?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
S9500 - lens quality comparison
- Thread starter Snapovic
- Start date
If such a reference shot is made...its up to each of us to try to attain the same quality in our own attempts at it; Even if we dont succeed in creating the exact same conditions.
--
Ulfonzo
vocal
Well-known member
the difference between a faulty and a good camera is the focus, right? The bad ones give a blurry quality. I think it's rather easy to make comparisons. The lighting should be sufficient to have the same aperture, distance and shutter values.
make sure all the other settings are on "standard" and it will be ok. White balance is not that inportant, since this doesnt affect sharpness.
Just make one PDF with a test image, and make a photo of that. I am sure this will provide enough information about the camera's sharpness.
just my 2 cents
make sure all the other settings are on "standard" and it will be ok. White balance is not that inportant, since this doesnt affect sharpness.
Just make one PDF with a test image, and make a photo of that. I am sure this will provide enough information about the camera's sharpness.
just my 2 cents
Martin_Kay
Active member
Disappointing to see such variations in lens quality. One wonders what other variations in quality exist in the camera. I see Jessops have reduced the price by £100, down to £399, a much better price considering you can get the Nikon D50 with 18-55mm lens for just under £500, £584 with the very good 18-70 lens.
I compared the results in the forum reviews between the S9500 and the Canon D350. Very little in finished results, if you down size samples from both cameras to 230 ppi at 11" wide/high image. The Canon has slightly cleaner images at full size and is sharper at the edges, but this difference is lost after the previous mentioned process. I used the manual sharpening tool to sharpen up the edges of the S9500 image and it pulled it effectively up to the quality of the Canon. This makes the Fuji camera eminently very useful and useable, especially with the pc socket and cable release thread, shame about the poor quality control though...
I compared the results in the forum reviews between the S9500 and the Canon D350. Very little in finished results, if you down size samples from both cameras to 230 ppi at 11" wide/high image. The Canon has slightly cleaner images at full size and is sharper at the edges, but this difference is lost after the previous mentioned process. I used the manual sharpening tool to sharpen up the edges of the S9500 image and it pulled it effectively up to the quality of the Canon. This makes the Fuji camera eminently very useful and useable, especially with the pc socket and cable release thread, shame about the poor quality control though...
SteveDak
Leading Member
Hi Troutman,
I think that's all 1.02 does - there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it addresses any other issues and I don't think any firmware could address the quality issues that have been commented on. This is purely my opinion, but I think the problems relate to a component/assembly issue - either component replacement or a spec-ed "re-assembly".
The 53Q serial numbers have the most reported problems (9500 & mostly UK), the 53A numbers (9000 & mostly US) have been catching up. So far there has only been one reported fault against the 53L sequence (9500 & which seems to be our part of the world ie NZ, Aus, SA - my dealers' stock are 53L). I noticed you listed your no as 54L was that a mistake? Also does your plate say made in Japan or China? Still adding to the DB as numbers pop up but it is still a little subjective as I don't think the happy user has as much incentive to post as the unhappy one does! (and we're only dealing with this & Steve's forums, in the main). So far 31% of posted S/N's are problems but that figure MUST be viewed in the light of the previous sentence.
I'm going to let it run for a few more weeks or until the contributions dry up and I'll list the results in detail. I think you made a very valid point about the power of suggestion and for that reason I think there is a danger of it becoming less objective as time goes by, if you get my meaning. The counter to that of course is that postings might well increase as awareness grows.
I for one would really like the 9500 to be the great camera it has the promise to be but with the very obvious variances in quality, I have to admit I'm reluctant to take a chance. Would be nice to have some form of input from the manufacturer, but then again maybe the problem only exists in the mind of the customer?
I think that's all 1.02 does - there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it addresses any other issues and I don't think any firmware could address the quality issues that have been commented on. This is purely my opinion, but I think the problems relate to a component/assembly issue - either component replacement or a spec-ed "re-assembly".
The 53Q serial numbers have the most reported problems (9500 & mostly UK), the 53A numbers (9000 & mostly US) have been catching up. So far there has only been one reported fault against the 53L sequence (9500 & which seems to be our part of the world ie NZ, Aus, SA - my dealers' stock are 53L). I noticed you listed your no as 54L was that a mistake? Also does your plate say made in Japan or China? Still adding to the DB as numbers pop up but it is still a little subjective as I don't think the happy user has as much incentive to post as the unhappy one does! (and we're only dealing with this & Steve's forums, in the main). So far 31% of posted S/N's are problems but that figure MUST be viewed in the light of the previous sentence.
I'm going to let it run for a few more weeks or until the contributions dry up and I'll list the results in detail. I think you made a very valid point about the power of suggestion and for that reason I think there is a danger of it becoming less objective as time goes by, if you get my meaning. The counter to that of course is that postings might well increase as awareness grows.
I for one would really like the 9500 to be the great camera it has the promise to be but with the very obvious variances in quality, I have to admit I'm reluctant to take a chance. Would be nice to have some form of input from the manufacturer, but then again maybe the problem only exists in the mind of the customer?
paulobro
Forum Enthusiast
I'm no expert but I'm unsure are the blurriness issues really related to lens quality or to firmware processing. RAW images would perhaps be more informative?
Thanks for your response Steve. It's all clear as mud really, I was unaware that some of these cameras are made in China and I nearly freaked when you mentioned it. Is this right? I thought they were all made in Japan, mine certainly is and yes it is a 54L numbered unit with 1.02 firmware. The first camera I tested before I purchased mine was a 1.01 revision, I didn't check the ser number but I did shoot around 30 frames in and outside the shop and checked them out at home on the PC and they were of very good quality. The camera did at one stage freeze up while I was switching between macro and continuous AF. I couldn't shut it off without popping the battery cover but that's about the only issue I've really come across to date.
I tried to photograph a book-page with text on it (to check the sharpness)....the camera was mounted on a tripod with the lens facing down to the table where the book was placed...
I wanted to shoot at the 100mm setting but it proved impossible....the weight of the front part of the tube, made it slip all the time...just enough to bring it out of focus...i finally think I managed to get a well focused page....
The lens should be thight enough so that this should not happen, right...
(Just my unit...or all?)
The result:
Blurry edges.....and sharp center which is "ring" shaped.
To my surprise, I can clearly see the JPEG-artifacts surrounding the letters, so I will repeat the experiment with a RAW-shot.
Im not shure yet....but Im growing to believe that I have a bad unit. (S9500/53Q54313).
--
Ulfonzo
I wanted to shoot at the 100mm setting but it proved impossible....the weight of the front part of the tube, made it slip all the time...just enough to bring it out of focus...i finally think I managed to get a well focused page....
The lens should be thight enough so that this should not happen, right...
(Just my unit...or all?)
The result:
Blurry edges.....and sharp center which is "ring" shaped.
To my surprise, I can clearly see the JPEG-artifacts surrounding the letters, so I will repeat the experiment with a RAW-shot.
Im not shure yet....but Im growing to believe that I have a bad unit. (S9500/53Q54313).
--
Ulfonzo
PatrickM
Active member
Typical of bad lens alignment/collimation and bad quality control letting
lemons ok to shiping. Very sad, especially when you see how pleasant
is the use of the 9500, the only problem is bad image quality. Pffff !!
--
Patrick
F u j i F 7 0 0, F p 6 9 0 0, N i k o n 8 7 0 0, O l y C 7 0 0 0
Snapovic
Well-known member
SteveDak
Leading Member
Thanks Trout, its the first S/N without 53 prefix I've seen posted - Since my 5500 carries 'Made in China' I wondered about your 9500, although all the ones I've handled here are "Made in Japan".
Snapovic
Well-known member
Sorry folks, I somehow managed to destroy a link to one of the images, so I'm having to redo this (learning the hard way!). There's no change from the original thread, just had to update the link to the first image
Thanks
Snaps:-{
Thanks
Snaps:-{
OK, bear with me, this is a longun.
I bought an S9500 and was not happy with unsharp images. So I
bought another and did some side by side tests. This example is of
a normal size house brick. The first camera, "J", has been
returned. I am keeping the second camera, "C". You will see in
the images below how the image from camera J was much more blurred
than the image from camera C. This is a typical example of many
tests I took over a variety of conditions.
This "brick" test was conducted with each camera resting on a solid
surface, so no camera shake. Settings for each camera were
identical. 1/50ths, F5.6, ISO200, 10.8 mm (50mm) focal length,
9MP fine, macro, hard sharpness, spot metering, no flash, auto
white balance. The house brick filled the full width of the frame.
I took many pictures and the results were always the same. Camera
“C” was always sharper than camera “J”.
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from camera J
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from camera C
Note how the above two images appear as sharp as each other.
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from the top left of
camera J
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from the top left of
camera C
Note how the image from camera C has retained a similar level of
sharpness, yet camera J’s sharpness is degraded.
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from the top right of
camera J
Below is 100% crop from the centre of image from the top right of
camera C
Note how the image from camera C has retained a similar level of
sharpness, yet camera J’s sharpness is degraded.
Similarly, look at the below images and compare the sharpness.
Camera J is shown first, followed by camera C.
Images below taken at 300mm, 1/450ths, F4.9, ISO 200, 9MP fine,
normal sharpness, pattern metering. 100% crops from half way
between centre and left edge.
Images below taken at 97mm, 1/8ths (tripod), F5, ISO 80, 9MP fine,
normal sharpness, pattern metering. 100% crops from centre bottom.
Images below taken at 300mm, 1/400ths, F4.9, ISO 200, 9MP fine,
normal sharpness, pattern metering. 100% crops from top left.
So be warned, check the sharpness of the lens to make sure you
don’t have a duff one. I explained my findings to the shop I
bought the “J” camera from and I got a full refund and they said
they would return it to Fuji as defective.
Comments welcome.
Snaps
Snapovic
Well-known member
Hmm. I think it's a lens issue because if it was firmware processing, then why should the centre of the images be as sharp as each other, yet only one of them was blurred away from centre. Both cameras I tested were running 1.02.
Weather permitting, I'll see what I can sort out for some RAW stuff next Tuesday. I've not yet worked with RAW so it might be a bit hitnmiss. I guess I save to TIFF right?!
Snaps:-?
Nice!
Did you have the problem with the outer lens sliding as you had the camera facing downward on the tripod. I had to use som tape, to fix the lens. I have mounted a UV-filter, though...so the weight of that could be the problem.
--
Ulfonzo
paulobro
Forum Enthusiast
I'd say it won't make much difference the format you save the RAW file images as, as long as you save'em exactly the same way, same parameters, and preferably with no 'processing', no compression and no noise reduction.
Also, it would be advisable could you capture as flat a subject as possible, hopefuly at lens infinite, so that focus issues won't come into consideration.
BTW, if there is indeed an issue with some of the S9k glass guess I'm lucky, for I did just such test and noticed no remarkable peripheral blurring on my images.
--
Paulo Brochado
Snapovic
Well-known member
Is this the norm now? Do all new models reduce dramatically in price within the first couple of months on the market? Or are we to view this reduction as a sign of the camera not selling as well as Fuji expected? Dixons, Curry's and PC World (same group) all do the 9500 for £400 now.
Snaps xx
Pete Holzmann
Forum Enthusiast
I seriously suspect the issues are largely due to RAW-> JPG conversion.
I'm in the midst of my own tests; will post ASAP.
My early testing is showing my possibly-bad s9* produces results no better than my s602 -- i.e. I'm comparing (all with no retouching, only resizing)
- s9000 9mp fine -- at 100%
- s9000 RAW tiff -- at less than 100% (RAW has a lot more pix)
- s9000 tiff -> JPG -- also less than 100%
- s9000 tiff -> JPG -> 9mp size, 100%
- s602 (digizoomed to 300mm), 3mp, enlarged to 9mp
Will post pix and real results asap
altis
Senior Member
Here's a suggestion - how about using a standard chart such as this downloadable PDF:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html
I printed it out on A3 graphics film (I don't have any A3 photo paper) and then photographed it in aperture priority at f/5.6. It was dimly lit so the focus assist light came on and the flash fired. I set the lens to 50mm and then adjusted the distance until the frame filled to the dark bars (or so I thought). I used a tripod and a cable release. Here's the result:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/altissa/S9500/DSCF0945.JPG
What do you think?
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html
I printed it out on A3 graphics film (I don't have any A3 photo paper) and then photographed it in aperture priority at f/5.6. It was dimly lit so the focus assist light came on and the flash fired. I set the lens to 50mm and then adjusted the distance until the frame filled to the dark bars (or so I thought). I used a tripod and a cable release. Here's the result:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/altissa/S9500/DSCF0945.JPG
What do you think?
no that shouldn't happen
my one is smooth but firm and takes a bit of force to get it to move without useing the zoom ring
it would seem to be just your unit as i haven't seen any posts about this other than yours
i would send it back if only for that loose lens
something like that can only get looser (if thats a word)
Martin_Kay
Active member
At one point it was more expensive than a D50...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum