File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/
I have a Fuji S5100 that I love very much. I've had it a little under 4 years, and it's developed 3 dead pixels, so I've been considering an upgrade. What do you photoheads think about the Fuji's S9600? It's right near the ceiling of my price range and has the granularity I want. Anyone own one or had a chance to use one yet?
http://fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9600/index.html
>> Anonymous
Also known as S9100. You should like it, since you are currently using a S5100. Just be aware that there is no image stabilization, which isn't much missed at 4 megapixels, but at 9 megapixels you'll definitely see blur/camera shake more easily. Also, high ISO is not as good as on a Fuji F10/F20/F30.

I used a Fuji S602 for several years, and enjoyed using it, even though it was slow. I have since moved to DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
Hmm. No image stabilization is a deal-breaker. I had completely forgotten about that...
What else would /p/ recommend in the <$500 range?
If I were going to kick it up to the >$1000 range, I'd get a Nikon D80.. Alas for $1300..
>> Anonymous
Hmm. No image stabilization is a deal-breaker. I had completely forgotten about that...
What else would /p/ recommend in the <$500 range that is similar?
If I were going to kick it up to the >$1000 range, I'd get a Nikon D80.. Alas for $1300..
>> Anonymous
<insert obligatory S3IS/G7 comment here>
>> Anonymous
>>40847
Really? Back in the day, we didn't even have "image stabilization." When I wanted a good landscape panorama, I'd have to walk to and from the mountain uphill, both ways!

Seriously though, it's not a deal breaker unless you find yourself to have very unsteady hands. If you're a beginner getting to sports photography or something, maybe it's worth it. But realize that you might end up becoming dependent on it. If it has IS, then good. But I wouldn't say it's a deal breaker of any sort. Besides, the ones without stabilization are generally cheaper.
>> Anonymous
Well I'm hardly a pro and mostly a hack, so perhaps I don't need it. I have a nice tripod (might sell it and get a monopod instead).. I shoot anything and everything, though landscape, macro, and nature seem to be what I end up taking the most of.. I've done fine without it until now, so.. Hrm.
CNet didn't seem to be too pleased with the camera.. They gave it a 7.5.. DPreview.com doesn't have a review yet.. I trust them the most.. Considering what i've got now, I think it would be a huge step forward without a huge price.. I paid nearly the same amount for my S5100 when it was new, and that was the best deal going :p
I'm also looking at the Fuji S6500.. I saw mention somewhere that its a good alternative to the 9100, so I'm doing a side-by-side at DPreview.. though i REALLY like that CF & XD feature on the 9100..
>> Anonymous
Eh I'd rather have the 9100 over the 6000...
Also, TrustedReviews.com has a GLOWING review of the 9100.. 10's all across the board on performance.. Oh, and the 6000 doesnt have a manual release cable option and the 9000 does.. I forgot about that option.. I def want that..
Still would like a word or two from someone that's actually used the camera.. Thats really what I'm after..
>> Anonymous
I would consider Nikon D40 or Canon EOS 350D
>> Anonymous
>>40861
The D40 is well out of my price range($700-$725). The Canon would be fine ($500), except I'd have to buy a 75-300mm lens for it, so again, that puts me out of my range.. The Fuji can be had for $400-$425, leaving me room to get a CF card to compliment my 1gb XD card..
>> ultimate f.o.r.c.e.
Just jumping in to say I have a S5100 too! :)