a95 vs fz5 vs z5

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Belgos - 24 Jun 2005 19:25 GMT

Hi all,

I am looking to find a camera to replace my powershot a300. Would like 5MP
so
from what I have read I was leaning towards the a95.
But I see I can stretch my budget a bit to fit the Konica Minolta Z5 or the
Panasonic FZ5 and I do like the extra zoom and IS.
I know the rest of the differences, as the a95 is quite different than the
other two, but in the end it all comes down to image quality. I cannot
afford a DSLR, although I would need that quality. Now, I read and read and
then read some more about the noise of the two 'zlr's. But since noise
bothers some people more than others, I can only compare. So:
If the a300 I just sold has enough noise to prevent me for using it at
iso200 and iso400 (I shoot indoors, my little boy), how much more (or less,
or equal?) will the a95 have?
And then: is the Z5 for example more noisy than the a95 at iso320? Or the
fz5 at iso400?

And what about macro mode on the fz5: I read that it does not allow manual
mode. Will that mean that I cannot use cminimum aperture for max DOF?

Thanks for your time, any help appreciated.
Kostas

Reply to this Message

David J Taylor - 24 Jun 2005 20:43 GMT

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> And then: is the Z5 for example more noisy than the a95 at iso320? Or
> the fz5 at iso400?

That's very difficult to answer. All these cameras have similar basic
noise (a function of the small sensor size) but the built-in noise
reduction behaves differently, so the appearance of the noise differs.
Perhaps you can compare on the dpreview.com site? I try and avoid ISO 400
if possible.

> And what about macro mode on the fz5: I read that it does not allow
> manual mode. Will that mean that I cannot use cminimum aperture for
> max DOF?

In macro mode, the FZ5 pop-up menu allows control of exposure
compensation, auto-bracket and flash. The DoF on these small sensor
cameras is much greater than on a 35mm SLR, so it may not be a problem.
The usual difficult is getting a small enough DoF to isolate your subject,
fortunately the long lens and wide aperture of the FZ5 and FZ20 make this
a little easier.

Cheers,
David

Reply to this Message

Belgos - 25 Jun 2005 21:24 GMT

> That's very difficult to answer. All these cameras have similar basic
> noise (a function of the small sensor size) but the built-in noise
> reduction behaves differently, so the appearance of the noise differs.
> Perhaps you can compare on the dpreview.com site? I try and avoid ISO 400
> if possible.

I did the same on a300, I would stay away from 400 unless necessary and 200,
well, I didn't think it made that much difference anyway. I know what you
mean that in the end these cameras are not much different since they are all
compact, but I was wondering if maybe the larger CCD of the (F)Z5 (2,5
inches according to DPR) would be better than the A95 (1,8 inches).
But considering how highly regarded the Panasonic's lens is, I find it
strange that the sample images show similar noise at high ISO.

I guess I am looking for an excuse other than the stabilised 400mm+ for
looking at the KM/Pana. Don't seem to find one though, pitty :-/

Thanks,
Kostas

Reply to this Message

Fred@fred.fred - 26 Jun 2005 01:29 GMT

>> That's very difficult to answer. All these cameras have similar basic
>> noise (a function of the small sensor size) but the built-in noise
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>compact, but I was wondering if maybe the larger CCD of the (F)Z5 (2,5
>inches according to DPR) would be better than the A95 (1,8 inches).

The FZ5 CCD is 0.4 inches according to http://tinyurl.com/d962m.

>But considering how highly regarded the Panasonic's lens is, I find it
>strange that the sample images show similar noise at high ISO.

How would the lens affect noise??

>I guess I am looking for an excuse other than the stabilised 400mm+ for
>looking at the KM/Pana. Don't seem to find one though, pitty :-/
>
>Thanks,
>Kostas

Reply to this Message

David J Taylor - 26 Jun 2005 08:25 GMT

[]

>> I did the same on a300, I would stay away from 400 unless necessary
>> and 200, well, I didn't think it made that much difference anyway. I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> The FZ5 CCD is 0.4 inches according to http://tinyurl.com/d962m.

Yes, the sizes are quoted in reciprocals, so likely that's 1/2.5 inch
(10mm) and 1/1.8 inch (14mm).

>> But considering how highly regarded the Panasonic's lens is, I find
>> it strange that the sample images show similar noise at high ISO.
>
> How would the lens affect noise??

It doesn't directly, but in the same light conditions, the f/2.8 lens on
the Panasonic FZ20, for example, would allow you to shoot at a lower ISO
and hence lower noise than an f/4.5 lens on a camera with the same sensor.

Noise is highly subjective, and none of the review sites make any
measurement for the sensitivity of the human eye and brain to noise, nor
for any picture degradation caused by noise reduction algorithms. Hence
similar cameras can show different noise characteristics. It really does
come down to which "noise level" suits you best (and I accept that's an
unsatisfactory way of trying to compare).

David

Reply to this Message

Belgos - 26 Jun 2005 11:13 GMT

> > The FZ5 CCD is 0.4 inches according to http://tinyurl.com/d962m.
>
> Yes, the sizes are quoted in reciprocals, so likely that's 1/2.5 inch
> (10mm) and 1/1.8 inch (14mm).

Yes, now that I thought about it, 2,5 inches would be even bigger than the
Lcd :-) but whtever the actual numbers, the A95's is smaller one so I would
expect more noise at the same ISO, especially since they say that 5MP out of
such a small ccd is pushing it...

> similar cameras can show different noise characteristics. It really does
> come down to which "noise level" suits you best (and I accept that's an
> unsatisfactory way of trying to compare).

It is, as always... I'm really running out of reasons to look at the FZ5, I
think. Looks like I'll go for the a95 in the end.

Thanks
Kostas

Reply to this Message