The 10x optical zoom is essentially the highest zoom available on a digital camera without using any adapters. There is also a kodak with a 10x optical with 4 effective megapixels, as opposed to the s5000 3.2 EFFECTIVE megapixels.
Off the top of my head the model is a Kodak d6490, or something similar.
Personally though I think the S5000 is the best value for money camera available, especially with the secondary chip if you ever did want more depth in the shot.
Outstanding price, I would snap it up.
My brother in law just bought one and he is made up with it. What I saw of the camera looked impressive. It is a bit big for me though.
I have a Minolta Dimage F100. It is 4MP, very small with a lot of advanced features including full manual control and image tracking autofocus. Best of all, the results are superb; I wish that I had gone digital earlier. UK Digital Cameras have them in their shop window for £199 (a bargain), I can't see them on the web site (http://www.uk-digital-camera.co.uk/) so a call would probably be needed.
NB: I can highly recommend Boots Internet developing service.
Waz also thinking of getting either the fuji s5000 or s7000z and while tempted by the 10x zoom on the 5000 was wondering would I be missing out much on the s7000's 6/12MP offering.
Another words what kind of picture size would I start to lose quality on the s5000 with it's 3/6mp capacity
read pro`s n con`s of fuji`s here.. umm
its a good camra, but i dont like to see probs like this..
Image quality could be better -- too noisy and over-compressed; Purple fringing, vignetting also noticeable.
I have to add that I was very pleased with the Fuji that I used to have, and it was let down only by the fact that the jpg images are very highly compressed when stored. Whilst this mean you can get a good amount of shots on your memory card, it also means that the photos are not as 'clean' as they should be, and you do get, particularly in areas like sky, a lot of 'digital corruption' which has been caused by the compression rate used. Even on the top of the range S7000, you have no control over how much the image is compressed unless you store it in RAW format which, of course, isn't compressed at all. Compare this with my Minolta which, as well as RAW and TIF formats, gives me 3 levels of JPG compression.
At the end of the day, however, it all depends on how fussy you are (I'm very fussy!). You may find these imperfections acceptable and, in a lot of photos not even noticable, but if you are like me, you might just find that they start to annoy you.
I've got the A1, although the A2 is out soon (if not already), but I see that the Minolta Z1 also has 3 levels of JPG compression you can use (but no RAW or TIF). Even the Minolta G400 allows you to select Normal or Fine. I also see that the Minolta F100 (mentioned in one of the replies) has TIF and 3 Levels of JPG compression.
It's a real shame because, apart from this issue, I was really pleased with my Fuji (2800) and was looking at the S7000 as well as the Minolta A1 when I upgraded. I don't think it's just me being fussy. To take a quote directly from 'Steve's Digicams' review of the S7000:-
"we were generally pleased with the quality of the S7000's 6M images even though the JPG files are aggressively compressed and unusually small at approx. 1.5-megabytes. This 'aggressive compression' can be seen as noise in the blue sky areas of our sample pictures."
For lower end cameras this would be acceptable, but when you're supposedly buying a 'top of the range' camera, in my opinion, this is unforgivable.
The Fuji's are well designed, good picture quality, esp in terms of colour. Also, a 10x zoom might be a better prospect than a higher megapixel camera with a shorter zoom, in terms of picture quality achievable.
Also, might be similar to other brands, but I was pleasantly surprised when I clumsily broke my fuji, that the standard repair charge was £80 whatever the damage. (I broke the lens).