«

Hi,
I have been, for a long while, considering a non interchangable lens
(because of dust on the sensor when lens changing)
beast of a camera that I can carry around in my daysack.
When I heard that the new Lumix FZ30 was being produced, I thought that my
dream was being answered.
With 8 mega pixels and a Leica non extending lens with 12x magnification
coupled with image stabilisation it seemed all that I wanted.
Then I read the first review:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa...ew/index.shtml

The photos it produces have too much noise !!!!!!!!!

So now I wait for the Fuji Finepix S9500 ( or the S9000 as they are calling
it in America ).
See the preview at :
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/re...000_EN2.htmlIt shouldn't be long now, so they say!It has 9 mega pixels and a Fuji 10x optical zoom ( I wish it were Leica), itcopes with noise at high iso settings ( I wish it had image stabilization) .I can't help thinking that if the Lumix FZ30 had the Super CCD sensor of theFuji, which would help to reduce the noise, it might have been the perfectcamera (for me anyway).Or if only the Fuji Finepix had image stabilization !Perhaps I will have to wait for the next generation.

Graham Archer wrote:
[]
> the Fuji Finepix S9500 [] has 9 mega pixels and a Fuji
> 10x optical zoom ( I wish it were Leica), itcopes with noise at high
> iso settings ( I wish it had image stabilization) .I can't help
> thinking that if the Lumix FZ30 had the Super CCD sensor of theFuji,
> which would help to reduce the noise, it might have been the
> perfectcamera (for me anyway).Or if only the Fuji Finepix had image
> stabilization !Perhaps I will have to wait for the next generation.

For an ideal camera, you also want to throw in an EVF as good as or better
than the Minolta A2 which, although only VGA resolution (640 x 480)
pixels, was by far the best EVF I have ever used. Oh, and a better tilt
and swivel LCD (that on both the FZ30 and the Fuji looks clumsy and
fragile compared to the Nikon 8400/8800 finders).

By the way, the Fuji is about twice the weight of the Panasonic FZ5, and
it lacks Image Stabilisation. I do like the wider-angle minimum zoom
(28mm) and the manual zoom (twist ring on the lens barrel), but I don't
like the small aperture at maximum zoom (only f/4.9 compared to, for
example, the Panasonic FZ20 with f/2.8).

Going to interesting to see a full review, though. How well will that
lens cope?

David

"David J Taylor" wrote
> By the way, the Fuji is about twice the weight of the Panasonic FZ5, and
> it lacks Image Stabilisation.

I think the weight is more in line with the FZ30 (which is heavier if memory
serves than its predicessor the FZ20), and the FZ30 is more in line with the
features of the proposed Fuji S9500.

The lack of image stabilization may not be correct. From what I get from the
press release and the preview is that the S9000/S95000 is using a
non-optical anti-shake method that they are calling "Anti Blur" mode.
Whether it will work is anyone's guess right now, though those few reviewers
who have had their hands on the preproduction models don't seem to be
harping about the lack of IS. That could mean the absence is not such a big
deal with AS in place instead, or it could mean the reviewers use tripods a
lot and didn't notice ;-)

Take care,
Linda

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "David J Taylor" wrote
>
>>By the way, the Fuji is about twice the weight of the Panasonic FZ5, and
>>it lacks Image Stabilisation.
>
>
> I think the weight is more in line with the FZ30 (which is heavier if memory
> serves than its predicessor the FZ20), and the FZ30 is more in line with the
> features of the proposed Fuji S9500.
>
> The lack of image stabilization may not be correct. From what I get from the
> press release and the preview is that the S9000/S95000 is using a
> non-optical anti-shake method that they are calling "Anti Blur" mode.
> Whether it will work is anyone's guess right now, though those few reviewers
> who have had their hands on the preproduction models don't seem to be
> harping about the lack of IS. That could mean the absence is not such a big
> deal with AS in place instead, or it could mean the reviewers use tripods a
> lot and didn't notice ;-)
>
> Take care,
> Linda


Don't be fooled by marketing terms

SLR-like = high end P&S, basically any cameras that are bigger than a
deck of cards.
Anti-Blur = autommatic high ISO

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
[]
> The lack of image stabilization may not be correct. From what I get
> from the press release and the preview is that the S9000/S95000 is
> using a non-optical anti-shake method that they are calling "Anti
> Blur" mode. Whether it will work is anyone's guess right now, though
> those few reviewers who have had their hands on the preproduction
> models don't seem to be harping about the lack of IS. That could mean
> the absence is not such a big deal with AS in place instead, or it
> could mean the reviewers use tripods a lot and didn't notice ;-)

Linda,

I saw this "anti-blur" as well, but I'll wait and see what it really is.
For me, now having used image stabilisation, there's no way I would want
to go back. To keep noise low on these small sensor cameras generally
requires working at ISO 50 - 100, and many cameras have an aperture at
maximum zoom of f/5. Therefore, in the lower light levels of
higher-latitude winters you find you are shooting at 1/15 or 1/8, but with
the IS it's more like 1/150 or 1/80.

No, I don't carry a tripod!

Cheers,
David

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:09:19 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> I saw this "anti-blur" as well, but I'll wait and see what it really is.
> For me, now having used image stabilisation, there's no way I would want
> to go back. To keep noise low on these small sensor cameras generally
> requires working at ISO 50 - 100, and many cameras have an aperture at
> maximum zoom of f/5. Therefore, in the lower light levels of
> higher-latitude winters you find you are shooting at 1/15 or 1/8, but with
> the IS it's more like 1/150 or 1/80.

Have you missed the reviews and all of the comments about the Fuji
F10? If so, its sensor is unlike those in all previous P&S cameras,
and allows for *much* higher usable ISOs. That allows the use of
1/150 or 1/80 which can be better than IS, since it not only reduces
blur caused by jittery hands, but blur caused by subject motion as
well. I don't know if the "anti-blur" is real or a figment of an ad
agency's imagination, but even without it, the S9000/S9500 has the
potential to be just as effective at higher shutter speeds as other
cameras using IS at lower shutter speeds. A camera having both IS
and a better sensor would be ideal, and that's probably less than a
year away, whether from Fuji or from some other company.

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> Have you missed the reviews and all of the comments about the Fuji
> F10? If so, its sensor is unlike those in all previous P&S cameras,
> and allows for *much* higher usable ISOs. That allows the use of
> 1/150 or 1/80 which can be better than IS, since it not only reduces
> blur caused by jittery hands, but blur caused by subject motion as
> well. I don't know if the "anti-blur" is real or a figment of an ad
> agency's imagination, but even without it, the S9000/S9500 has the
> potential to be just as effective at higher shutter speeds as other
> cameras using IS at lower shutter speeds. A camera having both IS
> and a better sensor would be ideal, and that's probably less than a
> year away, whether from Fuji or from some other company.

Yes, I've seen some of the comments about the F10, but I doubt that even
Fuji could get a 10:1 gain in sensitivity. 10:1 is what you can get with
IS. 10:1 would be an amazing advancement (and possibly one which
contradicts the laws of physics). Some tens of percent I might accept as
a single step forward, possibly even 2:1. The larger size of the sensor
and reduced numbers of pixels compared to similar cameras will produce
further apparent gains in ISO, of course.

I do welcome the move to lower-noise sensors (and Fuji are to be
congratulated on their results so far) and I might be prepared to accept a
sensor as big as 8.8 x 6.6mm in order to achieve that. However, based on
current cameras my preference for a long-zoom camera would probably be a
smaller sensor so that the complete camera can be smaller and lighter.

Samples from the F10 look blurred compared with the competition. Whether
this is the lens or an artefact of noise reduction processing I don't
know. Perhaps the competition over-sharpen, which would increase visible
noise. Certainly, when my Panasonic FZ5 is due for replacement, I would
consider Fuji if they have an image stabilised camera (432mm focal length)
producing better images than the F10.

David

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:12:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Yes, I've seen some of the comments about the F10, but I doubt that even
> Fuji could get a 10:1 gain in sensitivity. 10:1 is what you can get with
> IS. 10:1 would be an amazing advancement (and possibly one which
> contradicts the laws of physics). Some tens of percent I might accept as
> a single step forward, possibly even 2:1. The larger size of the sensor
> and reduced numbers of pixels compared to similar cameras will produce
> further apparent gains in ISO, of course.

Why muddy the waters with numbers such as 2:1 and 10:1? Why not
use the more commonly used "number of stops" of exposure, or ISO?
All of the reviews I've seen claim 2 to 3 stops for IS, and 2 or
more for the F10's sensor. It makes comparisons much more
meaningful. And what you assume for the F10's sensor is probably
based on a misunderstanding of what it's actually doing. If it only
provided several tens of percent improvement, it would hardly have
gotten such favorable reviews. Are you saying that the reviews are
mistaken?


> Samples from the F10 look blurred compared with the competition.
> Whether this is the lens or an artefact of noise reduction processing
> I don't know. Perhaps the competition over-sharpen, which would
> increase visible noise.

You're certainly free to see blurriness, but I don't see how that
squares with the reviews that claimed better pictures from its 6mp
sensor than several other cameras having 7mp sensors.


> Certainly, when my Panasonic FZ5 is due for replacement, I would
> consider Fuji if they have an image stabilised camera (432mm focal
> length) producing better images than the F10.

You're also free to love your FZ5 to death, but you appear mighty
defensive here. The point wasn't to say the F10 was in any way
comparable to your FZ5. It was about what the use of a similar
(possibly improved) sensor would be like in the S9000/S9500. And if
you think that the improved sensor represents only one stop or less
of improvement, I think you're painting yourself into a corner.

"David J Taylor" wrote
> Linda,
>
> I saw this "anti-blur" as well, but I'll wait and see what it really is.
> For me, now having used image stabilisation, there's no way I would want
> to go back. To keep noise low on these small sensor cameras generally
> requires working at ISO 50 - 100, and many cameras have an aperture at
> maximum zoom of f/5. Therefore, in the lower light levels of
> higher-latitude winters you find you are shooting at 1/15 or 1/8, but with
> the IS it's more like 1/150 or 1/80.
>
> No, I don't carry a tripod!
>

I'm on the same wavelength in terms of waiting to see [I rarely buy anything
sight unseen] Yet, my earlier post was addressing the point that no optical
IS may not be a factor at all. If the specs for the Fuji 9000/9500 come out
as advertised/promoted than IS isn't needed. The sensor is larger, does 1600
ISO with low noise, goes to f/11, and I think 1/4000 (this is from memory
recall...may not be accurate). IS isn't needed if all these specs are met as
Fuji states. Also the fact that none of the previews by major review sites
are making a big deal of no IS. That leads me to believe that perhaps the
specs are real and not just hype. Of course all good previewers have made it
clear that will withhold final words until they get the full production
model in hand.

I'm anxiously awaiting because this model could prove to force the whole
digital camera market into a much more consumer tasty direction.

Take care,
Linda

"ASAAR" wrote
> A camera having both IS
> and a better sensor would be ideal, and that's probably less than a
> year away, whether from Fuji or from some other company.
>

That would be a real treat (having both) especially if the price remains
'consumer' friendly.

Take care,
Linda