Re: S6500FD/S6000FD owners report

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:45:29 -0700, Michael.Pasturi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

You've been on a perpetual camera opinion see-saw with just about
every camera you've ever commented upon. I wonder how long it'll
take for you to grow disenchanted with the FZ8's noise? At least
the FZ8 uses proprietary, more expensive battery packs, just like
the F20. Don't forget to pick up a few. :)

Thanks as always for your fine words.

If you don't like the fine words, consider the ridiculous, fanboy
posts you used to make. Perhaps you're a more serious poster when
you sign with your name instead of kinga? Based on your S6500 post,
I think not.


In 4 months of F20 ownership have charged it only four times and taken
1000+ *quality* photos very very impressed with its performance[unlike
the S6*00SD which is a dud] its also very very frugal on
batteries.Never required or will purchase a spare battery for the F20,
no need for it.

The suggestion to "pick up a few" was made 'tongue-in-cheek', and
was for the FZ8, not the F20. In this I agree with you, that a
spare Li-Ion battery is often an unecessary relatively expensive
luxury. Most people to buy on spare though, or so it would seem
from reading messages here.


Taken about 150 photos with this new S6*00SD and already been through
3 sets of 4x AA alk. batteries, it guzzles them.

It only guzzles them at that rate if you've got a defective
camera, or you're using it in a manner that would have *any* camera
guzzling batteries. FWIW, I've compared the CIPA claims in Fuji
manuals for several of their cameras with the actual battery
performance, and found the manual to be very accurate. The
S6000/S6500 is rated to get 200 shots from fresh alkaline batteries
and 400 shots from NiMH AA cells. This is what the S5100's manual
claims and when I duplicated the CIPA test I got about 220 shots
from alkalines. If you got only 50 shots per set of fresh alkaline
batteries, as I said, you either had a defective camera or you did
something abnormal such as prefocusing and zooming for 5 minutes for
every shot you took. BTW, if the S6500 is at all close to the
S5100/S5500 in battery performance, if you just take outdoor
pictures with the S6500 and don't use the flash, you'd probably get
about 800 shots from a set of alkaline batteries.

Let's see what DPReview found.

JPEGs are sharp and punchy and exposure is very reliable., and if
you don't like Fuji's approach to image processing you do at least
have the option of shooting in CCD-raw mode, though this does of
course slow things down. Compared to the F30 we found far less
evidence of purple fringing, and far less of a tendency towards
exposure errors.

As we saw with the F30 the noise advantage of the S6000fd is
greatest in the middle of the ISO range. Few cameras have a
significant noise problem at 'base' ISO (the lowest setting), and
the differences between all most of them is minimal. But most
small CCD cameras start to suffer from the problems of noise -
and more importantly the destructive effect of noise reduction -
once you get to ISO 200 or 400. Here the latest incarnation of
Fuji's Super CCD sensor really shines, with ISO 400 and 800 -
though still showing evidence of strong noise reduction -
considerably better than any conventional CCD competitor.

and when comparing the Fuji S6000/S6500 with Canon's S3 IS and
Sony's DSC-H2 for low contrast detail, found :

It's only when you look at these 'real world' crops that the real
advantage of the Super CCD sensor used in the S6000fd is obvious.
With all small CCD compacts we see serious smearing of low
contrast detail at ISO 200 (sometimes even lower), but the S6000fd
manages to keep plenty of texture at ISO 400, and even ISO 800
and 1600 haven't smeared it all away (in fact the noise reduction at
800 and 1600 appears to be very similar; you just get more noise at 1600).

and then in the studio scene comparisions :

Again, the S6000fd's output at ISO 400 isn't that 'clean' - there are
visible artefacts, but it is significantly better than the conventional
CCD-based H2, which has visible noise and has lost a lot of fine
detail to noise reduction. For the average user producing prints the
S6000fd's ISO 400 output remains perfectly usable - and compared
to most (if not all) of its competitors it's nothing short of amazing.

and then at ISO 800 :

More of the same really; the S6500fd's output is starting to show signs
of breaking down, but compared to the H2 it looks clean, clear and
detailed. Just like the F30, the S6500fd's output at ISO 800 is
considerably better than most of its competitors manage at ISO 400
- and some at ISO 200. To have a small-sensor camera capable of
producing results that are perfectly usable at ISO 800 is a luxury we have
rarely seen before, and something for which Fuji must be congratulated.

Then comes the resolution test, and you might find this
interesting since although it doesn't include the Panasonic FZ8, it
includes the FZ7, along with Canon's S3 IS and Sony's H2. Fuji's
S6500 produced the best results. Horizontal and Vertical LPH were
measured at 1,600 and 1,550 vs 1,400 and 1,500 for the FZ7.
Extinction resolution was 2,050 and 2,100 for the S6500 vs 1,800 and
1,850 for the FZ7.

Although the JPEGs are a bit over-sharpened, and they don't quite
match the F30, the S6500fd sets a new standard for resolution in a
6MP 'super zoom' camera, and out-performs cameras with one or
even two million more pixels. There's little, if any moiré and only the
merest hint of jagginess on 45 degree diagonals, and overall you can't
fail to be impressed with a camera that really does squeeze the maximum
detail out of 6 million pixels, across the frame.

Now to the Conclusions page :

# Excellent resolution & sharpness
# Very good results up to ISO 400, ISO 800 perfectly usable
# Class-leading high ISO performance; might not be fantastic, but
it's the best you'll get
# Very low shutter lag
# Comprehensive photographic controls
# Excellent battery life

Huh? I thought that you said that it "guzzles" batteries? But
then DPReview didn't notice the "noise and focus issues" that you
complained about either. The conclusions continued with :

The demise of Konica Minolta's camera division has left Fuji as the
only option for the buyer wanting a fully-featured big-zoom 'bridge'
camera with a true wideangle lens. For this reason alone the S6000fd
will be on many shortlists; throw in the fact that it shares the universally
acclaimed 6.3MP Super CCD sensor found in the F30 and you have a
very compelling proposition indeed.

And in many ways the S6000fd doesn't disappoint; the resolution is
excellent, and at lower ISO settings it puts many of the more popular
'super zoom' models to shame. At ISO 400 and 800 it is quite literally
in a class of its own. The high ISO output might not worry the SLR
manufacturers (the sheer scale of the difference in sensor sizes puts
paid to that), but it is better than most competitors by a fairly wide
margin. It's also actually a very nice camera to use, and comes about
as near to SLR-handling as any fixed-lens camera ever has - though
the user interface could do with a little more work.

So much for DPReview's evaluation. Now should I believe them, or
believe you? Hmm. I'll think about it. In the meantime, here's
some of what DPReview had to say about the FZ8 :

Here we see two different cameras with two different sensors but one
problem in common; what to do about noise. The Sony approach here
is to use fairly light noise reduction, meaning there is visible noise but
the color fidelity is still fairly high. Panasonic has done a fine job of
removing all the chroma noise, and produced a very clean-looking
result, but the color bleeding and overall desaturation is the price paid.
It's partly a matter of taste, as neither camera is producing results at
ISO 400 you'd want to use for any serious photographic work.

Ok, it sound like the FZ8 might produce acceptable results if you
don't push it above ISO 200. And then for a few conclusions :

* Some areas of performance actually worse than predecessor
* Noise is, as usual, a bit of a problem at lower ISO settings
* ISO 400+ noise reduction produces color bleeding and loss of low
contrast detail
* Default noise reduction too high at all ISO settings (use low NR setting)
* Limited dynamic range, highlight clipping in JPEGs
* Default contrast a bit on the high side
* Occasional (mild) fringing
* Occasional focus hunting at long end of zoom in low light and in
macro mode
* Slight video lag in live preview makes very short shutter lag rather
pointless

But don't worry, it's not all negative, as the conclusions end
with :

If you accept that the size and convenience of this type of product
means a certain level of compromise you won't be disappointed.
Viewed on-screen at 100% the output often leaves a little to be
desired, but for 'normal' use (standard sized prints, full screen
viewing) the excellent lens and reliable focus/exposure systems
cannot fail to impress. On this basis I think it's safe to say that the
FZ8 just about offers enough to earn a qualified Highly
Recommended, but I'd urge you to check out the sample images -
and decide if you're prepared to shoot raw when it matters and to
stick to ISO 100 whenever possible - before deciding.



Have 2 seperate cell phones and never considered to buy a spare
battery for either, wont be buying a spare battery for the FZ8, no
need not going to take 250+ photos in a day!

Good for you. I don't buy spare batteries for my cell phones
either. At $40 and $50 they're too expensive. I do the spare
batteries by buying spare cell phones. The last two spares I bought
that way ran me only $15 per phone, which naturally included a new
battery with each phone. They also included a spare charger at no
extra cost. I don't expect that to work with cameras though. :)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A beginner question
    ... of calculating exposure times of astronomical objects ... ISO values with dim astronomical targets is rarely advantageous. ... because the important components of noise are amplified at the same rate ... When I looked at the question concerning a magnitude 5.8 object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime photography. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Panasonic DMZ-FZ8 versus comparable dSLR
    ... ISO 200, which is the D70's lowest ISO setting, but the noise on the ... D70 at ISO 200 is essentially non-existent while on the FZ5, noise is ... I personally almost always shoot with my FZ8 at ISO 100, ... artifacts from in camera processing. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Canon 5D stomps Sigma SD14 into the dust
    ... equipped 5D's images. ... ISO 1600 (from what I've seen, things currently turn nasty much before ... There were lots of ISO 800 images, and there was quite a bit of noise; ... personally wouldn't pay so much for this camera. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: A Compact Camera For Low Light Spaces
    ... I wish they included ISO as well in the search. ... it's a great pocket size camera that takes ... Also a small generic battery charger & a spare ... Lastly, get a larger memory card, this is true with virtually ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Just when you started believe the low noise myth
    ... This is about the maximum latitude in a scene a Canon CMOS digital sensor can cope with before resorting to software enhancement to compensate for noise. ... All the others produce noise in shadows at ISO 100 which 5Ds don't. ... One of the real problems I though this post would highlight, is that reports from sources closely aligned with camera makers - read that as "don't bite the hand that feeds them" - are so distorted as to only present the very best possible report of a product. ... Anyone owning a 20D or a 30D who consistently "exposes for highlights" will sooner or later get pictures like this. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)