 |
 | 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 / ZLR Cameras / July 2005Comparative Results - Canon S2 vs Pan FZ5
The following link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP allows a usefull side by side comparison between the Canon S2 and the Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and print them out to further compare them. I am curious to find out how others interpret each of the different classes of result. ie sunlight, indoors etc. I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. > The following link: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pan FZ5. The site encourages the reader to save them to disk and > print them out to further compare them. "The page you were looking for was not found. The link may be outdated, or you may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly." Do you have the correct URL, or instructions to see the side-by-side comparison? Thanks, David On 7/7/05 3:01 AM, in article zr4ze.64656$G8.25703@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote: >> The following link: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks, > David The correct URL is: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Very useful page. NB This link is more direct. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > The following link: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. Thanks to Nelly Bly for the URL. I just looked at the house image, but it's really surprising that despite the greater file size of the Canon image, it shows more effects of JPEG compression! Yuck. And look at the horizontal edges (for example, near the top of the central brick portion of the House exterior). Just look how rough the Canon edges are compared to the Panasonic. As you say, dramatic differences. I am surprised the Canon is quite so bad. Cheers, David What is your take on the rest of the images. It seems that the color of the Canon, especially in the portraits, are more realistic (at least on the screen. I eventually will run them throught photoshop auto.xxx and print them) and that the Canon prints result in more pleasing color. It also appears even on the house image that the Canon colors appeared true. Maybe I do not know what to look for. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the greater file size of the Canon image, it shows more effects of JPEG >compression! Why Yuck? Please let me know what to look for so I can see the same thing you are describing. >Yuck. And look at the horizontal edges (for example, near >the top of the central brick portion of the House exterior). Just look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > What is your take on the rest of the images. It seems that the color > of the Canon, especially in the portraits, are more realistic (at > least on the screen. I eventually will run them throught photoshop > auto.xxx and print them) and that the Canon prints result in more > pleasing color. It also appears even on the house image that the > Canon colors appeared true. Maybe I do not know what to look for. The only one where colour struck me was the flash photo, where the Canon (at least on the thumbnail) was wildly different on the background between the with and without flash. Apart from that, every digital camera will produce a slightly different colour rendition and this, coupled with differences in printers, probably means that no camera and printer will produce an accurate colour rendition, so all will need adjustment one way or another. Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to be the same? Actually, there's some critical point I'm missing here - given that the images were taken two months apart, how can the angle of the sun be exactly the same? These aren't images of real objects, but images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Cheers, David > Given that the images of the house were taken over two months apart (look > at the EXIF information on the JPEGs), how can one expect the colours to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > images of other images! No way can you compare the colour rendition > unless you are buying a camera to photograph other photographs. Yes, the house images are photographs of photographs. But that doesn't invalidate the comparison: the camera has no way of telling that the photons it sees are reflected from paper rather than real grass/trees/house. -Dave > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -Dave It completely invalidates any colour comparison. The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react differently to artificial colours than real ones. David > It completely invalidates any colour comparison. Not exactly. > The spectrum of light emitted from the "grass" on a photograph or print > will differ completely from the spectrum from real grass - consider the > near IR reflected from the chlorophyll for example, or the reflectivity in > near-UV of some flowers. The camera's RGB, CMY or RGBC sensors will react > differently to artificial colours than real ones. The purpose of those photos is to compare different cameras taking a photo of the same subject. The fact that the grass isn't real doesn't mean you can't compare the FZ photo of the photo to the S2 photo of the same photo. Obviously you can't use the photos to predict how the cameras will capture a different-but-similar real scene, for the reasons you stated above. -Dave > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -Dave Yes, but the difference is critical. Of course you can compare, and indeed see the much worse JPEG compression artefacts and other errors on the Canon images. But someone is already comparing these images as if they were images of actual objects, and I feel they are being misled. You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl objects with any degree of accuracy. Cheers, David > Yes, but the difference is critical. Of course you can compare, and > indeed see the much worse JPEG compression artefacts and other errors on > the Canon images. But someone is already comparing these images as if > they were images of actual objects, and I feel they are being misled. If you click on any of the sample images, there's a link at the top to: http://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/TESTS/TESTS.HTM which explains each test photo and the rationale behind it. E.g., for the house photo: The "House" Poster This is another studio poster shot, created mainly to stress the detail-resolving power of the cameras. The original was shot on 35mm Kodak Royal Gold 25 color-negative film, perhaps the sharpest and finest-grained color emulsion on the market today. It was scanned to a 72 megabyte RGB file via PhotoCD Pro, then cropped, converted to the CMYK color space, and printed on a large-format poster machine. You'll find the best areas for evaluating detail are in the center and top of the image: The bricks, details in the windows, and the fine patterns of leaves, sticks, and pine needles against the sky are all good subjects for seeing detail in the cameras. The subtle gradations of gray in the shingles on the house's roof also turn out to be a excellent indicator of how well cameras do in preserving subtle tonal variations in the face of the JPEG image-compression most cameras use. Overall, the detail in this poster is quite fine, and should work well for evaluating cameras up to about 2.5-3 megapixels. (At that point, we'll need to make a new poster, perhaps starting with medium-format film, and output on one of the new 1440-dpi high-resolution large-format inkjet printers.) A couple of deficiencies in this poster are important to note though, one having to do with the lens used to capture the original shot, and one with the reproduction process itself. Sharp eyes looking at pictures taken with higher-resolution cameras will note a "softness" in the corners of the picture, most evident as a lack of texture in the grass at lower left. This is an artifact of the camera lens used, a Nikkor 35-85 mm f4.5-5.6 zoom set at about a 40-45mm focal length, mounted on a Nikon 6006 camera. We didn't realize until after the poster was made that this lens loses some resolution in the corners, resulting in the lack of fine texture in the grass at lower left. The other issue with this image is that the amount of "unsharp masking" applied to the image was slightly high for the printing process, with the result that there are very thin, but noticeable "halos" around the fine branches silhouetted against the sky. While these halos themselves are a feature that can test camera resolution, they can also aggravate the effects of in-camera image sharpening. Neither of these issues is a "killer" in our view, but they do somewhat restrict the usefulness of images from this target. (For instance, we can't very well use it to evaluate corner sharpness of the cameras we test!) > You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of > photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl > objects with any degree of accuracy. No, I agree completely and said as much in my previous message. -Dave > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> > writes: [] >> You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of >> photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Dave Thanks, Dave. I hadn't seen the details to which you referred. Cheers, David In Message-ID:<W7fze.65137$G8.21327@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> posted on Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:11:50 GMT, David J Taylor wrote: Begin >You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of >photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl >objects with any degree of accuracy. What about photographs of gray-scales or Munsell wheels, aren't they similar to photographs of photographs?  SignatureBart > In Message-ID:<W7fze.65137$G8.21327@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> posted > on Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:11:50 GMT, David J Taylor wrote: Begin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What about photographs of gray-scales or Munsell wheels, > aren't they similar to photographs of photographs? Possibly, although I would suspect that both are produced by a printing process which differs from that used for a photographic print, and uses different dyes etc. I would hope that the grey card, at least, had a measured spectral response which was reasonably flat, even just outside the visible spectrum. How precisely greyscales or colour wheels are calibrated will, I suspect, depend on the cost. However, photographing these charts will provide only a limited guide to how real objects appear, due to the different spectrum of the light coming from real-world objects with real-world illumination. Cheers, David Does it also invalidate the portrait in sunlight of the woman. It seems that the color and also the exposure of the FZ5 are not as pleasing. I was also thinking of something else. Eventually I am planning on buying a DRXT or a 20D (if someone does not talk me into getting a Nikon D70s. Would the Canon S2 results and the Canon DSLR results look closer since they are both from the Canon family or does that not make a difference.? > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > Does it also invalidate the portrait in sunlight of the woman. It > seems that the color and also the exposure of the FZ5 are not as > pleasing. I don't know. It that a photograph of a photograph again? > I was also thinking of something else. Eventually I am planning on > buying a DRXT or a 20D (if someone does not talk me into getting a > Nikon D70s. Would the Canon S2 results and the Canon DSLR results > look closer since they are both from the Canon family or does that > not make a difference.? I don't know, but I would suspect that it's two different design teams, certainly two different sensors, aimed at two different markets. My guess is "no". Perhaps there's someone who owns both cameras who can comment? David Are you saying that this is not an honest comparison and one should not rely on it? > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > Are you saying that this is not an honest comparison and one should > not rely on it? In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest, simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual grass, trees, houses etc.. Cheers, David > In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs > is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cheers, > David This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between taking pictures of posters and real objects: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/panasonicfz20_samples/040919-1100-10.jpg Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy. Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color comparison. I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny. /per [] > This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference > between taking pictures of posters and real objects: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny. > /per Whereas: - we don't know what the original looks like - to me, all the colours in that image look possibly oversaturated. You could always set the FZ20 to reduce the saturation. - colour is a very personal thing! I suggest you try out both cameras with subjects where you know the colour, and see which you prefer. Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Why? >>This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference >>between taking pictures of posters and real objects: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>/per > Why? I would prefer the Panasonic FZ5, because it is so much smaller, lighter and more portable, has a faster autofocus with better tracking mode, and less purple fringe. But, I rate the nicer skin color on portraits higher than some purple edges. Foldable LCD viewer and much better movie mode on the Canon are just bonuses for me. But, anyone who can show me a bunch of very nice portraits with good skin tones from a FZ5, and a practical tutorial how to get there, could easily make me change my mind towards the FZ5 again, since the S2 IS is not available here right now. /per [] > I would prefer the Panasonic FZ5, because it is so much smaller, > lighter and more portable, has a faster autofocus with better [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > could easily make me change my mind towards the FZ5 again, since the > S2 IS is not available here right now. Can you visit a photo shop and try the cameras out with you own memory card (you're going to need SD memory whichever you choose)? It must be almost impossible to judge colour rendering unless you have access to the original scence. Skin tones are so varied, simply from published images how can you judge accuracy from Web images of unknown subjects? When testing the FZ5, try changing the "Pict Adj." from standard to natural in case that suits you better. Cheers, David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >David > How do you rate the skin tones on the FZ5? I did see the S2 but it was in an electronics store with those anti theft alarms on them so it is impossible to tell how the camera feels. I do like the Swivel LCD and would miss that if I opted for the FZ5. > [] > How do you rate the skin tones on the FZ5? I did see the S2 but it > was in an electronics store with those anti theft alarms on them so > it is impossible to tell how the camera feels. I do like the Swivel > LCD and would miss that if I opted for the FZ5. I am completely happy with the colour rendering on the FZ5. I agree with you that a swivel LCD would be useful. I would also find a choice very difficult right now, so I appreciate a little the problems you are having! Cheers, David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > From handling the FZ5 and shooting a working model in the store I noticed that it handled very fast and responded quickly. I did read in some reviews that the FZr out performed the S2 in those areas, most notably auto focus. I just do not understand that Panasonic cannot hear people when they say they would like a swiveling LCD and a few other features and that Canon cannot hear people when they say they would like a choice between black and silver. It seems that if you had to make a decision today you would be on the fence. I know you would like a swiveling lcd so is that desire so useful that it would outweigh any reason why you would choose the FZ5. As a matter of fact,other than size, weight, and a black body what would be your reason to go for the FZ5. Do you think that an FZ6 with a swiveling LCD will be here by Christmas? [] > From handling the FZ5 and shooting a working model in the store I > noticed that it handled very fast and responded quickly. I did read [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Canon cannot hear people when they say they would like a choice > between black and silver. There was an opportunity to take part in a Panasonic survey recently, but I don't know what they did with the results. I made the comment about a swivel LCD. > It seems that if you had to make a decision today you would be on the > fence. I know you would like a swiveling lcd so is that desire so > useful that it would outweigh any reason why you would choose the FZ5. > > As a matter of fact,other than size, weight, and a black body what > would be your reason to go for the FZ5. Having looked again at the comparison at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM the macro capability of the FZ5 appears to be much superior to the S2 IS. If that is the case, it would be an important reason. > Do you think that an FZ6 with a swiveling LCD will be here by > Christmas? I have no idea, but Panasonic will need to do something like that to compete better with the Canon. Cheers, David [] >> As a matter of fact,other than size, weight, and a black body what >> would be your reason to go for the FZ5. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the macro capability of the FZ5 appears to be much superior to the S2 > IS. If that is the case, it would be an important reason. Almost forgot - the single package battery rather than multiple AA cells. And the better image quality. And the better JPEG compression showing fewer artefacts together with a small file size (e.g. 2,405KB versus 2,725KB on the "House" shot), allowing more images per card. David I took the Sony to a park yesterday and shot some snapshots during the afternoon. I did discover something. I needed to use fill flash on a number of photos because of the strong lighting in certain areas and heavy shadows in others. This was especially true under peoples faces. When children (who do not stay still for a pose) were involved in this situations I found that I missed opportunities because the flash cycle time was so slow that the camera would not fire. So, one of the criteria is a faster flash cycle time. I also noticed that while the Sony was sharp, it was too sharp for portraits. It seems that some NG readers have stated that the Canon S2 is better for people while the FZ5 is better for scenes. I do not know if this is true but I would like a good balance of both. >[] > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > Having looked again at the comparison at: > > http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM > > the macro capability of the FZ5 appears to be much superior to the S2 IS. Careful. The Canon has a "super macro" mode that lets it focus on dirt on the front of the lens. The Panasonic's Leica optics produce less CA at wider apertures, but the Canon sure does have a neat package of features. And it uses simple AA batteries. If Canon would just package better glass with the rest of those features, I'd have no decision. :-) >>Do you think that an FZ6 with a swiveling LCD will be here by >>Christmas? > I have no idea, but Panasonic will need to do something like that to > compete better with the Canon. It sure is nice for us to have all this fierce competition, no? Paul Allen >> Having looked again at the comparison at: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Paul Allen But the Canon has the glass and features that it has and the Panasonic has the Leica lens and the features it has. So each is lacking in something. The question is which are you choosing and why? > But the Canon has the glass and features that it has and the Panasonic > has the Leica lens and the features it has. So each is lacking in > something. > > The question is which are you choosing and why? Between the S2 and the FZ5, I could probably flip a coin and be slightly dissatisfied with either. What I really want is the Panasonic FZ20 for its 2" screen and sweet manual focus. But that would mean a new case on top of a couple expensive spare batteries, a new memory card, filters, and what not. It's pushing the outer limits of what I've got budgeted. :-) Paul Allen >> But the Canon has the glass and features that it has and the Panasonic >> has the Leica lens and the features it has. So each is lacking in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Between the S2 and the FZ5, I could probably flip a coin and be slightly > dissatisfied with either. .. what about this new Sony offspring ? I do not want to start anything but do people have any opinions about this new player in the game ? I've seen some amazingly good pictures from this cam right from the start of its release .. the harvest of S2 pictures on dpreview was rather disappointing in quality (maybe the S2 is more complicated in its use?) AFAIK the H1 seems to work well both as P&S and as more sophisticated tool .. opinions ? TIA [] > what about this new Sony offspring ? [] > opinions ? Cons: - doesn't use standard storage (CF or SD) - quite a lot heavier than Panasonic FZ5 - more expensive than FZ5? - uses AA cells - image stablisation not as effective? - auto-focus not as good? - lens quaility not as good? Pros: - uses AA cells (depends on your point of view!) - good ergonomics As this is Sony's first attempt at an image stabilised camera, I might be more inclined today to stick with the firms like Canon or Panasonic who are now into their second or subsequent attempts. Cheers, David >> Having looked again at the comparison at: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Paul Allen Yes, I heard about the Canon's focus on the front lens element but I felt that was, like many of the other Canon features, a gimmick. It's that sort of thing which puts me off the brand, and tends to obscure the poorer image quality. However, I did say "If that is the case", leaving people to make their own judgement. Actually, the FZ5 has a macro capability at its 432mm zoom which gives the macro a working distance of around three feet, and this is indeed very handy. I don't know if the Canon offers this. Personally, I consider the AA batteries of the Canon a drawback, having moved over to single package Li-ion batteries with my newer cameras. I wouldn't want to go back to multiple AA cells rolling about all over the place! I'm sure that by this time next year we'll have an even better choice! Cheers, David >>>Having looked again at the comparison at: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > image quality. However, I did say "If that is the case", leaving people > to make their own judgement. I'm not sure I'd call the funky macro a gimmick, but it is odd that the camera has two macro modes. I tend to agree about the brand. When I bought my first real camera back in 1976, the choice came down to a Canon AE1 or an Olympus OM-2n. I recall there was a lot of hype in the air about the AE1, and the Olympus was a little more expensive. But when I held the two of them in my hands, the mostly plastic AE1 felt cheap and the all-metal OM2n felt like it would last. I still have the OM2n and I see they're going for about $150 on EBay. Who knew? > Actually, the FZ5 has a macro capability at its 432mm zoom which gives the > macro a working distance of around three feet, and this is indeed very > handy. I don't know if the Canon offers this. The FZ20 has a minimum focus distance of 6.5' at extreme telephoto, and this doesn't change in macro mode. At extreme wide-angle, the minimum focus distance is 1', and .16' in macro mode. A poster here determined through experimentation that 3x of the zoom is available in macro mode. I don't have the FZ5 manual handy. If its macro mode operates even at the long end of the zoom, that could counterbalance the nice manual focus on the FZ20. Dang! Just when you think things are stable, new data turns up! :-) > Personally, I consider the AA batteries of the Canon a drawback, having > moved over to single package Li-ion batteries with my newer cameras. I > wouldn't want to go back to multiple AA cells rolling about all over the > place! I've never had a problem with AA's rolling about, but I have been without juice in Podunk, Idaho, and had to buy a 12-pack of alkaline AA cells at Wallmart. If the Li-ion cells were as inexpensive and common as AA cells, I'd go for a single rectangular cell instead of four cylindrical ones. But they're not. And that leaves me seriously considering buying a camera with a battery that will cost too much and most likely leave me high and dry some day. Fiddle! > I'm sure that by this time next year we'll have an even better choice! Yup, better firmware, better features, newer technology, at about the same price-point as today. But, will it be an easier choice? Paul Allen [] > The FZ20 has a minimum focus distance of 6.5' at extreme telephoto, > and this doesn't change in macro mode. At extreme wide-angle, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > focus on the FZ20. Dang! Just when you think things are stable, new > data turns up! :-) Yes, this is a new feature in the FZ5 (my wife's FZ20 doesn't have this), and having macro with a much longer working distance can be very handy! Effectively you have either short-zoom macro (which may go up to 3:1 zoom perhaps), and the long zoom macro which provides a horizontal field width of about 3.5 inches at a working distance of about 36 inches. > I've never had a problem with AA's rolling about, but I have been > without juice in Podunk, Idaho, and had to buy a 12-pack of alkaline > AA cells at Wallmart. [] I'd recommend getting at least one spare battery for being out a whole day in the field, perhaps a second spare to be really sure. The Panasonic batteries are widely available though at reasonable prices. I do wish the manufacturers would standardise on battery shape, though - one size fits many cameras - so that you /could/ get them in corner stores! One up for the AA cells today. Cheers, David >> I'm sure that by this time next year we'll have an even better choice! > > Yup, better firmware, better features, newer technology, at about the > same price-point as today. But, will it be an easier choice? > > Paul Allen Sure, and the year after, and the year after that..... That way, you 'll never choose a camera. JohanE >>>I'm sure that by this time next year we'll have an even better choice! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > JohanE Yeah, and think of all the money I'll save! :-) Paul >> Having looked again at the comparison at: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Careful. The Canon has a "super macro" mode that lets it focus on dirt > on the front of the lens. The Canon instruction manual does not provide fully correct info on how to get into the "super macro mode". You need to press the macro button twice and the second time hold it extendedly for at least a second. /per >> Are you saying that this is not an honest comparison and one should >> not rely on it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual > grass, trees, houses etc.. I agree .. I've looked at and compared many many pictures before buyong my cam and sometimes the presented samples in reviews are at most rather illogic .. when "flash" pictures show a color cast as if they were taken with the WB on "tungsten" I start to loose confidence .. :-) and I have a tendency to indeed believ that the "chromophores" for real grass are rather different from those of "printed" grass on a photograph .. .. This link might be more direct. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM > The following link: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I was surprised to see such dramatic differences. Here are other comparisons between those: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp > Here are other comparisons between those: > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp Yes, and the ISO 400 shots show how the noise reduction algorithms differ between the two cameras, with the Panasonic retaining sharpness, while perhaps the Canon has lower noise! Plenty to choose from..... David > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >David > The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot tell if one is considered better quality over the other. I am not even sure which I like better and when I can express a preference it does not always point to the same camera. The only thing that I can categorically state is. Favor Panasonic - Black Body, Lens Hood and Filter Ring, smaller and lighter, currently cheaper Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better movie mode > [] > The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is > that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better > movie mode I'd modify that slightly: - Canon leads in some aspects of digital cameras but not all. - from the samples presented, the images from the Canon are noticeably worse than those from the FZ5 You now have to decide whether the other factors you listed are more important, perhaps making up some sort of weighted comparison chart and see which camera score the most points for your weighting of the factors. What is perhaps more important is to handle both cameras and see which you prefer. I don't think you would go wrong with either. Cheers, David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >worse than those from the FZ5 > Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo, would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see where they are worse. >You now have to decide whether the other factors you listed are more >important, perhaps making up some sort of weighted comparison chart and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > [] > Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo, > would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are > noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see > where they are worse. Well, you could look at the comparison in DPReview where the purple fringing is worse, and the problems I noted included the "roughness on horizontal edges" (which may be an image processing artefact) and the poorer resolution on the grass (possibly a JPEG compression effect) (but that should be retested with real grass....). But it's a close call, and the different facilities on the Canon might outweigh the poorer images. Cheers, David From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong) you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera. From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And is that choice based on a large difference or a very small difference. If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like features, menu friendliness, handling etc. I have until Thanksgiving to make my purchase. For now I am using a Sony DSC-P9 (do not like but results are ok) and a Nikon F2A film camera. >[] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong) > you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera. Yes, I have one and my wife has an FZ20, so I am biased, but trying to be objective. > From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, > features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera > do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And > if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And > is that choice based on a large difference or a very small > difference. I would expect both cameras to produce consistently good 10 x 8 enlargements. For most of the time, I would expect that it would be difficult to see a difference without using a magnifying glass, but (from the reviews I've seen) the Panasonic FZ5 might be slightly better some of the time. Based on the purple fringing from the lens & sensor and the JPEG artefacts visible in the Canon samples. > If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and > one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase > that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could > almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like > features, menu friendliness, handling etc. Personally, I would forget the Sony because of the poorer image quality (D P Review) and its use of the memory stick. Between the other two it depends whether the swivel LCD and better movies from the Canon are more important than the marginally better image quality of the FZ5, lower weight, and convenience of the single Li-ion battery. I suspect you would be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality alone. I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras too small!). Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality >alone. If you had no digital camera and was going to choose between these two today, what would you choose and why? >I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case >one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [] > If you had no digital camera and was going to choose between these two > today, what would you choose and why? They are pretty close, so I would go down to the shop and see which handled best (which is exactly what we did between the Canon S1 IS and the Panasonic FZ20). Cheers, David |
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
|
©2008 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.