You should have given it a bit more time.
How come your findings are very much opposed to the existing ones?
Perhaps you were expecting too much.
Most people who buy cameras other than DSLR do not bother with RAW. It's just too much of a waste of time.
You ought to have found out A WAY of making the photos acceptable, telling us how you did it...
Perhaps starting with the manual is not a bad idea.

nothing personal and certainly not an "attack"...taking RAW shots in a sushi-bar seems to point to a very curious approach to "testing" a camera.
I ask why it is, that other testers do not apply this strategy. They usually try a variety of scenarios to test a camera's overall capability.
According to Pop, the writers at "Trusted Camera Reviews" and "Steve" for example, have all got it WRONG! They have not the faintest idea that the CCD sensor in this camera is crap, yet they were able to get more than reasonable results with it. Moreover, they even have a certain amount of praise for it.
A Stradivarius in the hands of a fool will sound very ordinary.

Otto, perhaps you need to stop feeling so inadequate. It seems to me you bought this camera and/or have a soft spot for Fuji, and are now looking for reasons to defend your purchase. If you like the reviews at the other sites, great, go with them. I bought the camera myself, tested it, didn't like it, and returned it. I will stand by my words. That's exactly what I thought of the camera, and what I continue to think of it. Now please take your trolling somewhere else. Oh, and comparing a FinePix with a Stradivarius is truly far-fetched...

Dear Pop,
I have not bought the camera. I don't have a soft spot for Fuji cams or any other cam.
I am sorry you missed the "far-fetched" analogy.
Never mind...
My point is that the cam which you so much disliked at 100% crop, isn't the way it's intended to be used by 99.99% of users. Most people just want "fotos".
If you don't mind my saying so,I just think your criticisms are a bit harsh, though it's clear that you intended it that way, to get even for having bought such a "dud"...
I am sorry for your disappointment and I don't feel particularly "inadequate" for pointing this out to you.
Why don't you review things that you actually "like" and perhaps concede that most people who use non DSLR's like to keep their photography simple, inexpensive and free of
powerful likes and dislikes?
My point if there is any, might be that perhaps, you did not review the subject the way it was intended for use. If you drive a people-mover like you would a Ferrari, you are bound to be disappointed...oh sorry, you are not into this kind of thing...no offence intended. Have a nice day, with which ever camera you end up buying.
otto

I do use Fuji cameras and there a couple of points to make.

Fuji use their own CCD's mostly, and rather than being cheap, are regarded as being very innovative what with having two sensor's per photosite, one for the lowlights, and one for the highlights, extending the dynamic range captured. Fuji RAW files are 14-bits per pixel, whereas a lot of DSLR RAW files are 12-bits per pixel. Because of these 2 sensors per photosite, Fuji RAW files tend to have twice the number of stated megapixels, which in the s9100's case should load into the RAW convertor as an 18MP image.

Yes, there is interpolation, but almost all digicams, including DSLRs, interpolate due to the bayer filter used when the image is captured. Also Fuji photosites are octagonally shaped, and are not arranged in straight rows, making interpolation unavoidable, but it's nothing to do with extending the megapixel rating.

As you end up with an 18MP image, which is double the number of photosites on the camera, the unprocessed images will look soft at 100%. Due to the anti-aliasing filters used on digital sensors, the image is also artificially softened to prevent moiring.

Check the res of the unprocessed as RAW. If I'm right it will be much higher than the 3,488x2,616 stated JPEG maximum ( i would guess 4,982x3,737 aprrox. ). Try resizing it to 3,488x2,616 and then determine what it looks like at 100%. Some RAW converters take this into account though, and will resize it accordingly automatically.

As for the noise, it's a fact of life with digital sensors, but the Super CCD is generally regarded as one of the best performers in this area, but it's still a small sensor at the end of the day. The in camera processing goes a long way to supressing noise, and Fuji do a good job of it, at the cost of some detail at high ISO. With RAW, 3rd party software like Neat Image should be used, and this gives much better results than the in camera processing.

And finally you'll need to tweak the levels, and curves, and apply the relevant sharpening to get the best out of the image, just as the camera does in JPG mode, but you have a lot more control.

The preview you see on the LCD is a JPG embedded in the RAW file, with all the camera processing applied as per the settings of the camera when you took the picture. This is why it doesn't look the same as the RAW file unprocessed. It's been processed by the camera.

And finally, people don't look at 100% crops, they look at either pictures resized to fit their screens, or they look at prints, and from my experience Fuji cameras make great prints.

The first time I used RAW on the Finepix S5200, I was a bit disappointed, for similar reasons, but after a bit of effort started getting fantastic results, and far far better pictures that I ever got with JPG mode, and in camera processing. I would expect similar with the 9100. That write speed is a killer though.

Forgive the abuse of the apostrophe in my previous post!

Bivith, appreciate the detailed comment! I agree, you can get nice photos with the S9100, but they need a LOT of work, and the camera is generally not as flexible as it's made out to be in the advertising.

At high ISO, the camera is basically unusable because of the noise. Perhaps the high ISO is more usable in full light, for high-speed photography, but in low light, you might as well delete any photos you get, because the noise is too much once you go above ISO 800. Yet it's praised for its low light capabilities in the ads.

I do not believe that the Super CCD sensor in the S9100 uses the same two photo site technology used in their S3 and S5 Pro cameras (SR II and SR Pro). The Super CCD simply uses octagonal-shaped diodes arranged in a sawtooth pattern. So in that sense, you do not get the same benefits that you would get with their higher-end sensors (such as the increase in resolution you mention - which isn't exactly doubling, either).

I really think the S9100 would be a great camera if they made the pixel pitch larger. Instead of squeezing 9 megapixels out of that sensor, they should have stayed at 6 or maybe 7 megapixels and increased the pixel pitch. This would have led to less lumi and chroma noise, and in the end, better pictures, even if we got less resolution.

Anyway, here are some photos I took with the S9100, the ones I could rescue from that evening photo session I mentioned in the review. Believe me, I had to do a LOT of processing. I uploaded them to Flickr at full size, and they're still just 3488x2616, so no, there's no resolution doubling.

After checking, you're correct it is just the one diode per photosite on that camera. I've also checked and the RAW files are 18MP, so you're conversion software must be pulling it back to the rated 9MP. I've no idea why this is!

As for noise at 1600 iso, point me in the direction of a non DSLR that doesn't have, and compare it to the fuji. I think Fujifilm's real strength is in the in camera processing. I've used a Panasonic Lumix super zoom, and the noise at 100 iso shocked me, but since the F10 Fuji has always produced great jpeg's at high ISO's. The praise for lower noise is always when compared to other compacts and small sensor cameras. No-one is claiming that it can do better than a DSLR.

perhaps the s6100 is the camera your after, which is a 6-megapixel in a very similar body. It's missing a hot-shoe though which is a shame, and the sensor is slightly smaller at 1/1.7-inch.

These are some my shots on the s5200/s5600 which has a 5MP 1/2.5-inch Super CCD sensor.

The first 2 pages approx, are using that camera, and the most recent ones are when I started using it in RAW mode. I didn't have to do a lot of processing, not really much more than I would do with a JPEG anyway.

Workflow was, using S7RAW software for conversion, pull back exposure to rescue highlights if necessary/possible, small amount of sharpness, and maybe a curve/gamma adjustment to pull back some brightness lost to exposure adjustment and generate tiff file. Open in Paint Shop Pro XI, and use Neat Image plug-in for noise reduction, and then use Paint Shop Pro to punch up/adjust contrast, and sharpen. Nothing spectacular there really.

Maybe you got a bad model :)

Anyway, I'll be on the lookout for an s9100 when the price drops. I think the s6100 looks like a better camera, but the lack of a flash hotshoe is a sticking point.

One final point. Your review mentions using Lightroom for the capture. Every other review that I've read that mentioned the RAW function, also mentioned that all the 3rd party convertors did a poor job when compared to Fujifilm's own Hyper Utility software. They also mentioned that Hyper Utility was pig slow and unintuitive, but the final results were far superior.

There's also a freeware raw convertor out there specifically for Fujifilm cameras called S7RAW which is what I use, and it's pretty decent too.

Bivith, I think you're wrong about the resolution doubling. Check the specs listed for the S9100. Perhaps your software does some resolution doubling through interpolation, but that's not an in-camera feature.

As for noise at high ISO, as far as I'm concerned, Fuji shouldn't advertise low-light capabilities when the camera doesn't really have them. Anything above ISO 800 and in low light on that camera is pretty much unusable.

As for Lightroom and Bridge, if plenty of other professional photographers are using them, I guess they're good enough for me. I doubt Adobe would screw up RAW conversion so badly that their software would be to blame for the high noise and poor photo quality encountered with the S9100.

Now I'm really done talking about this camera. I've pretty much covered all I needed to cover, and will not answer any more questions or respond to any more comments. Overall, the picture quality is nothing to brag about, and it doesn't fare well in low light. That's that. Bad positioning and false advertising on Fuji's part. Let's move on and hope they put out something better.

This site mentions the resolution doubling in RAW.

byee

If by chance other readers might have an interest in this thread, do look up Steves Review, Trusted Reviews and of course DP Review where the results from the S9000/S9100 looked extremely convincing. Trusted Review gave the cam 10/10 and images from Steve(protraits) and DPR were nothing short of extremely good.
Debating about Megapixels and file-size can be a world upon itself. Something like giving a bunch of men a measuring tape.
It's obvious that DSLR are superior (otherwise pros would all carry just a compact in their pockets) when it comes to IQ, but for a 6X4 or a 5X7, (and considering the PRICE)
cameras such as the S6500fd can be just spectacular.
I would tend to argue that for most people who smoke, lighting a cigarette with a blow-torch is a bit of an over-kill. Similarly an S6500fd or even the "dreaded" S9000/S9100....is all any sane person might require for a decent photograph provided you know the limitations and use the tool appropriately.
For extreme IQ, I would recommend going to medium format.
otto

auf wieder sehen!
My farewell remarks will include something from a well respected pro and camera reviewer.
See if you can guess who( to make some fun out of this dreary and endless tit-for-tat)
Quote 1: "If you can't make decent and clear pictures from your existing camera, it's not the camera."
Quote 2: "Magapixels have nothing to do with a great photograph"
Quote 3: " If you can't sink a putt from any distance, it's not the putter's fault"
Quote 4: "a poor carpenter blames his tools..."

Q3&4 are from Otto who is about to attend to a gas leak before reviewing reviewers of super-market trollys...
Have a great day everybody and don't sweat the small stuff...
contemplate at your leisure:
GOD: Just because you are one of my sons does not mean I won't let you die.
Buddha: Cease Mind, Cease Suffering.
Lao Tzu: This that can be named is not THAT.
George Bush: It'll take some time before we can restore chaos.
with the warmest regards to anyone who might read this,
otto

You whole problem came from shooting raw - and not reading the instructions.

If you wish to appear credible, ask for someone to convert the raw files you had originally taken, using the Fuji Raw converter - then go hard and ugly if you still feel like a robbed consumer.

To quote you:
"I doubt Adobe would screw up RAW conversion so badly that their software would be to blame for the high noise and poor photo quality encountered with the S9100."

To quote TrustedReview - re Fujis Raw Converter VS the ones you used.
"Batch processing a few dozen RAW files can take the best part of an hour. Unfortunately using the Camera RAW plug-in for Adobe Photoshop doesn't produce anything like the same quality, and can result in very noisy high-ISO images, so you'll just have to be patient."

Dude, we all make mistakes.

The Author's comments says it all:

"I've used so many cameras by now that unless I'm using a new DSLR, I don't need to read the instruction book"

The Pride comes before the Fall. If the Author had bothered to open the Instruction Book, he would have found several ways to get from Point A to Point B and get fantastic photos along the way. But then again, he was more intent impressing his lady friend at a Sushi Bar. This camera review is a joke of the first order that doesn't do this camera justice. How many 16" x 20" prints have you printed that were taken with this camera, bub? I have printed over 50 and they rival photographs I have taken with my Toyo 45AII using a 135mm Fujion Lens...but then I've already lost you because you don't have a clue.