Panasonic FZ-20 Owners

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Hi David, you say

[...] been very pleased with our FZ20. From my tests,
the image quality is equal to the 8MP Minolta A2

I compared A2's and FZ20's sample shots as found in DCRP review (the
two of Chinatown and the one of the white triangular building),
downsampling A2's to 2560 x 1920 to fit FZ20's size with IrfanView,
Lanczos Filter and observing the pictures on the screen.

I found that A2's pictures are noticeably cleaner, sharper and less
noisy than those from FZ20, the latter also displaying artifacts not
visible in A2's. This could be expected from A2's much bigger sensor
anyway (2/3" or 58.08mm2 as compared to FZ20's 1/2.5" or 24.7104mm2).

Julio,

Thanks for your comments.

As soon as you resample pictures you will change the characteristics of
the image, and because the zoom is less on the A2 you would actually need
to crop to match the zoom of the FZ20.

I agree that with a smaller sensitive area the FZ20 will be a little
noisier than the A2, but can you see that noise when taking real pictures
in real circumstances? Do the noise matter? Doesn't it add some
character to low-light shots?

My own comparison showed that the FZ20 brought out detail not visible on
the A2 (taking tripod shots of the same scene), and that the very nasty
JPEG artefacts present on the A2 on certain shots were completely absent
on the FZ20. Other reviewers have also found the JPEG artefacts on the A2
and even on its predecessor, the A1. Couldn't Minolta be bothered to fix
the fault? We discussed this on rec.photo.digital some months ago, and
David Kilpatrick noted that he could only tolerate the A2 in RAW mode
(where the PC RAW to JPEG converter software does /not/ suffer for
artefact production like the camera's own firmware). For me, being forced
into RAW was not an option.

I did buy the A2, but returned it as unusable for my purposes.

Cheers,
David

Hi David,

As soon as you resample pictures you will change the
characteristics of the image,

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).

and because the zoom is less on the A2 you would actually
need to crop to match the zoom of the FZ20.

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.

I agree that with a smaller sensitive area the FZ20 will
be a little noisier than the A2, but can you see that noise
when taking real pictures in real circumstances? Do the
noise matter?

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.

Doesn't it add some character to low-light shots?

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

My own comparison showed that the FZ20 brought out detail
not visible on the A2 (taking tripod shots of the same scene),
and that the very nasty JPEG artefacts present on the A2 on
certain shots were completely absent on the FZ20. Other
reviewers have also found the JPEG artefacts on the A2
and even on its predecessor, the A1.

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.

Couldn't Minolta be bothered to fix the fault?

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

We discussed this on rec.photo.digital some months ago,
and David Kilpatrick noted that he could only tolerate the A2
in RAW mode (where the PC RAW to JPEG converter software does
/not/ suffer for artefact production like the camera's own
firmware). For me, being forced into RAW was not an option.

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.

I did buy the A2, but returned it as unusable for my purposes.

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.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[]
I agree that with a smaller sensitive area the FZ20 will
be a little noisier than the A2, but can you see that noise
when taking real pictures in real circumstances? Do the
noise matter?

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.

Doesn't it add some character to low-light shots?

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

Well, it probably depends on the image, but grain has been used very
effectively in the past as part of the character of a shot. I think that
today's fashion to have everything completely noise-free may pass.

[] Couldn't Minolta be bothered to fix the fault?

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

No - the fault I'm speaking of is the arithmetic overflow (perhaps) which
turned an edge into a harsh mottled line. To me it made the camera
usuasble.
[]

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.

Thanks,
David

Hi David, you wrote,

Well, it probably depends on the image, but grain
has been used very effectively in the past as part
of the character of a shot.

Digital noise is just electronic garbage, period.

But, of course, sometimes it is possible to make art even out of garbage.
From my side, I prefer to add noise in Photoshop, with nice control of
amount, color, and distribution, if I want noise at all, than to have
electronic garbage thrown in a picture because of faulty electronics.

I think that today's fashion to have everything
completely noise-free may pass.

Never heard about this fashion. Just heard about technological efforts to
develop CCDS producing less electronical garbage.

No - the fault I'm speaking of is the arithmetic
overflow (perhaps) which turned an edge into a harsh
mottled line. To me it made the camera usuasble.

The point is, how much this A2's harsh mottled line can be seen in a 5MP
resampling, as compared to a FZ20 5MP picture, both observed on the screen
(or how much the harsh mottled line can be seen in A2's 8MP picture in
print as compared to a FZ20 5MP picture, both printed at the same size).

However, as far as I could understand, your comparative procedure did
*not* involve downsampling A2's 8MP pictures, and thus you just compared
two completely different things - roughly the same as to compare an A2's
10x8" print with a FZ20's 8x6".

If so, your comparative methodology was flawed, and could hardly say
anything meaningful about the relative merits of A2 and FZ20 in terms of
image quality.

Best,

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Hi David, you wrote,

Well, it probably depends on the image, but grain
has been used very effectively in the past as part
of the character of a shot.

Digital noise is just electronic garbage, period.

But, of course, sometimes it is possible to make art even out of
garbage. From my side, I prefer to add noise in Photoshop, with nice
control of amount, color, and distribution, if I want noise at all,
than to have electronic garbage thrown in a picture because of faulty
electronics.

No, you are wrong. It is small sensor size and not any faulty electronics
which produces these higher noise levels. It is the larger pixel size on
the sensor which allows DSLRs to work at ISO 800 without producing as much
noise as P&S cameras.

[]
No - the fault I'm speaking of is the arithmetic
overflow (perhaps) which turned an edge into a harsh
mottled line. To me it made the camera usuasble.

The point is, how much this A2's harsh mottled line can be seen in a
5MP resampling, as compared to a FZ20 5MP picture, both observed on
the screen (or how much the harsh mottled line can be seen in A2's
8MP picture in print as compared to a FZ20 5MP picture, both printed
at the same size).
However, as far as I could understand, your comparative procedure did
*not* involve downsampling A2's 8MP pictures, and thus you just
compared two completely different things - roughly the same as to
compare an A2's 10x8" print with a FZ20's 8x6".

If so, your comparative methodology was flawed, and could hardly say
anything meaningful about the relative merits of A2 and FZ20 in terms
of image quality.

Best,

Julio.

I actually viewed the two images both resampled down to screen size and at
1:1 zoom. It wasn't just the poor image quality (for an 8MP camera) which
caused me to reject the Minolta A2, though. Built quality of the swivel
LCD, lack of IS at low shutter speeds, plain lies about the viewfinder
were other factors. It did have some nice points as well, of course.

Comparing the FZ20 with the A2, you would only get a 1.7MP image of a
subject at the maximum zoom of the FZ20, as the maximum focal length is
432mm versus the A2's mere 200mm. Whereas the wide-angle on the FZ20 is
only 36mm versus the 28mm of the A2 (or the wonderful 24mm of the Nikon
8400). I think the two cameras have somewhat different application areas.

Cheers,
David

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:31:40 -0700, Dirk Gently
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:03:32 GMT, "Ken" wrote:
"Dirk Gently" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:38:38 GMT, "Ken" wrote:
Hello Ken,
If my FZ20 were stolen today, I'd buy another one tomorrow.
Your positive endorsement duly noted.
P.S. If you would like to have your FZ20 stolen, so you can buy another one....

My FZ20 has been dressed out a little since I got it, see the following.

FYI:
Here's what I've done with my FZ20;
1st) installed one of these adapters; aluminum, very well made
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...5126 897&rd=1

2nd) bought one of these semi-fish eye lenses, with a step down ring.
http://www.adorama.com/RXMX3000.html...3000&item_no=1
http://www.adorama.com/FLD6258.html?...6258&item_no=1

The adapter lets me use 62mm filters and have a lens hood out in front of the
filter, along with letting me attach the fisheye lens. This Raynox is a pretty
decent lens, much better than I expected.
I've also got one of Raynox's 2.2X telephoto lenses coming for the long end.
(it's here)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=337263&is=REG

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.

In article ,
says...
Comparing the FZ20 with the A2, you would only get a 1.7MP image of a
subject at the maximum zoom of the FZ20, as the maximum focal length
is 432mm versus the A2's mere 200mm....

Huh? I think you've got your facts a bit mixed up. The FZ20 is a 5MP
camera over the full optical zoom range (36..432 mm). You don't start
loosing resolution until you push the zoom over into the "digital zoom"
(a.k.a. "cropping") range which is when you go -beyond- 432mm zoom.
Using the FZ20 at maximum optical zoom, it's still a 5MP image...

-Joe-

Joe wrote:
In article ,
says...
Comparing the FZ20 with the A2, you would only get a 1.7MP image of a
subject at the maximum zoom of the FZ20, as the maximum focal length
is 432mm versus the A2's mere 200mm....

Huh? I think you've got your facts a bit mixed up. The FZ20 is a 5MP
camera over the full optical zoom range (36..432 mm). You don't start
loosing resolution until you push the zoom over into the "digital
zoom" (a.k.a. "cropping") range which is when you go -beyond- 432mm
zoom. Using the FZ20 at maximum optical zoom, it's still a 5MP
image...

Let me express it differently:

If you have a subject taken at maximum 432mm zoom on the Panasonic FZ20
you will get the full 5MP. If you now change cameras to the A2, becuase
its zoom is limited to just 200mm, the subject will only occupy a small
fraction of the available image area, and that area is covered by just
1.7MP. So the 8MP resolution of the A2 will only produce a 1.7MP image
covering the same subject area, whereas on the Panasonic FZ20 you will get
5MP.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this.

Cheers,
David

"Ken" wrote in message =
. com...
Hi,
=20
After reading everyone's comments here, and visiting all of the review =
sites I could find, I am
on the verge of purchasing one. Many of you by now have had time to =
discover its strengths
and weaknesses and I was wondering if you have any regrets for having =
purchased one yourself.
I have a Sony P-10 P&S and have never really been happy with its image =
quality and don't want
to spend another $400-$500 without a demonstrable improvement in the =
images I shoot.

I bought one about a month ago and love it. The 12x optical zoom with =
IS really is amazing. The point that others have made about being able =
to get closer to you subject (with the zoom) so you don't need to crop =
is valid. This can result in higher resolution pictures then you would =
get with a camera that has more megapixels but less optical zoom. Yes, =
there is some visible noise in the photos if you examine them on a =
computer, but not more than other digital cameras I've used, and it is =
easily removed with software (NeatImage, etc.) before printing.

"Swingman" wrote in message ...

I bought one about a month ago and love it. The 12x optical zoom with IS really is amazing.
The point that others have made about being able to get closer to you subject (with the zoom)
so you don't need to crop is valid. This can result in higher resolution pictures then you would
get with a camera that has more megapixels but less optical zoom. Yes, there is some visible
noise in the photos if you examine them on a computer, but not more than other digital cameras
I've used, and it is easily removed with software (NeatImage, etc.) before printing.

I am now on day 4 and loving every minute of it so far. I cannot begin to describe how much
better it is than the little Sony it replaces. There is quite a bit of noise in the higher ISO ranges
but I have found much to my enjoyment that you seldom need to go above 100 for well exposed
images with this camera.