 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the FZ30 isn't for you. >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp > > I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own > photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the > FZ30 isn't for you. ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and that is very bad. > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and > that is very bad. The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom. David >>"David J Taylor" >><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > David I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility is shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed. The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the truth for the sake of promoting Canon. If the Panasonic had mirrors and hinges flapping around at the time of exposure it would be perfectly fair to say it's images are noisy at high ISO and it can't take a low light picture as well as a Canon. It doesn't. It actually performs quite well in low light situations. I don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or in low light, to boost shutter speed. The Canon "S" series DSLRs have a particularly bad mirror design which shudders more than most SLRs during exposure. The Canon's (ands nearly every other SLR - film and digital) actually need high ISO in order to maintain high shutter speeds in low light and produce a sharp (or clear) picture. The Panasonic does not. The pictures here http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics are from a FZ20, the forerunner of the FZ30 but none the less, relevant to this discussion. You simply could not take these pictures with the same ISO settings as the Panasonic, using a Canon DSLR. Not even on a tripod. The only way is to wind up the ISO. A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon DSLR... Total bullshit!  SignatureDouglas... Have gun will travel... Said his card. I didn't care, I shot him anyway. 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya. [] >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp [] > I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up > Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > does so attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is > distorting the truth for the sake of promoting Canon. [] I agree that the comparison is unfair. If you compare the sensitive areas the Canon is 329 sq.mm. and the FZ30 is 38 sq.mm. Therefore if you are going to show the XT at ISO 1600, the similar figure for the FZ30 would be ISO 200, not ISO 400. The results would be comparable under such conditions. Of course, the original posting was simply stating the obvious, that a small sensor camera is not as sensitive as a large sensor one! David >The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras >don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so >attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the >truth for the sake of promoting Canon. That is easy to circumvent; DPR gives the f-stop and shutter speeds, so all you have to do, really, is the math to expose the absolute exposure of each; wher one has x stops more exposure than the other. Personally, I think that the better way to compare is to use absolute exposure that is fixed in a comparison, and then bringing the resulting images to the same tonal curve in the display images. Then you are really comparing two cameras at the same light level (assuming that the f-stops and shutter speeds are fairly accurate in the cameras compared; shutter-speed can be circumvented with manual flash, leaving only f-stop as questionable). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I >don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just >for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or >in low light, to boost shutter speed. What difference does that make? The idea is to have a standard subject, to compare noise and general image quality. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the >same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview >never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you >believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon >DSLR... Total bullshit! Both cameras at their best would be a nice addition, but it would hardly be useful as an only comparison, as you are catering to the weaker link. The need for low-light performance is very real and very important, despite what a minority of tripod-carrying still-life shooters like you have to say. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>"David J Taylor" >>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or >in low light, to boost shutter speed. Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you (maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun. If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine, otherwise... If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a camera that is severely restricted in what it can do. -Rich >Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature >shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a >camera that is severely restricted in what it can do. On a cloudy day in the woods, I'm already under-exposing at ISO 1600 with a 400mm IS lens at 1/320. We have a long way to go, and film should not be remembered as a frame of reference. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images. It's a marriage made in heaven. >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp > >Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with >Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images. > >It's a marriage made in heaven. Not really. One thing Olympus did in it's upper end was avoid the hideious plastic bodies of the Panasonics. Now (E-500) that's bleeding into Olympus. Pretty soon, if they aren't careful, they'll be just another Kodak. -Rich > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is ?. You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to discuss it ? >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp > >Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is >?. >You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to >discuss it ? Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time. If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group, it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on high ISO capability? -Rich >If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group, >it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take >share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they >are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony >R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on >high ISO capability? No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to > read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz. > ---------- > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) > See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Oh, Sorry Ed... I thought when one of the group's founders (Alan Browne) led by example and changed the rules or guidelines to suit himself and his style of posts, it was fine for everyone else to do the same. I didn't realize you subscribed to the "do as I say not as I do theory" of Canadian logic. I'll keep that in mind for the next time you go off topic. I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed. It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as real people, you know. SignatureDouglas... Have gun will travel... Said his card. I didn't care, I shot him anyway. 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya. >picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed. >It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as >real people, you know. Bigot? Hardy har har......! Thanks for helping me start the day with a good laugh. Let's see: If you would take 2 seconds to look at my sig, you would see I actually use a lowly ancient P&S camera (Coolpix 990) and a first gen "ZLR" (Coolpix 5700) and have many photos from these on my site. I've posted many times about the low light capability, or not. of the 5700 and the use of Neat Image to get usable higher ISO images from it. I argued against Alan's position during the initial discussions of the group charter before it's formation. The charter is the charter. I made use of it to make a point against the inane posting habits of a certain individual who would appear to be an annoyance to more than just myself. So, if that makes me a bigot, so be it. Glad you've joined the group(s). ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in >low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of >cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs >that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the >picture entirely like a Canon can. Can you give an example of what you're talking about? You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or even convincing logic. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in >>low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or > even convincing logic. One of the annoying things about your questioning John is your insistence on evidence for everything you can't comprehend, rather than accept the fact that maybe someone other than you actually takes photos with a variety of cameras and knows which one to use in which circumstance to obtain the best results rather than intimately understand the whole (boring) spectrum of electronic imaging. I'm a Photographer, not a technologist. My assessment of a camera's value is based only on how good a picture it takes. I couldn't care less if I tried, whether it used a 4/3 sensor or a 35mm size sensor. If a camera can be used for something and it's better for that use than another, I'll use it. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics None of these pictures could have been taken with a 20D at the ISO settings of the Panasonic and the resulting images, still have been sharp. I know because I tried. The mirror shudder of a 20D almost guarantees you can't get a sharp picture under 1/125th shutter speed at any ISO setting when it's got an f2.8 lens on it. From where I stand, that makes the Panasonic a better low light camera than the 20D. Just try and take a picture with a 20D at 1/15th shutter speed while hand holding the camera... Don't bother what lens you use, just make sure it's a f2.8 like the Leica on the Panasonic is. Some may argue that the FZ can do this because it has an image stabilizer. Big deal. It came built in to the camera. Others might claim using ISO 1600 with the 20D will result in a sharp image. So what? That's subscribing to the same theory I've just offered... The Panasonic has no shutter vibrations. It has no mirror slap. It can take sharp pictures at ridiculously slow shutter speeds so it doesn't need to use a high ISO to do this. The two cameras are so different they can only be judged when allowed to work at their own best settings for a given scene. Nothing about the specifications of these two cameras can be validly compared to each other unless you let the finished photograph be the point of judgment... And isn't that what Photography is all about? SignatureDouglas... Have gun will travel... Said his card. I didn't care, I shot him anyway. 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya. > Can you give an example of what you're talking about? > > You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or > even convincing logic. He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Can you give an example of what you're talking about? >> >> You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or >> even convincing logic. > >He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error. Well, he seems to be shifting on the subject, too. He used to sing this about "noise reduction at high ISOs", but now it's hand-holding the Canon without IS, vs the FZ20 _with_ IS. Maybe he realized there was no such noise reduction in the RAW data. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.