Hi Pete,

Thank you for your thoughtful condensation of qualities and virtues of  
different EVFs (I think that all so-called ZLRs have an EVF, and that  
there is no camera with a EVF which is not a so-called ZLR, and thus that  
EVF is an exact and unequivocal way of calling the inexactly and  
equivocally so-called ZLRs).

I agree with your favorable remarks about Minolta A2 (even more applicable  
to the new KM A200, which sports besides a very pleasant design): excelent  
features and image quality but a zoom which in the long end is a bit short  
for us spoiled by those 10x+ megazooms (in days of old I was so happy with  
the fixed 135mm telephoto of my long deceased Kowa SETR!).

I also agree that the KM Z range are low-budget fun cameras, but just  
because they are low-budget and fun (or in part exactly because of this) I  
would no look so much down on them! I would for sure avoid the Z1 with its  
high level chromatic aberration. However, judging from the sample pictures  
available in the most well-known reviews, I would rate the 3MP Z10's image  
quality above the 3MP S1 IS's, at least in terms of detail resolution,  
noise and sharpness - for about half the price anyway.

As to the Z2 and Z3, the sample pictures found in most reviews are indeed  
often not very appealing, too soft and the Z3's too noisy also. However,  
being the happy owner of a Z2 which already came with the new firmware  
(1.03), I believe that something changed, and the pictures come indeed  
tack sharp straight from the camera, with plenty of fine detail and  
beautiful, well-saturated colors, although less compression would be  
welcome (I didn't dare to try the RAW hack). I would say that one could  
hardly find better for the price, or even for quite a bit more.

Of course I would consider migrating to the enticing 8MP KM A200 (much  
less expensive than a Nikon 8800), except for my present attachment to a  
longer zoom - although according to my calculations, cropping from 8 to 4  
MP (presently enough for me) would roughly correspond to a zoom factor of  
1,414 (square root of 2) thus bringing its 200mm long end to 282mm, more  
or less the same as the 8x Coolpix 5700 and 8700.

Anyway, for the moment I'm just enjoying my little cute Z2!

Cheers,

Julio.

Hi David,

Sure. Still, the fact remains that the A2 pictures resampled to 5MP looked  
in my comparison noticeably better than the FZ20 5MP images (with the  
additional bonus that the A2 produces 8MP images).

Even with a lot of cropping it would be difficult for the A2 to match  
FZ20's longest end. If my calculations are correct, one would need to crop  
an A2 8MP picture taken at its longest end (200mm equiv.) down to 1,81MP  
to match FZ20's 420mm equiv. On the other hand, A2's wide end (28mm  
equiv.) cannot be matched by FZ20's 36mm, with or without cropping.

But this is not actually the subject under discussion: since here we are  
just trying to compare the image quality of both cameras, it is reasonable  
to compare pictures taken at similar focal distance, which was the case  
with the chosen samples.

Well, how much noise matters is a rather subjective issue: my only point  
is that the FZ20 is noticeably noisier than the A2, noise being an  
important image quality related issue.

Hummm... a very bad character, I would say!

I respect your comparison, and for sure it went into much deeper detail  
than mine, which was limited to the three shots taken from DPRC I have  
previously refered to.

Still, within the limits of my own comparison, I could find lots of  
artifacts (which to my eyes look like typical sharpening and compression  
artifacts) in FZ20 samples in places where A2 samples are completely  
clean. See for instance around the branches behind Chinatown's gate and  
around the Cathay House sun-blind yellow letters.

I would hope so, but maybe they simply think it adds some character to  
compressed shots!

Here is another image quality related department where the A2 has an edge  
over the FZ20: its ability to produce RAW files (although the FZ20 has an  
uncompressed TIFF mode).

But the need for better or less compressed JPEG files straight from the  
camera should indeed not be overlooked by manufacturers. It is a problem  
with Kodak 6490, for instance. KM Z2 is not bad, although it could be  
better. HP945 is the best I know of as far as artifacts are concerned,  
without even a shadow of an artifact even in the normal (below best)  
setting.

That's what all these discussions boil to in the end: what is suitable to  
one's purposes (and to one's budget, I would add).

Now, talking about to real pictures and real circumstances, I'm joyfully  
going back to my KM Z2 & HP945, as I cannot (or don't try too much to)  
find fault in their pictures for my own maybe limited present purposes!

Thanks for the nice chat, and happy holidays for all,

Julio.

David,

I did do a limited amount of testing prior to posting and, to be honest with you, I found
the "std" setting to have a noticeable improvement on image noise with no noticeable
degradation in image sharpness, which was my primary concern. Admittedly, 6 test
pictures is not a valid test make. I'll fire up the camera again tonight when I get off
work to see if I can narrow down the plus and minuses of using more aggressive noise
processing with the FZ20. Coming up with a valid test methodology will likely be the
most challenging part of this exercise.

Ken

Just trying to be friendly :^ }

Yep, I read you earlier posting with these links and have since bookmarked the
Raynox site for future reference. Their example photos are pretty exciting and
I will likely get some add-ons before my vacation to Oregon next month.

I almost bought the 8080 for its wide angle capabilities rather than the FZ20
but it was the Raynox add-ons capabilities that swayed me toward the FZ20.
Best of both worlds the way I see it.

I just ordered one of those adapters for my FZ20 a few days ago.
Shipment should arrive sometime just after the first of next year from
China. <g>  Probably should have asked him to include a step down
adapter ring so I could later mount an Olympus TCON-17b 1.7x
teleconverter.