File :-(, x, )
Fujifilm finepix 9600/9100 Anonymous
What does /p/ think about Fujifilm in general and what about this one particular camera? I have heard that picture quality of Fujifilm cameras aren't the best out there, also menu system needs some time to get used to...?

To conclude it, I'm thinking of buying Fujifilm 9600/9100, yay or nay?

Picture related!
>> Anonymous
Fuji cameras without SuperCCD sensor = FAIL
Fuji cameras w/SuperCCD = ok

Speaking of S9600, everything depends on its price. In my area the S9600 retails for about $600, so I personally would've added another hundred bucks and bought a cheap DSLR with 2-lens kit (or 10x zoom lens kit, Olympus makes one) - the difference in image quality, esp. at high ISOs (400 and more) should be very substantial.
>> Anonymous
I have a mixed thoughts about DSLRs, not sure if I want to jump in the lens race...

Also, while you can find some entry-level DSLR for that price yet lens, external flash and tripod will cost you an fortune in the end, not that flash/tripod weren't needed for this P&S, yet still, in my opinion, in the end, the price for DSLR to get would be much more than just + $100

Mind you, I'm not by any means professional photographer so getting an DSLR would be kind of stupid, I think. Anyway, that's why I'm looking for an overall good P&S without much limitations and as close as possible to DSLR if somehow, magically, one day I would turn into Ernst Hass or something.

What does Anonymous think of this theory?
>> Anonymous
>>37133
>still, in my opinion, in the end, the price for DSLR to get would be much more than just + $100

Of course, if you get a DSLR, you will tempted to buy expensive lenses. Learn to resist this temptation! XD
Concerning flashes/tripods, the S9600 isn't any different from a DSLR. If you need a tripod to take some shot with a DSLR, you'll definitely need a tripod to take the same shot with the S9600; the same with an external flash.

>Mind you, I'm not by any means professional photographer so getting an DSLR would be kind of stupid, I think.
DSLR doesn't equal "professional", it's not 1997 anymore. It's just a slightly more expensive camera with better image quality and more flexibility.
Anyway, the only disadvantage of a DSLR (apart from price, obviously) is the inability to show live picture on the LCD while shooting, but that just takes some time to get used to. And no one forces you to use all the advanced features - all cheap DSLRs can still be used as P&S with good results.
>> Anonymous
>>37141
Yeah, but isn't it better to have a great, even possibly the best P&S out there, instead of having entry-level, (read: shitty) DSLR?

Could be that am I wrong on this one. Am I?

Maybe there is some Anonymous with this particular camera or 9500/9000 and can share his thoughts about it as well as lens?
>> Anonymous
>>37148
"Yeah, but isn't it better to have a great, even possibly the best bicycle out there, instead of having a budget, (read: shitty) car?"

Analogy'd!

Even my Rebel XTi totally pwns any P&S I've ever encountered, and that's just about the lowest-end dSLR that Canon makes. SLRs are just a level above any non-SLR.

On the other hand, there's definitely a place for non-SLR cameras (just as bicycles still have their place in the world). I've got a Canon PowerShot A95 that fits nicely in my jeans pocket. By contrast, I could just barely fit my Rebel into my coat pocket if I take the lens off first. But if you're already looking at a big-ass camera like the one in the picture, I'd just go ahead and get an SLR. Even if the image quality is about equal, the sheer blazing speed of SLRs ("Shutter lag? What's that?") means I'm a True Believer of the SLR Way. I can't tell you how many great shots I missed because my PowerShot was booting up, or going through its post-button-pre-picture shutter lag time. The only time I've missed a shot with my SLR was when it took too long for me to get it out of my bag and pop off the lens cap. It's on immediately, and it's ready to take a shot immediately.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37156
Listen to this man.


>Even if the image quality is about equal,
And it just isn't equal, especially if you shoot in dim light. I have yet to see a P&S camera that can shoot at ISO 800 or higher without producing a pixelated mess as a result - the only exception is the $1000 Sony R1, but that's not entirely a P&S camera.

Pic: $650 Olympus two-lens kit, which probably isn't as good as Canon, but is cheap and still pwns any P&S.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37156
I probably should gb2/o/, but this analogy isn't entirely correct. At least you can get more chicks with this bike than with a $10000 car.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:12:07 12:34:08ISO Speed Rating100Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2048Image Height1537
>> Anonymous
>>37216
Allow me to paint a picture with words!

It is a cool evening in the city. You spy a group of three hot chicks standing by a bus stop. Slicking back your hair, you cruise up in your ride and make your move.

"Hey, ladies. Why wait for the bus when you could take a ride with me for free?"

"Well," replies the self-anointed spokeswoman of the group, "how exactly do you intend for any of us to do that? On your handlebars?"

Suddenly the scene is brightly lit! You see how perfect these women are. They're hot, but not quite so hot that they're out of your pimply, overweight, 4chan-reading league. But as this registers, the rumble of thunder accompanying the lightning flash rolls in, and quickly on its heels is the rain they portend.

The ladies huddle under the bus stop shelter and laugh at you as your soaking commences. You wish you'd brought along your umbrella, but even if you had? Riding a bike with an umbrella's hard enough. Doing it with a woman is impossible.

Just then, another zitfaced nerd pulls up in his Honda Civic hatchback. "You ladies need a ride?"

>> Anonymous
>>37224
These are like the most entertaining lines I have red in the past month, not to mention the truth of them - I salute to you Anonymous.

So it comes down to this, buy an DSLR or a "real" P&S which isn't DSLR-a-like and you can easily put in your pocket as well as is cheap enough etc.

Then again, what DSLR-a-likes are really for?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
On the topic, (D)SLRs are surprisingly good for hitting on chicks. Take a picture of a random hot girl idling in the park with some P&S and she'll call cops on you; take a picture of her with a big-ass (D)SLR with a big-ass lens and she'll give you her e-mail so you can later send her the result.
>> Anonymous
>>37249
This is a good point. With a P&S you look like some creepy stalker. With an SLR, you look like a photographer.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37249
QFT. Also, that's probably the answer to>>37229- most girls can't tell the difference between a pro SLR and just a big P&S camera.
True story: my friend was once photographing swans in a pond with his DSLR-a-like (something Fuji too) and two hot girls approached him and asked if he could share some of his photos. So he got email and phone number of one of the girls, and he didnt even ASK for it! Pic very related (that's him, the lucky bastard)
>> Anonymous
/p/ suddenly got interesting
>> Anonymous
>>37254
That girl is preggers.
>> Anonymous
>>37256
...Hmm, I don't remember too clearly, but she didn't look pregnant to me then. I dunno, maybe that's just her dress blowing in the wind.
>> Anonymous
>>37254
There is quite a possibility that that camera, your friend has, is the same Fujifilm finepix 9600/9100, at least from what I can tell from the picture and info you posted! (Gold ring around the lens, 10x zoom mark on the lens and overall build of the camera.)

BTW chick is hot though married - look at the rings! LOL

About the topic, I still quite don't understand the point of DSLR-a-likes, only maybe this theory. Buying one for hitting the chicks while not throwing away a bunch of money on getting an DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>37258
The main point in favor of non-SLR big cameras like this is that they can have insane zoom range for cheap. 10x and 12x are getting pretty common in this class of camera. The average SLR lens to provide a similar focal length range would cost the same as the entirety of one of these cameras, and then you'd still have to buy the camera body.

And also, they're a bit cheaper than an SLR, so people who don't know any better will buy them and then later realize they need an SLR, too. That's what I did. $600 on a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A200. Got about $300 when I sold it after upgrading to a Digital Rebel. I consider the $300 I lost on the transaction a stupid tax. I know better now.
>> Anonymous
>>37224
>>37249

Fucking lol
>> Anonymous
Isn't it all in the lens anyway?

So, Anonymous, you are saying that high-end P&S will lose to the entry-level DSLR with some shitty kit lens attached to it? I'm just curious, no trolling or anything.
>> Anonymous
>>37285
Yes, the P&S will still lose if we're talking about image quality. Even the best lens in the world won't help when the sensor is five times smaller. Also, any "shitty kit lens" for DSLR is still better than the lenses on 90% of P&S cameras.

The only catch is that there's 10x continious zoom on P&S, while on a DSLR you'll have to swap "wide" and "telephoto" kit lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>37311
Sure it's got 10x continuous zoom, but isn't most of that digital anyway? (as opposed to optical)
You can just take whatever picture you get with a DSLR and blow it up in Photoshop or something.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
A DSLR + Tamron 18-250 > any ultrazoom P&S

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
>>37316
10x optical zoom in most cases. It's relatively easy to do when the sensor is small.

>>37323
Yes, but that lens alone costs about as much as a typical ultrazoom P&S.
>> Anonymous
>>37353

Still, I'd rather pay the extra so by the time I want to invest in a more capable camera/system, I can just buy different lenses instead of having to sell my whole camera and buy a new one. Most people who want to get a 'ultrazoom p&s' will eventually end up in dslr-land.
>> ac
>>37355
QFT. This is exactly what I did. "I don't need a dSLR. I want to be able to frame shots on an LCD anyway" I said to myself, as I plunked down $600 for a DiMAGE A200.

Then I actually played with an SLR and learned how wonderful it was to use actual glass as a viewfinder, and experienced the joys of an f/1.8 lens at a clear ISO400. Not to mention the complete lack of shutter lag. Oh God, I love not having shutter lag *so much*...
>> Anonymous
>>37353
Yes and also Fuji 9600 has faster lens, if I'm not mistaking, Tamron F/3.5-6.3 ø62 vs F/2.8-4.9 ø58.
>> Anonymous
>>37357
The lens is a bit faster, but what's the point? On a DSLR, you can shoot at higher ISO and get a clean picture with shorter exposure. And if you're concerned about depth of field, the 6.2mm/2.8 on Fuji is worse than 18/3.5 on DSLR/Tamron.

>>37355
If I understand this correctly, OP was willing to spend around $600 on a camera, and you're trying to get him to spend TWICE that sum now. Isn't that a bit much?
>> Anonymous
>>37358
You ALWAYS want a faster lens. It doesn't matter that you can bump up the ISO. ISO is always your last resort because it degrades quality the most. If what you said actually applied, everyone would just shoot at 1600 ISO at f/8.
>> Anonymous
>>37358
> depth of field, the 6.2mm/2.8 on Fuji is worse than 18/3.5 on DSLR/Tamron
By "worse" you mean what ? P&S cameras usually have grater DOF.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>It doesn't matter that you can bump up the ISO. ISO is always your last resort because it degrades quality the most.
Looks like you don't understand the difference between sensors of P&Ss and DSLRs. Pic very related.
>> Anonymous
>>37358
Yes, well at least seriously consider it. If he gets a Pentax K100D + 18-250 he'll end up with a slightly bigger zoom range, a much better sensor, image stabilization, and it'll be much better for him in the long term. And it doesn't cost double, you can get that for under $1000.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37064
s6500fd is superior
>> Anonymous
>>37364
Well... In the long term maybe he'll deeply regret spending a lot of money on a camera at all.
I have a DSLR with some lenses, flash and other stuff - but sometimes I question myself if it was worth spending $1.5k on all that, since I use the camera now once in a month at most.
>> Anonymous
>>37366
True. Well whatever, it's up to the OP. Btw, why did you spend that much if you only take pictures once a month?
>> Anonymous
>>37369
I thought I will enjoy it more than I actually am.
>> Anonymous
>>37369
see
>>37249
>> Anonymous
>>37371
>>37372
hivemind malfunction