The compression issue never really bothered me because I thought the out-of-camera photo would be drastically different - though I could imagine a few slight areas of difference here or there.
What bothers me, and maybe some other people here, is how much the more-compressed H9 output can withstand post-processing and resaving or cropping before it begins to seriously degrade? I don't know that answer - so I'm not making a statement for or against the camera...but just know that some of the debate over the loss of 'fine' vs 'standard' mode has to do with the higher compression compromising the photo's ability to be edited.
The output from my 717 is excellent, as is the output from my H5. Both were always set to 'fine' mode. However, the 2bpp of the 717 vs the 8bpp of the H5 was a bit of a mystery to me. I wish I could determine if this 'bpp' is a factor in the editing process - but what I do know is that my H5 photos are significantly more editable than my 717 photos. And not just in the extra crop room (which is nice)...where the 717 photos seem to break down faster is with color separation. Take a blue sky. Go into Photoshop, and do 'levels' to improve the contrast. With my 717 shots, there was a very low threshhold of adjustment possible before the sky would begin to visibly break down into banding of colors. With my H5 shots, they can withstand significantly more extreme adjustments before the banding begins.
With the H9 saving at a much lower bpp than the H5, I worry that the editing of the photos might be more touchy like the 717, and color separation and banding could be an issue when editing.
And I worry that the more compressed output won't hold up as well to, say, three resaves. While I know 3 resaves is never an advisable thing to do - sometimes it just may happen. Maybe the photo is opened in a noise filter software, run, and saved. Then reopened in Photoshop, processed, and saved. Then maybe down the road, you want to edit something out of that photo without running through the entire noise & PS process on the original, so you try opening the saved processed copy, edit it, and save again. Even at max jpeg quality, will the photo begin to suffer artifacting or jaggies or color separation & banding after 3 resaves? I don't know - but that's where my worry lies.
And then there's just the principle of the thing - Sonys have always had it, this one was specified to have it, and when the camera gets there, it doesn't have it. I don't think anyone likes to have options and control taken away from them, especially if they've always had it before. Restoring the CHOICE to H9 owners would go a long way to improving Sony's reputation, and help silence some of the critics and cure some of the doubt. If the Fine mode has the side-effect of slowing down the burst mode...so what? I think Sony users are capable of choosing Fine & slow burst for less compressed photos, or Standard and fast burst, but with higher compression. The situation can dictate which you decide to use.
Anyway...your test can serve other purposes - maybe help people see that the differences are minor with regards to compression between the two modes. I always err in favor of the best possible setting on any camera. I just don't want the other side of the complaint or disappointment to get lost in the comparison - that it isn't about the IQ out of camera, it's about the ability to post-process and crop, and the choice being taken away.
--
Justin
galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
(I'd be honored and overjoyed to have any of my posted photographs critiqued, commented on, or post-processed - I can attribute everything I know about photography to the wonderful people who have done this for me in the past!) 
