Fuji and the horror of complex lens variation

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Rich, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    This thread was (or should be) terrifying for anyone buying
    a camera/lens where the price is "artificially low." The 10x+ zooms
    on these cameras have great complexity. They are asked to zoom to 10x
    their lowest focal length, act as macro lenses, etc. All in a camera
    that costs around $700.00. The differences this guy found would be a
    "deal breaker" for anyone considering the camera who was looking for
    good performance. The question is, is this a fluke (bad product) or
    is this the range of variation one can expect with that model's lens??

    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. The best quality long zoom range lenses right now appear to be the Leica
    lenses supplied with the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 series cameras. But even
    there, as with any bulk-manufactured product, an odd bad example may slip

    If someone is unhappy with the results they are getting, take the camera
    back to the shop where you bought it.

    The Fuji model you mention offers, I believe, a long zoom range lens with
    no image stabilisation - not a combination I would purchase today.

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I just bought a Fuji S9000 and I'm delighted with it. There seems
    to be an "anti-fuji" element on this newsgroup and people need to
    do their own research to determine which camera is best for them.
    Talk to many people, face to face where possible, and consider the
    source for your information. There is a lot of competition in
    this industry and some company's are not above organizing "trash
    talk campaigns" to discredit their competitors.
    Fred Williams, Nov 27, 2005
  4. Fred,

    I am sure you are not suggesting that I am in any way part of such a

    I would love the lower noise of certain Fuji sensors (if they have made a
    genuine advance there), but I stick by my views that:

    - anything mass-produced may have the occasional bad item, which should be
    replaced immediately by the supplier

    - a long zoom without image stabilisation is not something I would buy or
    recommend to others.

    I'm pleased that your new purchase is doing what /you/ need.

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2005
  5. I agree with you. The blurry pictures seemed to be plainly out of focus or
    shaky. The article is biased. Even a cheap digicam cannot take a photo that
    bad. It is not the lens's fault if the camera holder uses a long zoom and
    cannot hold the camera still.

    WannabeSomeone, Nov 27, 2005
  6. Yes, the lack of mirror-slap helps a lot, but with image-stabilisation you
    can to ten times better that 1/(focal-length), and that's a gain well
    worth having, in my experience.

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2005
  7. Tesco News wrote:
    It's simple. If you compare the images produced, the Leica lens wins.

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2005
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    That would exclude me. I've always been a fan of the Fuji products
    and think they do a great job. They are the only ones who have really
    addressed the noise issue with P&S cameras and the dymanic range issue
    with DSLRs.
    I don't think that guy was some plant.
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I just metered outside on an overcast day at 100 ISO. The reading was
    1/125 at f4. Now, at 100mm, no problem. But at 300-400mm with a
    slower lens opening, I might be looking at 1/60 at f4.8. Not exactly
    hand holdable without shake. You'd either need to:
    -Raise the ISO
    -Use a tripod or minimally, a monopod.
    -Have anti-shake.

    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  10. Rich

    Rich Guest

    There were numerous shots all showing the same sort of problems.
    They guy seemed to be on the level. Why denigrate someone just
    because it hurts your feelings that they had a bad experience?
    Good thing is, he has the second good quality unit and will be able to
    keep it while (hopefully) the other won't simply be re-stocked by a
    complacent retailer.
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  11. Rich

    RobG Guest

    Y'know, last night I was gonna buy into this discussion with a fairly
    vitriolic post. But then I thought, "Ah, stuff it - it ain't worth the time
    or energy." And y'know what - I feel fine about that decision. The whingers
    will always whine, and there'll always be someone, somewhere, who doesn't
    like Company A's product, or won't but Company B's product because (fill in
    your own sorry excuse here).

    Just like Fred, I own and use and like (not love, like my old Ricoh KR-5) a
    Fuji S9500. It's competent, its optics are pretty good and it works.

    And I have no trouble holding a 300mm zoom steady for 1/30th second, so IS
    is just BS for me.

    Just my 1/2 dollar's worth...

    RobG, Nov 28, 2005
  12. Rich

    RobG Guest

    Possibly from defending their choice of camera to non-believers? I bought a
    an S9500 after using my brother's S3000 for a while - he bought an S9500

    RobG, Nov 28, 2005
  13. RobG wrote:

    Then you are lucky - it's not many people who can do that. For the rest
    of us, image stabilisation can help a lot.

    David J Taylor, Nov 28, 2005
  14. Rich

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You are quite right and it doesn't just apply to cameras.
    The same thing is true of lenses, pixel size, etc., etc.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 28, 2005
  15. Rich

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Seconded. Once upon a time when the world was young I too
    could hold a camera and lens steady sbots at 1/15 with a 50mm
    lens at f/4. You know, available darkness shots.

    Not any more. I *need* IS. Even when *not* using a camera...

    ----- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Nov 29, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.