Fujifilm Finepix S5200/5600 or S9000/9500?

I have an S9500(S9000 in the US, I believe). As far as I can discern, no
'pixel doubling' is available; but then, with a 9MP CCD, who needs more? If
you want maximum image quality, shoot in RAW mode. But that gives you a
file over 18Mb, so you need a fast memory card - I'm currently trialling a
1Gb SanDisk CompactFlash rated at 10Mb/sec. It looks good so far... The
Fuji is a competent picture-taking machine (with more adjustable thingys
than most film SLRs I've used), and I'm impressed so far. But then, it is
new, and it *is* my first digital, so that could change with time. (c:


If you're not shooting in RAW, the Fuji 9500 will allow you up to (checking
the manual...) 1.1 frames/sec for 40 continuous shots - is that fast
enough? RAW slows it all down, due to the large file size and write time.


And you won't get low noise on any digital camera if you push the ISO
rating high - it's just the way it works. But Photoshop has a de-speckle
command that works pretty well on most images.

Oh, and the 95 is a biggish camera. Not too heavy, but large is size, about
even with most current film SLRs.

RobG

On $DATE , RobG wrote:



I have an S9500(S9000 in the US, I believe). As far as I can
discern, no 'pixel doubling' is available; but then, with a 9MP
CCD, who needs more? If you want maximum image quality, shoot in
RAW mode. But that gives you a file over 18Mb, so you need a fast
memory card - I'm currently trialling a
1Gb SanDisk CompactFlash rated at 10Mb/sec. It looks good so
far... The Fuji is a competent picture-taking machine (with more
adjustable thingys than most film SLRs I've used), and I'm
impressed so far. But then, it is
new, and it *is* my first digital, so that could change with
time. (c:


If you're not shooting in RAW, the Fuji 9500 will allow you up to
(checking the manual...) 1.1 frames/sec for 40 continuous shots -
is that fast enough? RAW slows it all down, due to the large file
size and write time.


And you won't get low noise on any digital camera if you push the
ISO rating high - it's just the way it works. But Photoshop has a
de-speckle command that works pretty well on most images.

Oh, and the 95 is a biggish camera. Not too heavy, but large is
size, about even with most current film SLRs.

I have one that I got a week ago and I just love it. I can't
really compare it to other digital cameras because it's my first,
but the transition from film is quite an experience.
I set up on a tripod on a country road where with my old Konica
FC-1 I'd get a nice shot of a meadow with some small evergreen
trees and a deciduous forest behind them. With the S9000 and it's
zoom, I was able to frame several shots which all came out nicely.
The camera has surprised me several times with the detail it can
produce and it will be some time before I master all the modes and
options. I have big hands and I love the large size of this
camera. It feels like you've got a serious machine in your hands,
and in fact you do. The one thing I would note is that the
"anti-shake" mode doesn't really mean that there's optical
correction for camera movement. It just sets the camera to choose
higher shutter speeds.
I run Linux on my computer and was worried about the software
which I knew would not run on my operating system, but all I do is
plug in the cable and treat it like a USB disk drive. I haven't
done much post-processing yet, as we've had a death in the family
and we're dealing with the estate, but I'm looking forward to
getting into this more seriously in a few weeks when I have the
time.
I'm very happy with my purchase and wouldn't change it even now.
Will all the features still be working 30 years from now, like my
old Konica has done? I don't know. Only time will tell, but Fuji
seems to have a good reputation and we'll just have to wait and
see. It's as good a bet as any out there I figure.

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)

"Fred Williams" wrote in message
...
On $DATE , RobG wrote:



I have an S9500(S9000 in the US, I believe). As far as I can
discern, no 'pixel doubling' is available; but then, with a 9MP
CCD, who needs more? If you want maximum image quality, shoot in
RAW mode. But that gives you a file over 18Mb, so you need a fast
memory card - I'm currently trialling a
1Gb SanDisk CompactFlash rated at 10Mb/sec. It looks good so
far... The Fuji is a competent picture-taking machine (with more
adjustable thingys than most film SLRs I've used), and I'm
impressed so far. But then, it is
new, and it *is* my first digital, so that could change with
time. (c:


If you're not shooting in RAW, the Fuji 9500 will allow you up to
(checking the manual...) 1.1 frames/sec for 40 continuous shots -
is that fast enough? RAW slows it all down, due to the large file
size and write time.


And you won't get low noise on any digital camera if you push the
ISO rating high - it's just the way it works. But Photoshop has a
de-speckle command that works pretty well on most images.

Oh, and the 95 is a biggish camera. Not too heavy, but large is
size, about even with most current film SLRs.

I have one that I got a week ago and I just love it. I can't
really compare it to other digital cameras because it's my first,
but the transition from film is quite an experience.
I set up on a tripod on a country road where with my old Konica
FC-1 I'd get a nice shot of a meadow with some small evergreen
trees and a deciduous forest behind them. With the S9000 and it's
zoom, I was able to frame several shots which all came out nicely.
The camera has surprised me several times with the detail it can
produce and it will be some time before I master all the modes and
options. I have big hands and I love the large size of this
camera. It feels like you've got a serious machine in your hands,
and in fact you do. The one thing I would note is that the
"anti-shake" mode doesn't really mean that there's optical
correction for camera movement. It just sets the camera to choose
higher shutter speeds.


And changes automatically to using ISO 800. Gives you more noise. I always
avoid using anti-shake in doing serious photography.



Wannabe
======

"RobG" wrote in message
50...


I have an S9500(S9000 in the US, I believe). As far as I can discern, no
'pixel doubling' is available; but then, with a 9MP CCD, who needs more?


If you use the accompanied FinePix Viewer to convert you 18MB RAW file to
50MB TIFF, you will notice the resolution is 4864x3648. That will be
17,743,872 pixels. Almost double the 9Meg.


Wannabe
=======

On $DATE , WannabeSomeone wrote:


"Fred Williams" wrote in message
...
On $DATE , RobG wrote:



I have an S9500(S9000 in the US, I believe). As far as I can
discern, no 'pixel doubling' is available; but then, with a 9MP
CCD, who needs more? If you want maximum image quality, shoot
in RAW mode. But that gives you a file over 18Mb, so you need a
fast memory card - I'm currently trialling a
1Gb SanDisk CompactFlash rated at 10Mb/sec. It looks good so
far... The Fuji is a competent picture-taking machine (with
more adjustable thingys than most film SLRs I've used), and I'm
impressed so far. But then, it is
new, and it *is* my first digital, so that could change with
time. (c:


If you're not shooting in RAW, the Fuji 9500 will allow you up
to (checking the manual...) 1.1 frames/sec for 40 continuous
shots - is that fast enough? RAW slows it all down, due to the
large file size and write time.


And you won't get low noise on any digital camera if you push
the ISO rating high - it's just the way it works. But Photoshop
has a de-speckle command that works pretty well on most images.

Oh, and the 95 is a biggish camera. Not too heavy, but large is
size, about even with most current film SLRs.

I have one that I got a week ago and I just love it. I
can't
really compare it to other digital cameras because it's my
first, but the transition from film is quite an experience.
I set up on a tripod on a country road where with my old
Konica
FC-1 I'd get a nice shot of a meadow with some small evergreen
trees and a deciduous forest behind them. With the S9000 and
it's zoom, I was able to frame several shots which all came out
nicely.
The camera has surprised me several times with the detail
it can
produce and it will be some time before I master all the modes
and
options. I have big hands and I love the large size of this
camera. It feels like you've got a serious machine in your
hands,
and in fact you do. The one thing I would note is that the
"anti-shake" mode doesn't really mean that there's optical
correction for camera movement. It just sets the camera to
choose higher shutter speeds.


And changes automatically to using ISO 800. Gives you more noise.
I always avoid using anti-shake in doing serious photography.

Yes for really serious photography one should use a tripod or
flash, if possible a lighting system with flash and tripod.
For the camera' anti-shake it makes sense that when going to
shorter shutter speeds they'd up the ISO to compensate for less
light. I'm not bothered by the amount of noise I have been
getting from this mode, which I feel would become a problem if I
were doing a large crop on the post production side of things.
The resolution is high enough to cover any noise in most photos.
I have it set on fine resolution and I'm taking JPEGS.
I just took a picture of my clothes cupboard lit by a 40 watt bulb
on the far side of the room at full zoom. The arms of three
shirts are prominent in the photo and they show up fine with the
anti shake mode. If I then "trim" the photo in replay mode on the
camera and go to maximum trim, yes, noise is a problem. But post
production would go a long way to cleaning that up and how often
does a photographer take a shot like that anyway. It's very
seldom for me. Even so it would be easy to just flip up the built
in flash and get a frozen shot with plenty of light.

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)

Hi,

Yes for really serious photography one should use a tripod or
flash, if possible a lighting system with flash and tripod

I agrre but sometimes, surprisingly, monopods are used.

I was at the San Diego/Buffalo football game last Sunday and it was
interesting to see the sideline pro photogs all using monopods with
their long lenses (1200mm ?). They would run up and down the sidelines
following the action and taking pics. Wow, what energy.

I'm going to have to revive my little used monopod and try it out for
some of my pics.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon.

Conrad wrote:
Hi,

Yes for really serious photography one should use a tripod or
flash, if possible a lighting system with flash and tripod

I agrre but sometimes, surprisingly, monopods are used.

I was at the San Diego/Buffalo football game last Sunday and it was
interesting to see the sideline pro photogs all using monopods with
their long lenses (1200mm ?). They would run up and down the sidelines
following the action and taking pics. Wow, what energy.

I'm going to have to revive my little used monopod and try it out for
some of my pics.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon.


Aren't most of those dudes still shooting film?

On $DATE , Conrad wrote:

Hi,

Yes for really serious photography one should use a tripod or
flash, if possible a lighting system with flash and tripod

I agrre but sometimes, surprisingly, monopods are used.

I was at the San Diego/Buffalo football game last Sunday and it
was interesting to see the sideline pro photogs all using
monopods with their long lenses (1200mm ?). They would run up and
down the sidelines following the action and taking pics. Wow,
what energy.

I'm going to have to revive my little used monopod and try it out
for some of my pics.

Sure. When I want a quick shot, I sometimes use the tripod with
the legs together. Just plant the points in the dirt, aim and
fire. It provides fairly good stability. I don't do football,
hoever and I don't lug around a 1200mm lens. Although I'd love to
try one of those sometime.
The main point it that there's other ways to beat blurred photos
than an active electronic compensator, which might have it's
appeal, but with all the other features of my S9000 I'll live
without it for now. I took my first video today. Enjoying the
new camera a lot.

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)

Hi Bruce,

Aren't most of those dudes still shooting film?

Good question. From my vantage point I couldn't tell. But my guess is
that many were using digital.

I met Steve Malone (photographer for the Santa Barbara News Press) the
other day. While not a sports photographer - he said the paper had
switched to digital about five years ago.

I freelance for the weekly Sisters Nugget Newspaper and we switched to
mainly digital at least 5-8 yeras ago.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon