in the cam it goes sharpness saturation contrast
so it was 2 clicks down from were you set sharp hard
--
no i am not going to buy a dslr
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
S9000 Image quality
- Thread starter jbabbage
- Start date
so it was 2 clicks down from were you set sharp hard
--
no i am not going to buy a dslr
jbabbage
Well-known member
Ahh that explains it; I was in Chrome photo mode and contrast and saturation are both disabled in that mode. Go figure
--
Jim Babbage
--
Jim Babbage
jbabbage
Well-known member
OK new test is online. Big honking image with 8 tiled photos, all zoomed to 100% in Photoshop.
http://www.nms123.ca/jim_babbage/fuji_test/index2.htm
Camera was on a tripod for all frames. Subject matter was the front cover of an issue of Photo Life.
Final image tile shows the upper right edge of the shot, close to the edge of the frame. I'm not very happy on how that flag looks.
Again, maybe I am expecting too much, but I always thought an image at 100% should look half decent, especially when the equipment is nearly $1,000
I think I will be returning this puppy. :-(
--
Jim Babbage
http://www.nms123.ca/jim_babbage/fuji_test/index2.htm
Camera was on a tripod for all frames. Subject matter was the front cover of an issue of Photo Life.
Final image tile shows the upper right edge of the shot, close to the edge of the frame. I'm not very happy on how that flag looks.
Again, maybe I am expecting too much, but I always thought an image at 100% should look half decent, especially when the equipment is nearly $1,000
I think I will be returning this puppy. :-(
--
Jim Babbage
Fleming
Senior Member
JBabbage -- Dash is so eager see you return your camera that I wonder if he's not hoping to snap it up as refurbished! ;^) How quick we are to pronounce the test shots "all blurred." And with your admission that there was an "angle" involved in the shot that might account for the apparently out-of-focus bottom right corner, I'm beginning to feel as bewildered as Garry Lee -- who is a very happy 9000 owner.
By the way, if a lack of clarity is the biggest worry with the image, I would suggest bumping up the contrast and leaving the sharpening at soft or normal. The contrast control will likely clarify an image without artifacts much better than aggressive in-camera sharpening. Just an idea.
By the way, if a lack of clarity is the biggest worry with the image, I would suggest bumping up the contrast and leaving the sharpening at soft or normal. The contrast control will likely clarify an image without artifacts much better than aggressive in-camera sharpening. Just an idea.
they are possibly disabled in chrome as that is possibly what they do for chrome mode ( turn them both to hard and call it chrome )
--
no i am not going to buy a dslr
thanks muchly for those test shots
it looks like i am going to be doing some more testing
i think that the sharp hard is a little too hard
everyone sees things differently so it is up to you if you take it back or not but what cam will you go for ?
--
no i am not going to buy a dslr
jbabbage
Well-known member
What cam will I go for - that is the question - and a good one. I snapped this one up because I was pleased with the S602Z when I bought it a few years ago. I figured this one had to be better. In many ways it is - higher rez, focus assist, RAW format. But my first landscape images really disappointed me. Hence the testing, and my queries here.
Like I said, perhaps I am expecting too much.
I have actually emailed Fuji with the url of those test shots and asked someone to respond soon. Otherwise, back it goes and I will do more research before buying again.
Someone mentioned the Sony cam. I have a couple students who have bought that one for the course I'm teaching, so I may look that way.
--
Jim Babbage
Like I said, perhaps I am expecting too much.
I have actually emailed Fuji with the url of those test shots and asked someone to respond soon. Otherwise, back it goes and I will do more research before buying again.
Someone mentioned the Sony cam. I have a couple students who have bought that one for the course I'm teaching, so I may look that way.
--
Jim Babbage
jbabbage
Well-known member
Thanks for your feedback. I'll give that a try!
--
Jim Babbage
--
Jim Babbage
yes the sony r1 may be what you are after as a backup cam you probably don't need the zoom of the s9k
before you send it back try some contrast hard landscape shots just to see if it can cut it
--
no i am not going to buy a dslr
Jim, the R1 is not out yet... expected delivery in the US mid to end November. I'll be shopping at Thanksgiving and will certainly take some time comparing it to my s602...
I think the more you test the more disappointed you get. Your particular s9k may be flawed optically. If it was me, I would give Fuji one more chance if they swap it for another camera. Who knows till you try?
Tomorrow I will receive my new FZ30. Also an imperfect camera but maybe better suited for my own style. Check back in a couple of day and I'll give you my opinion on it.
======================
johnimage
Tomorrow I will receive my new FZ30. Also an imperfect camera but maybe better suited for my own style. Check back in a couple of day and I'll give you my opinion on it.
======================
johnimage
jbabbage
Well-known member
Yes, if I have time, I'm going to do that tomorrow
--
Jim Babbage
--
Jim Babbage
jbabbage
Well-known member
Thanks John, I look forward to it. I agree that it could just be this camera, and ot the whole line. I am hoping to hear back from Fuji, or perhaps see if my camera dealer would consider an exchange.
--
Jim Babbage
--
Jim Babbage
jbabbage
Well-known member
Checking out the specs on the R1 - Looks impressive so far.
--
Jim Babbage
--
Jim Babbage
Greg Henry
Senior Member
--------------------------------------
Well Gearoid, I certainly hope you do not take this as an insult (really) but I think that you must have had a defective E1, and while your daughter is certainly an attractive girl, that is an absolutely horrible photo of her. Poor lighting or not. As a matter of fact, the lack of detail and "patch-work" pattern look to the details in most of those photo samples tells me that I could take images from a S7000 and simply resample them to a 9MP size and get the same quality - saving bundles of money.
I certainly appreciate you taking the time to post samples for others to be able to view but certainly your definition of "slide quality" and "exemplary" are vastly different than my own, and the two people in the room with me who are also looking at those samples.
Like others I'm still waiting to see the reviews on these when they come out, but based on these and a small variety of other user samples I've seen so far, I think the current crop of prosumers (Panasonic FZ30, Fuji S9000) are very much "duds" suitable for a recycler. The Sony R1 shows much more promise in terms of image quality, except for the price. If someone asked me about wise investments now, I'm afraid I'd have to be one of those people who leans them toward a beginner DSLR model, or a mid-range consumer, rather than one of these current prosumers.
Greg Henry
Senior Member
------------------------
And by this I do not mean I was confused thinking you took your test shots with an E1 - I was referring to your earlier comment that that S9000 takes better shots than an E1.
GordonBGood
Veteran Member
You may have missed the thread on how to open these with PS CS(2). As follows:
Use a hex editor as the free one available from:
http://www.chmaas.handshake.de/delphi/freeware/xvi32/xvi32.htm
to do one of two things:
1) Search and replace the "S9000" or S9500" (depending on your model), to something like "S7000" (3 places), which is supported. Or better
2) Search for the "Camera Raw.8bi" ACR plug-in and do a search and replace as in 1) in it (2 places). This presumes that you don't need to open any S7000 Raw images, otherwise, pick a different camera. This is a better solution, in that you don't have to do anything to your Raw images, and it can easily be undone by just resaving a new copy of the Camera Raw plug-in, which will happen automatically when you update to version 3.2 so as to officially support the camera.
The main problem with this is that it will treat all colours as if they came from the Colour Filter Array of the S7000 or whatever camera you replace, which is not likely absolutely correct for the S9K. However, you could take a calibration shot and adjust the Colour Calibration sliders so that you get the same colours as from the JPEG or any other camera for that matter, then save the settings to be used as default for this camera.
Regards, GordonBGood
Use a hex editor as the free one available from:
http://www.chmaas.handshake.de/delphi/freeware/xvi32/xvi32.htm
to do one of two things:
1) Search and replace the "S9000" or S9500" (depending on your model), to something like "S7000" (3 places), which is supported. Or better
2) Search for the "Camera Raw.8bi" ACR plug-in and do a search and replace as in 1) in it (2 places). This presumes that you don't need to open any S7000 Raw images, otherwise, pick a different camera. This is a better solution, in that you don't have to do anything to your Raw images, and it can easily be undone by just resaving a new copy of the Camera Raw plug-in, which will happen automatically when you update to version 3.2 so as to officially support the camera.
The main problem with this is that it will treat all colours as if they came from the Colour Filter Array of the S7000 or whatever camera you replace, which is not likely absolutely correct for the S9K. However, you could take a calibration shot and adjust the Colour Calibration sliders so that you get the same colours as from the JPEG or any other camera for that matter, then save the settings to be used as default for this camera.
Regards, GordonBGood
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
I suppose you and your pals are looking at this stuff on a monitor.
I imagine that I might be better qualified to judge these prints in relation to those of my E1, since I've printed them, in particular to A3 size.
It is a lousy picture of my daughter, who is a really photogenic girl, but it's there to show the detail in the eyes, and the absence of noise.
As for "patchwork" detail.
What kind of nonsense jargon will they come up with next.
The E1 undoubtedly has a better lens but what good is that when it cannot resolve its detail?
I imagine that I might be better qualified to judge these prints in relation to those of my E1, since I've printed them, in particular to A3 size.
It is a lousy picture of my daughter, who is a really photogenic girl, but it's there to show the detail in the eyes, and the absence of noise.
As for "patchwork" detail.
What kind of nonsense jargon will they come up with next.
The E1 undoubtedly has a better lens but what good is that when it cannot resolve its detail?
Well at A3 size on my Trinitron 21" monitor at 2048x1536 it certainly looks good, but it does lack crispness in the details. Not that it would be required in that case; after all the light is very flat and the result is very natural looking.
The only problem I have judging image quality form this picture is the lack of EXIF info. How can an obviously post-processed picture do justice to what the camera really produces?
If I understand correctly, it refers to the paint effect due to noise reduction, where low contrast fine detail has been obliterated as noise. It appears to some, me included, that the camera does too much on-board noise reduction. Then again it's just my personal perception: one man's noise can, after all, be another man's fine detail...
Well I sure hope I put some sense into it...
Martin_Kay
Active member
All this talk about images being too soft/hard/sharp/soft are really irrelevant for those wishing to use digital cameras... All these default camera settings can usually be tweaked, but in any case a serious user who is discriminating enough will surely be post processing in Photoshop? Personally I'd prefer a softer/less contrasty image which captures more tonal range and sort it out later in Photoshop, than an image too bright that can't be salvaged.
The S9000 is quite a cheap camera compared to the dslr's available. You have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of these types of cameras. I like the versatility of the so called compact cameras, but the disadvantage is often too much DOF, a problem adressed partially in the S9000 and the new Sony. Also you are now getting usable wide angle, whereas the previous 37/38mm is too restrictive.
I really don't think image quality is an over riding issue these days unless you are doing very large blowups and even then you are viewing at a suitable distance. More an issue would be shutter and write lag times and also flash versatility, the ability to implement fill in flash.
The S9000 is quite a cheap camera compared to the dslr's available. You have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of these types of cameras. I like the versatility of the so called compact cameras, but the disadvantage is often too much DOF, a problem adressed partially in the S9000 and the new Sony. Also you are now getting usable wide angle, whereas the previous 37/38mm is too restrictive.
I really don't think image quality is an over riding issue these days unless you are doing very large blowups and even then you are viewing at a suitable distance. More an issue would be shutter and write lag times and also flash versatility, the ability to implement fill in flash.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum