Comparative 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.

measekite wrote:
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.

"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 The link may be outdated, or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
, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

measekite wrote:
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.

"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 The link may be outdated, or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


The correct URL is:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Very useful page.
NB

measekite wrote:
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.

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

This link might be more direct.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

measekite wrote:

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.

This link is more direct.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:


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.



"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

measekite wrote:
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

Here are other comparisons between those:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page8.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page9.asp

"David J Taylor" writes:

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.

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

Dave Sill wrote:
"David J Taylor"

writes:

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.

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

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