Im in the same boat. Im looking for a camera that I can sort of grow into. The 9100 seems to be a bit more on that level with it's hot shoe and higher megapixels. But the S6000 may have better low light performance. ITS a TOSS UP!..
It s not an easy thing to decide... As far as I know buying the s9100 (only camera) is almost the same price than buying the s6000 with accessories (memory card, Ni-mh batteries, carrying case,etc.) Im waiting for someone that recommend one of them and take me this "annoying" doubt in order to decide which one should I buy.....
I'm currently comparing the S6000fd and the S9100. It appears that both cameras use the same lens, but when comparing test photos done by Imaging Resource, the ISO 800 photos made with the S6000fd are sharper than the ISO 400 photos made with the S9100. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S6000/FULLRES/S6KhSLI0800.HTM http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S9100/FULLRES/S9100hSLI0400.HTM Can someone explain to me how that is possible? It seems that with the same lens and the higher megapixels that the S9100 would yield sharper images. Also, the S6100fd has a larger (2.5") LCD as compared to the S9100 (2.0") LCD, yet the S6100fd has a longer battery life. Shot to shot time is also better with the S6100fd, as is the flash recycle time, and it goes up to ISO 3200 (not that I'd want to use that very often). Is the S9100's flash hot shoe, threaded shutter release and higher megapixels worth the extra "$80?"..
Both cameras are decent. If they put all the best of both cameras together, it would be the ultimate camera. From what I have seen, the 6000 images are a bit better out of the camera, but if you Post Process, your results may be better with the 9100........at low iso. Higher iso the 6000 has it beat. I like the hot shoe, brighter EVF, higher mp (for larger prints), etc.of the 9100, but I prefer the low light capability, stronger flash and larger viewfinder of the 6000. The 6000 in the US is now in the $250 range with the rebate, so it was an easy decision.
The decision's been made and I'm not going to beat my brains out about it anymore. I'll check back later with an update.
If ya want to see some f-20 stuff, take a look here...
Http://s172.photobucket.com/albums/w6/Soundman500.
Good Luck!.
Mark..
There's a $50 rebate offer on the S6000fd through June 30, 2007. Here's the form: http://64.65.42.233/rebates/FujiS6000F30%2450MIR-Exp6.30.07.pdf..
I'm currently comparing the S6000fd and the S9100. It appears that both cameras use the same lens, but when comparing test photos done by Imaging Resource, the ISO 800 photos made with the S6000fd are sharper than the ISO 400 photos made with the S9100. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S6000/FULLRES/S6KhSLI0800.HTM http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S9100/FULLRES/S9100hSLI0400.HTM Can someone explain to me how that is possible? It seems that with the same lens and the higher megapixels that the S9100 would yield sharper images. Also, the S6100fd has a larger (2.5") LCD as compared to the S9100 (2.0") LCD, yet the S6100fd has a longer battery life. Shot to shot time is also better with the S6100fd, as is the flash recycle time, and it goes up to ISO 3200 (not that I'd want to use that very often). Is the S9100's flash hot shoe, threaded shutter release and higher megapixels worth the extra "$80?" John: Shawn writes: __ John, Interesting that you've come to the same conclusion I did. I am a fan of the.
S6000fd, and recommend it quite highly. I think you're seeing that the.
S6000's sensor is better. Another factor may be that the S9100's sensor is.
Revealing flaws in the lens that aren't visible on the S6000's lower res.
Sensor. We've seen the same thing as the resolution of the Canon Digital.
Rebel has increased over the years. What looked like a terrific lens in 2003.
On the original Digital Rebel's 6-megapixel sensor now looks positively soft.
On the 10-megapixel Digital Rebel XTi. I was once proud of the fine images.
That light, inexpensive lens produced; but now I think of it as a cheap.
Little thing that I leave in my bag most of the time. The lens hasn't.
Changed, but the sensor has. The bottom line is that the S6000 produces better images that print very.
Well. Add that bigger pixels gather more light than smaller ones, and you.
Can see clearly that the S6000 is a terrific buy: a camera that gets great.
Shots in most lighting conditions. If I didn't already have an SLR, I'd.
Probably buy the S6000. Cheers, Shawn Barnett.
Senior Editor, The Imaging Resource.
Http://www.imaging-resource.com __ Hope this helps. Forum Admin..
John, Interesting that you've come to the same conclusion I did. I am a fan of the S6000fd, and recommend it quite highly. I think you're seeing that the S6000's sensor is better. Another factor may be that the S9100's sensor is revealing flaws in the lens that aren't visible on the S6000's lower res sensor. We've seen the same thing as the resolution of the Canon Digital Rebel has increased over the years. What looked like a terrific lens in 2003 on the original Digital Rebel's 6-megapixel sensor now looks positively soft on the 10-megapixel Digital Rebel XTi.
The lens hasn't changed, but the sensor has. The bottom line is that the S6000 produces better images that print very well. Add that bigger pixels gather more light than smaller ones, and you can see clearly that the S6000 is a terrific buy: a camera that gets great shots in most lighting conditions. If I didn't already have an SLR, I'd probably buy the S6000. Cheers, Shawn Barnett Senior Editor, The Imaging Resource.
Http://www.imaging-resource.com __ Hope this helps. Forum Admin.
Shawn, Thank you very much for the explanation and comments! John..