Panasonic Lumix FZ30 V Fuji Finepix S9500 (S9000)

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/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/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/review/fujifilm/finepix/fuji_s9500_s9000_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

 

ASAAR wrote:
> 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?

Because I am talking about fundamental processes, not some measure like
"apparent signal to noise ratio" which can be influenced by signal
processing techniques.

> 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?

I am asking precisely what fundamental improvement in sensitivity Fuji
have made. When the number of photos is limited, how can Fuji get one
quarter of the noise that other sensors get? Is it better quantum
efficiency, fill area, or what?

>> 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.

It squares because "better" is subjective. A reviewer who examined and
image at full zoom rather than normal print size might rate noise more
objectionable that a difference in sharpness.

>> 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.

Actually, it's the laws of physics which "paint you into a corner". For a
given light level and exposure time, there are only a certain number of
photons available in a given pixel area. Quantum efficiency turns that
into a certain number of photo-electrons. Once you have a certain number
of photo-electrons, the best signal-to-noise you can get is determined by
that number, as there is an uncertainly of square-root (number) as to the
number of photo-electrons which are there. So to improve the
signal-to-noise you can either:

- improve the quantum-efficiency, getting more photo-electrons per number
of photons (improved materials, thinner chips).

- increase the fraction of the pixel which is sensitive, collecting more
of the available photons (better chip design)

- provide larger pixels collecting more photons (the DSLR approach)

- provide some image processing which masks the noise, but may have other
effects on the image.

Please tell me how Fuji have got a 4:1 (2 stop) improvement you claim.

Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a better sensor with lower noise, and
I know that present sensors are not at the theoretical limit.

David

 

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
[]
> 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.

Having used IS, there's no way I want to go back. It's not simply a
matter of exposure - IS can help in movie mode, and can also help when
framing the subject in windy conditions. If IS doesn't matter, why to the
top camera makers provide it in their long lenses?

> 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

Agreed, providing these claims of four times better sensitivity can be
substantiated.

David

 

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:30:56 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Please tell me how Fuji have got a 4:1 (2 stop) improvement you claim.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a better sensor with lower noise, and
> I know that present sensors are not at the theoretical limit.

Despite all of your theoretical speculation, the review sites are
near unanimous that Fuji's sensor offers several stops improvement
in sensitivity. I can't explain how Fuji got the 2 stops of
improvement, but as the reviews say that the F10 did it (not me, the
reviews!), I'm inclined to believe it. And they're not saying that
the greater sensitivity was at the expense of higher noise.
Skepticism is often warranted, but so far the only source that has
disagreed with the reviews is "l e o" and for a number of reasons
I'm skeptical of his opinions. We'll find out soon enough how the
S9000/S9500 performs, and if you're right I'll be disappointed. But
that would be because the camera didn't live up to expectations, not
because you were right!!!

 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:30:56 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Please tell me how Fuji have got a 4:1 (2 stop) improvement you
>> claim.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a better sensor with lower
>> noise, and I know that present sensors are not at the theoretical
>> limit.
>
> Despite all of your theoretical speculation, the review sites are
> near unanimous that Fuji's sensor offers several stops improvement
> in sensitivity. I can't explain how Fuji got the 2 stops of
> improvement, but as the reviews say that the F10 did it (not me, the
> reviews!), I'm inclined to believe it. And they're not saying that
> the greater sensitivity was at the expense of higher noise.
> Skepticism is often warranted, but so far the only source that has
> disagreed with the reviews is "l e o" and for a number of reasons
> I'm skeptical of his opinions. We'll find out soon enough how the
> S9000/S9500 performs, and if you're right I'll be disappointed. But
> that would be because the camera didn't live up to expectations, not
> because you were right!!!

Yes, ASAAR, I've seen the reviews as well, and it almost seems too good to
be true. I hope that we find out just how the four times improvement in
signal-to-noise ratio has been achieved.

David

 

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:13:12 GMT, Leonard wrote:

> However, the Fuji sensor is slightly larger than the 7MP 1/1.8 types,
> and has fewer pixels. And Canon understate the ISO compared to Fuji.
> Taking that into account, Fuji still appear to have better a better
> CCD implementation, but not four times better. I'd say between
> two-thirds of a stop and a full stop but I'd like to see a rigorous
> comparison.

I don't think that when David has referred to 4 stops or 4 times
better he's referring only to the sensor. Unless I'm mistaken it's
2 times for the sensor and another 2 times for the IS. I say this
mainly because I've never seen any 4x claims. At most only slightly
better than 2x.

 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:13:12 GMT, Leonard wrote:
>
>> However, the Fuji sensor is slightly larger than the 7MP 1/1.8 types,
>> and has fewer pixels. And Canon understate the ISO compared to Fuji.
>> Taking that into account, Fuji still appear to have better a better
>> CCD implementation, but not four times better. I'd say between
>> two-thirds of a stop and a full stop but I'd like to see a rigorous
>> comparison.
>
> I don't think that when David has referred to 4 stops or 4 times
> better he's referring only to the sensor. Unless I'm mistaken it's
> 2 times for the sensor and another 2 times for the IS. I say this
> mainly because I've never seen any 4x claims. At most only slightly
> better than 2x.

Well, the claims are (and there is no image stabilisation here) that
camera A produces the same noise at ISO 800 and camera B does at ISO 200.
That's four times the sensitivity (two stops).

What Leonard says makes a lot of sense:

- the sensor is a little larger
- there are fewer pixels

So the per-pixel sensitivity is naturally greater because of the greater
pixel area. In addition:

- there may be more noise reduction
- the sensor may be better (improved quantum efficiency or fill factor)

The noise reduction may be greater or better implemented, leaving much
less than a factor of four improvement due to the sensor alone. I would
add one more quite important factor to that:

- less in camera sharpening

which makes the noise less visible. Thus by making many of the right
choices of sensor size, number of pixels, and less in-camera sharpening,
Fuji have made a camera which is perhaps a better compromise than many of
the marketing-led cameras we see today. The actual sensor improvement is
only a part of the story, perhaps a relatively small part.

Cheers,
David

 

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:24:45 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> I don't think that when David has referred to 4 stops or 4 times
>> better he's referring only to the sensor. Unless I'm mistaken it's
>> 2 times for the sensor and another 2 times for the IS. I say this
>> mainly because I've never seen any 4x claims. At most only slightly
>> better than 2x.
>
> Well, the claims are (and there is no image stabilisation here) that
> camera A produces the same noise at ISO 800 and camera B does at ISO 200.
> That's four times the sensitivity (two stops).

Yep. I realized within seconds of clicking the <Send> button
that the 4x was really 2 stops worth. I guess it may come from long
practice adjusting exposures with the clicks on a shutter dial or
aperture ring, but referring to differences in exposure by, say,
going from 1/30th sec. up to 1/1000th sec. (5 clicks) being equaled
by going 5 f/stops in the opposite direction from f/8 to f/1.4 seems
slightly simpler than referring to this a 32x change. No problem
though if one is familiar with algebra and powers of 2.


> which makes the noise less visible. Thus by making many of the right
> choices of sensor size, number of pixels, and less in-camera sharpening,
> Fuji have made a camera which is perhaps a better compromise than many of
> the marketing-led cameras we see today. The actual sensor improvement is
> only a part of the story, perhaps a relatively small part.

Perhaps, and I could understand some reticence on the part of
Canon and Nikon from making their P&S cameras a bit more competitive
with DSLRs (slightly less with Fuji). But why would other
manufacturers have failed to take advantage of the improvements you
mentioned. I could understand them not getting close to an ideal
combination 5 years ago when cameras were more primitive, but to use
a familiar phrase, these changes "aren't rocket science", and fine
tuning all of these could have been done years ago and would
probably have generated a lot of sales for whichever manufacturers
did it. That's why I think that the sensor is more of a factor than
you do. But if you're right that would be good for those that
prefer P&S cameras from brands other than Fuji, since those
manufacturers should be able to quickly develop competitive cameras.
If they want to . . .

 

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:37:23 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

> Perhaps, and I could understand some reticence on the part of
>Canon and Nikon from making their P&S cameras a bit more competitive
>with DSLRs

I was thinking this yesterday when I was using my brain dead Nikon 8400 to
take parade pictures. And no, I wasn't using a tripod or monopod.

> But why would other
>manufacturers have failed to take advantage of the improvements you
>mentioned.

Because right now having more pixels is what sells cameras. Like in PCs
when it used to be a MHz race. Eventually you reach a point and you have
enough, then people realize there are other factors to performance.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> Perhaps, and I could understand some reticence on the part of
> Canon and Nikon from making their P&S cameras a bit more competitive
> with DSLRs (slightly less with Fuji). But why would other
> manufacturers have failed to take advantage of the improvements you
> mentioned. I could understand them not getting close to an ideal
> combination 5 years ago when cameras were more primitive, but to use
> a familiar phrase, these changes "aren't rocket science", and fine
> tuning all of these could have been done years ago and would
> probably have generated a lot of sales for whichever manufacturers
> did it. That's why I think that the sensor is more of a factor than
> you do. But if you're right that would be good for those that
> prefer P&S cameras from brands other than Fuji, since those
> manufacturers should be able to quickly develop competitive cameras.
> If they want to . . .

Partly, as Don says, megapixels sells. Like WATTS used to sell Hi-Fi (and
maybe still does). Partly, because if you turn down the default
sharpness, to an casual observer the sharper picture will look "better".
If people start going for the Fuji, other manufacturers will ask why, and
there may be a move towards quality rather than quantity.

I am still of the opinion that Fuji cannot have improved the sensor alone
by a factor of four (two stops), but I do welcome the changes they have
made in all areas.

David

 

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:55:48 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

>> But why would other manufacturers have failed to take advantage of
>> the improvements you mentioned.
>
> Because right now having more pixels is what sells cameras. Like in PCs
> when it used to be a MHz race. Eventually you reach a point and you have
> enough, then people realize there are other factors to performance.

You may be right, especially if the feature sets of new cameras
have been unduly influenced by the manufacturer's marketing-droids.