«

Hi,
I came across this site on the internet which has several sample photos
taken by the fuji S9000

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...8/22/2123.html

They seem ok to my untrained eye but I would appreciate some other opinions.
Thanks !

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:45:37 +0100, "Graham Archer"
<> wrote:

>Hi,
> I came across this site on the internet which has several sample photos
>taken by the fuji S9000
>
>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...8/22/2123.html
>
>They seem ok to my untrained eye but I would appreciate some other opinions.
> Thanks !
>
>
>

Horrible noise in the 400 and especially the 800 image. Black specs
all over the 400, the 800 looks like looking through one of those
windows they used to put in where they didn't want people to see what
was on the other side. Also, noticeable CA in some of the images.
The low ISO images are not too bad.
-Rich

On 10-Sep-05 19:04, Rich wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:45:37 +0100, "Graham Archer"
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>> I came across this site on the internet which has several sample photos
>>taken by the fuji S9000
>>
>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...8/22/2123.html
>>
>>They seem ok to my untrained eye but I would appreciate some other opinions.
>>Thanks !
>>
> Horrible noise in the 400 and especially the 800 image. Black specs
> all over the 400, the 800 looks like looking through one of those

I completely disagree. It is rather a great improvement over
any comparable product. Noise at 400 is moderate, at 800 quite
acceptable and 1600, well it looks like Lumix FZ20 a2 400 ISO,
or like Canon G5 at 400 ISO!

However, already at 400 ISO the comparative images of the
sunflowers show numerous noise cancellation and filtering
artifacts. We do not know enough about these images: Were
these raw images converted, jpegs, if jpegs, what quality,
which noise reduction option in use etc etc.

I will wait before making any final decisions.

Thomas

> windows they used to put in where they didn't want people to see what
> was on the other side. Also, noticeable CA in some of the images.
> The low ISO images are not too bad.
> -Rich

ThomasH wrote:
> On 10-Sep-05 19:04, Rich wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:45:37 +0100, "Graham Archer"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I came across this site on the internet which has several sample
>>> photos taken by the fuji S9000
>>>
>>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/re...8/22/2123.html
>>>
>>> They seem ok to my untrained eye but I would appreciate some other
>>> opinions.
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>> Horrible noise in the 400 and especially the 800 image. Black specs
>> all over the 400, the 800 looks like looking through one of those
>
>
> I completely disagree. It is rather a great improvement over
> any comparable product. Noise at 400 is moderate, at 800 quite
> acceptable and 1600, well it looks like Lumix FZ20 a2 400 ISO,
> or like Canon G5 at 400 ISO!
>
> However, already at 400 ISO the comparative images of the
> sunflowers show numerous noise cancellation and filtering
> artifacts. We do not know enough about these images: Were
> these raw images converted, jpegs, if jpegs, what quality,
> which noise reduction option in use etc etc.
>
> I will wait before making any final decisions.
>
> Thomas
>
>> windows they used to put in where they didn't want people to see what
>> was on the other side. Also, noticeable CA in some of the images.
>> The low ISO images are not too bad.
>> -Rich


It's not the noise but the details get wash out at ISO 400. It's good up
to ISO 200. It's a lot better than other P&S. The generally consensus is
Fujifilm's SuperCCD get 2/3 to 1 stop advantage over other small CCDs.
The rest is done through software.