Detailing World Forum banner

Fujifilm Finepix S9600

12K views 45 replies 8 participants last post by  oneowner2004 
G
#1 ·
I'm after a new camera and the above is suppose to be pretty good. If anyone has one can you please tell me how you get on with it? If possible a few shots would be good too :)

Cheers :thumb:
 
#2 · (Edited)
It is as good as you are going to get without going to a DSLR. You may also conisder the Panasonic FZ8, there is less than a cigarette paper between them in real life. The Panasonic has around 7 megapixels and the fuji about 9, but the sensor in both cameras is so small that the actual difference in the final image is next to nothing, and what the panasonic lacks in pixels it makes up for with a leica lens which is as good as they come on fixed lens cameras like these.

P.S. you could pick up an entry level DSLR like the Nikon D40 for the same sort of money and although it only has 6 megapixels in the real world the image quality will knock spots off either of the above mentioned cameras.
 
#12 ·
The noise will be down to the size of the sensor being so small, that's why a noise free image from a 6MP DSLR will be capaable of being enlarged way beyond that of a 9MP point&shoot/bridge camera.

Does anyone know if the S96000 comes with a lens as standard or is it just the camera body?
No it is a bridge camera and although it looks like a big DSLR it has a fixed lens.
 
#9 ·
Good image quality AJA, but you might wanna knock a little Magenta out of them. Everything's looking a wee bit pink...
As said, the comparison with a similar Lumix will definitely be a battle
of Resolution over Lens quality. Fuji do make several incredible professional
cameras, as well as lenses for the Hasselblad H System. Not to be sniffed
at, even if the Leica tag is tempting...
 
#14 · (Edited)
It is a very long drawn out explination as to why the noise occurs (not trying to patronise, just can't be doing with all that typing) but short answer is no, you can reduce the noise in photoshop but this will lose detail.

Basically the size of the sensor is about the size of a finger nail, and it has 9 million pixels, the size of a sensor on a DSLR for comparision is about 2.4cm x1.6 cm so by putting the pixels further apart less noise is created.

To lower the noise on any camera lower the ISO sensitivity. But this isn't always possible when the light doesn't allow, when you zoom in the amount of light these types of camera can let in is reduced so the camera increases the ISO to compensate. You could use a tripod so that you can have a longer shutter time but this can be a PITA.
 
#24 ·
Although an SLR will be a superior camera it also will cost a few bob more by the time you allow for lenses of different focal length. If the £250 mark is what you want to spend then the Fuji 9600 is an excellent choice of camera. I have the s9500 (Previous model) bought early this year.

My friend also has the 9500 and its a camera he tends to carry with him at all times even though he has a couple of expensive SLR's. Have a look at his website, especially the insects and hawks, most taken with the 9500 and all will print at A4 to superb standards even to A3 size at a quality that is good enough for selling. :) Cycoze
 
#26 ·
#27 ·
That ebay link for the D40 is from Hong Kong and is for the camera body only. I've found this UK supplier for £319 complete with a
AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II lens. Obviously this is about £90 than the 9600 but I would be willing to spend the extra if it was worth it. As I know nothing about lens specs (will buy a camera mag azine this weekend!) can anyone tell me if this is a decent general use lens and would it be able to take macro close ups ie close beading shots? http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?/p...RD=nikon d40&gclid=CLmKgvmHr44CFQMfEgoduHTrZA
 
#28 ·
Very interesting points raised by rmorgon84 concerning the sensor size.

When reviewing camera specs, we all tend to concentrate on getting as much mega pixels as possible, but I have not seen the sensor size quoted for many cameras, which seems as important. It appears that a camera with a small sensor will have to calculate and fill in pixels - hence the noise at larger resolutions..............

In simple terms, if as most DW's post their pictures up here at about 1,024 x 768 would it better using the Fuji S9600 to take a photo at the maximum file size of 9 million mega pixels and then use Photoshop to reduce the size for publishing on the web.

Or would less "noise" be produced by taking a picture set at a size to more closely match then intended output - i.e. 0.786 mega pixels??? at 72dpi

Is the latter more efficient?
 
#29 ·
In simple terms, if as most DW's post their pictures up here at about 1,024 x 768 would it better using the Fuji S9600 to take a photo at the maximum file size of 9 million mega pixels and then use Photoshop to reduce the size for publishing on the web.
Or would less "noise" be produced by taking a picture set at a size to more closely match then intended output - i.e. 0.786 mega pixels??? at 72dpi
Is the latter more efficient?
No, in short it isn't.

There is indeed a 'happy medium' (after all, you wouldn't scan a print for magazine reproduction at 1200dpi just because the scanner is capable - you'd scan it at 400dpi and then downsize it slightly to 300dpi for print after making any necessary image adjustments, for optimum detail).
Tbh an image would have to have been shot in incredibly low light, or really underexposed to display siginficant noise when resized to 1024x768.
Shooting images at low resolution is ultimately foolish, as you never know when or why you'll need those images again.
In 10 years time, a photograph of an incredibly rare car that you took at a car show could be wanted by a magazine, or you yourself may want a physical print of it.
But then you open it up, and it's 800x600 pixels... d'oh!
Same goes for wedding snaps, holiday snaps, home-made porn, whatever.

I will always shoot at the camera's maximum file size, and keep either RAW or TIFF versions of every image i create. I do this partly because i'm a pro photographer and partly because i take the 'long view' when it comes to the
importance of personal photographs (non-work stuff).
Even with the massive increase in consumer screen-based media, physical prints (including the pages of books and magazines) will remain one of
the most widely-used methods of viewing photographs for a very long time.
I personally much prefer flicking through the pages of photo books to scrolling through online galleries, and i don't expect that to change anytime soon.
 
#35 ·
No the standars lens in not capable of macro, however you can get a real 1:1 macro lens off ebay for for about £100 and it will blow away anything a super zoom macro function can do.

Well worth the investment IMHO, even if you do have to wait until next month to get it!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top