 |
 | 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 / September 2006FZ50
I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am, frankly, disappointed. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz50_4.php These pictures look as though they have been through a heavy-handed cheap "noise reducer" software! To my mind there is a massive absence of the sort of detail that one ought to expect. My FZ30 has far better output than I am seeing here. What do others think? Bill Without seeing an actual print, I would think it would be difficult to draw any conclusions from looking at an online photograph. I guess we will have to wait for some good reviews. >I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am, >frankly, disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Without seeing an actual print, I would think it would be difficult to > draw any conclusions from looking at an online photograph. I guess we [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>What do others think? DPReview put up a fairly comprehensive review a couple of days ago: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ50/ -dms Daniel Silevitch skrev: > DPReview put up a fairly comprehensive review a couple of days ago: > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ50/ It was pretty positive, and ended with a Highly recommended rating, though with a notice that this was only just so, and that the one negative factor was image quality - not noise this time, as much as indiscriminate noise reduction.. However, something like half of the Panasonic forum at dpreview are up in arms against this review. It would seem as if The Camera To Worship in this forum is the FZ30, and lots of people there took it really personal when that one missed the Highly Recommended rating by a hair's breadth a year ago. Thus, the more positive rating of the FZ50 now, is widely regarded as a Grossly Unfair Injustice to The Camera To Worship. Queer lot, photographers. Jan Böhme (FZ20 owner, thus neutral in the conflict) > Daniel Silevitch skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Jan Böhme > (FZ20 owner, thus neutral in the conflict) Interesting - I was recently sent a photo from a Canon S3 IS and whilst it was less noisy than the FZ5 equivalent (when viewed full-screen) it was also less sharp. It seems to me that there is a spectrum of choices in noise-reduction versus sharpness and that Canon, not having as good a lens as that on the Panasonic FZ5/20 etc., have a less sharp image, and can therefore use more noise reduction with less effect on the (already less sharp) image quality. Perhaps Panasonic are now trying to make their noise reduction nearer to what Canon do? The FZ50 is much too big and heavy a camera for me as I'm so used to the easy-to-carry FZ5! David >> Daniel Silevitch skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > David I have used the FZ10 and now have the FZ30. My photo shop called me a couple of weeks ago to tell me that they had taken delivery of several FZ50s and wondered if I might like to take a look. I like the camera, I like the extra "updates" that it incorporates and these are mainly an improvement or enhancement on the FZ30. But I actually prefer the picture quality on the FZ30. My feeling is that I would rather have better picture definition with the occasional noise problem, rather than have the camera take care of noise at the cost of picture quality. In my opinion Panasonic have taken the wrong path here. It might have been better had they made the FZ50 noise reduction system switchable so that one could turn it off at will and retain the option of better picture definition. Bill > > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >option of better picture definition. > That should be incorporated in all future models but better yet would be to increase the size of the sensor a little before increasing MP to create a better image that can be enlarged more. But somehow Canon and Nikon came out with 10MP cameras without increasing the size of the sensor without sacraficing image quality. >Bill > > > >My feeling is that I would rather have better picture definition with the > >occasional noise problem, rather than have the camera take care of noise at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to increase the size of the sensor a little before increasing MP to > create a better image that can be enlarged more. Unfortunately that sets off a chain reaction starting with needing a new lens. The FZ30's lens is a marvel*, I'd hate to have them mess it up.  SignatureS. Nufkin [I started life with nothing and still have most of it left] *Well, apart from sometimes being a bit erratic focusing at Infinity > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >David > The FZ5/7 is a nice camera as you say and small and light. While larger (Nikon D80 or Canon XTi) and much more versatile, do you ever feel the need or inclination to desire one of these DSLRs with a couple of nice lenses to create enlargements like an 11x14 or a 13x19? > [] > The FZ5/7 is a nice camera as you say and small and light. While > larger (Nikon D80 or Canon XTi) and much more versatile, do you ever > feel the need or inclination to desire one of these DSLRs with a > couple of nice lenses to create enlargements like an 11x14 or a 13x19? Having recently travelled under the current very restrictive, UK air-travel, hand-luggage rules, I was very pleased that my camera could fit into the available space in a briefcase sized bag. I have looked through the viewfinder of some of today's DSLRs and found the image much darker than on my film SLRs - of course f/5.6 lenses don't help. It's much easier to frame with my Nikon 8400 in darkish conditions. There are times when the higher sensitivity of a DSLR would be useful, coupled with f/1.4 or f/2 fixed-focal length lenses. Such lenses would give an excellent ability to create a narrow depth-of-field shot as well. It would be the added versatility which would attract me to a DSLR, not the print quality. I would expect that, an 11 x 14 enlargement from the best of today's non-SLR cameras should be quite acceptable, viewed at a sensible distance. By the way, I hardly ever print (most images are viewed on screen), and my largest prints are A4 size (297 x 210mm), so likely my needs are somewhat different to yours. David > [] >> The FZ5/7 is a nice camera as you say and small and light. While [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > viewed on screen), and my largest prints are A4 size (297 x 210mm), so > likely my needs are somewhat different to yours. I've made a couple of big prints (16"x20") off my FZ5, and they look good mounted on a wall above a bookshelf. In other words, they won't bear close-up inspection, but at actual viewing distances, the camera has enough resolution to make a decent print. -dms >[] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >It would be the added versatility which would attract me to a DSLR, not >the print quality. I would expect that, an 11 x 14 enlargement I liked to display my photographs. I plan on getting a wide format printer that can print up to 13x19 inches so I am thinking that there should be a striking difference in image quality printing a cropped photo that size. By striking I mean noticeable with out having to use a magnifying glass. Let me know if you do not think that is the case. Also I plan on doing more of the 11x14 size. >from the >best of today's non-SLR cameras should be quite acceptable, viewed at a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > [] > I liked to display my photographs. I plan on getting a wide format > printer that can print up to 13x19 inches so I am thinking that there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Let me know if you do not think that is the case. Also I plan on > doing more of the 11x14 size. A difference visible when viewed from what distance? Many cameras today will give you broadly equivalent quality to typical 35mm film - but the pictures look different because of the different shape of the lens/anti-alias filter/sensor MTF curve and the difference between film grain and digital noise. Undoubtedly the best DSLR should be able to give you pictures strikingly better than those from a cheap small-sensor camera. Whether pictures from the poorest DSLR and cheap lens would be "striking different" than those from the finest small-sensor camera is more debateable. There would be slightly more noise, making the image look a little grainy, but it might well be sharper. Which pleases the eye better is a matter of personal preference. Cropping might favour the full-frame DSLR or the high megapixel small-sized DSLRs, although cropping to less that 50% linear dimensions is best avoided in any digital camera (as you will be using less than 25% of the sensor pixels). But if your DSLR outfit is so heavy and bulky that you left it at home, or if you could not afford good lenses with image-stabilisation and ended up with a more limited capability as a result, what good is that? If you can afford and carry a DSLR outfit including flash and tripod, that is undoubtedly the way to go, if the absolute best image quality is your only goal. David > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >noise reduction nearer to what Canon do? > The FZ7 has about the same image quality as the FZ5. But after reading that the FZ30 has better image quality then the FZ50 do you think that the (unannounced) FZ8 would have lower image quality than the FZ5/7? If Panasonic increases the MPixels and keeps the sensor size the same then the quality of the pixels and therefore the quality of the image would be less. Maybe the answer is to look at the new Canon A series with an 8 and 10 MP camera and check the sensor size and evaluate the images. I think that Camera makers are going to hit a wall with MP and sensor size just like Intel hit a wall with Speed and Heat in their Pentium chips. I still have not bought a digital camera yet. My Nikon is still being used when I need to take photos. I have decided to either buy an FZ7 by Thanksgiving or wait an additional 3 months for the next (FZ8?) but it seems that the next evolution of the current models sacrafice on image quality to provide more features and MPixels. I do not like the trend I see. >The FZ50 is much too big and heavy a camera for me as I'm so used to the >easy-to-carry FZ5! > >David > > [] > The FZ7 has about the same image quality as the FZ5. But after > reading that the FZ30 has better image quality then the FZ50 do you > think that the (unannounced) FZ8 would have lower image quality than the > FZ5/7? No idea - it would be pure guesswork. If they use the same processing engine, I hope they provide an option for less agressive noise reduction than the FZ50 is reputed to have. > If Panasonic increases the MPixels and keeps the sensor size the same > then the quality of the pixels and therefore the quality of the image > would be less. Maybe the answer is to look at the new Canon A series > with an 8 and 10 MP camera and check the sensor size and evaluate the > images. Fuji are supposed to have increased the picture quality from small-sensors, if only Panasonic could use Fuji sensors! Be careful when comparing image quality - looking at images at 1:1 magnification on your screen may be the equivalent of looking at prints 30 inches wide. It may be best to print any images you compare. > I think that Camera makers are going to hit a wall with MP and sensor > size just like Intel hit a wall with Speed and Heat in their Pentium > chips. Larger numbers sell better - look at audio and "watts". > I still have not bought a digital camera yet. My Nikon is still being > used when I need to take photos. I have decided to either buy an FZ7 > by Thanksgiving or wait an additional 3 months for the next (FZ8?) > but it seems that the next evolution of the current models sacrafice > on image quality to provide more features and MPixels. I do not like > the trend I see. Yes, I think you're right. Whilst I can see a difference between the 5MP FZ5 and the 8MP Nikon 8400, it's not a lot, and the image stabilisation more than makes up for the slightly better pixel quality on the Nikon. The Nikon 8400 has a 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor compared to the 5.76 x 4.29 mm of the FZ5. Nikon pixels 7.26 sq. um compared to the 4.94 sq um of the Panasonic. Bigger pixels, more photons, lower noise. Bigger sensor, heavier, bigger camera and lens. Your choice! You could buy an FZ5 second-hand now, use it to gain experience, and either keep it, or sell it in favour of something else at Thanksgiving...... David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >than the FZ50 is reputed to have. > In order for that to happen Panasonic must first listen to their customers but before they can listen their customers need to talk. Somehow customers who have an interest need to find a way to express their desires to Panasonic. > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > [] > In order for that to happen Panasonic must first listen to their > customers but before they can listen their customers need to talk. > Somehow customers who have an interest need to find a way to express > their desires to Panasonic. Well, why not write to them? Panasonic did conduct a survey some months ago asking photographers what they wanted. I don't recall other manufacturers who did this. David >Daniel Silevitch skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It was pretty positive, and ended with a Highly recommended rating, > I do not understand how a Highly recommended rating equates to a statement of negative image quality. It seems that the purpose of photography is to create images and not how great the camera is that makes them. If you cannot get the best images than who cares how nice the camera works. >though with a notice that this was only just so, and that the one >negative factor was image quality - not noise this time, as much as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > measekite skrev: > I do not understand how a Highly recommended rating equates to a > statement of negative image quality. Now, how bad would image quality have to be to be quantitized as negative... The way I read Simon Joinson's review he meant that the camera was tops, except for the image quality, which was enough worse than the rest of the camera to make one start wondering about a "recommended" rating, but not bad enough to really set one's mind to it. > It seems that the purpose of > photography is to create images and not how great the camera is that > makes them. If you cannot get the best images than who cares how nice > the camera works. Ah, but there are other factors than the IQ off the sensor that influences what quality, in a broader sense, of the images you'll eventually get. TTL metering will get you better images at first try when using flash. A really useful flip-out-and-twist LCD allows you to shoot from angles that the compromise solution of the FZ30 doesn't allow, getting you shots that you otherwise wouldn't get. Not only having a RAW format, but also supplying a program that actually can convert them in a half-decent manner will make images better - to take a few improvements on the FZ50. Generally speaking, I get more and more in favour of ergonomy the more I shoot. A camera that allows me to change all the things I might want to change is better than one that can't, all things being equal. And as for Panasonic having succumbed to pointless megapixel chasing, my feeling is that this started already with the FZ30. If they had stayed with the five megapixels of the F20, increased it to a maximum of 6 MP, they could have kept the precious f2.8 at the long end of the zoom. The one reason that I didn't upgrade to FZ30 was that lost stop. It is an invaluable stop if one puts a teleconverter onto it. Jan Böhme > I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am, > frankly, disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bill My FZ 15 makes those pics look like crap. There just isn't any detail. Nothing from Panny/Leica could be that bad. The blogger must not know how to take pictures. I'll wait for Steve to review it before passing final judgement. Looks like there was movement during the exposure. Totally unacceptable.......Sigh Bob Williams > There just isn't any detail. They look fairly typical of the default camera setting images I've seen a lot of posted at the dpr forums. The consensus seems to be that the first thing you do after getting an FZ50 is turn the noise reduction to low. The second thing you do, apparently, is stop looking at 100% views, because that makes you a really bad person or something. Andrew McP |
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.