Is Panasonic FZ50 being replaced

"Somebody" wrote in
:

Who said anything about smaller pixels.

I did. By accident. I meant to write "larger pixels".

He said drop the resolution to
6MP that means fewer sensors points on the chip and that does make a
difference in noise.

No, it doesn't necessarily reduce image noise at all. It makes 100% crops,
which are an artifact of viewing methods, less noisy.

--


John P Sheehy

"Somebody" wrote in
:

There are several options for a 12X or higher zoom for dSLR's. Now the
cost of these lenses are in the thousands.

I didn't say there couldn't be any. I said they'd be big, and expensive.

But, they are available.
National Geographic photographers use them all of the time. You need
to do some checking before you comment this is the second time you
have said something that wasn't correct.

It is not my duty to find out about obscure products not carried by any
of the know retailers. All of the commonly available 12x zooms for DSLRs
are slow, and optically compromised.

As for a dSLR sized sensor that would allow for less noise and higher
ISO's just like it does for dSLR cameras. Sure the FZ60 or whatever
that did this would end up being a much larger camera because of the
sensor change which means a larger lens, but it is doable. The problem
is most camera makers do not feel that consumers would want such a
thing and I think they are totally wrong.

If it's going to be as big as a DSLR and an interchangeable lens, it's
going to be hard to sell unless it has some very unique features.

Oh, the camera would aslo cost more. Probably between $1200 to $1500
about what it costs for a good dSLR and high end zoom lens.

You said thousands just for the lens; now the camera and permanent lens
are only $1500.

--


John P Sheehy

On Jul 16, 8:14 am, "Billyboy" wrote:
Hi,
Several dealers in Uk are not able currently to supply the above camera and
UKDigital are showing it as discontinued.
Has anyone heard anything about a possible upgrading, and if so what are the
new specs?

Billy

They should replace it with the FZ30, a better camera.

John Sheehy wrote:
"Somebody" wrote in
:

No a dSLR size would be fine by me for the larger sensor. In fact I
would junk my Pentax K10D for a Panasonic FZ60 that offered the
larger sensor, 12X Leica lens and 10MP.

There is no lens available for DSLRs with 12x zoom at a constant
f/2.8 and sharpness throughout the range, with IS. Why do you think
it would suddenly be possible with a non-interchangeable lens?

APS-sensor compacts are only going to work with fixed focal length or
narrow zoom ranges.



John P Sheehy


John,

With a non-interchangeable lens, there can be slightly more flexibility in
the design since the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor
is no longer pre-determined, nor is the diameter of the lens fixed by the
lens mount. With a small-sensor compact cameras, the smaller lens
elements made from exotic materials may cost less, although I do wonder if
tolerances are tighter. Previous SLR lenses have been built for film,
where high MTF at high spatial frequencies may be important, but with a
well-anti aliased 5-6MP sensor, there is no point in working towards a
high MTF at spatial frequencies which exceed the frequency which the
sensor can resolve. Thus there are some extra design freedoms given to
the fixed-lens camera.

Panasonic have been able to use this freedom to provide the FZ20 with a
lens having a constant f/2.8 throughout its 36 - 432mm (eq) zoom range.
Although the images may not have the same ultimate quality as a DSLR
equivalent lens, the compromise between size, weight, versatility and
performance suits many people.

Having said that, scaling that lens up to APS-sized sensors would result
in a large, expensive and unwieldy package compared to the smaller of
today's DSLRs. Roughly, the larger sensor provides three stops gain, so
even with the kit or cheaper zooms with f/5.6 aperture, you still gain
with the DSLR. Perhaps having a sealed lens would be an advantage in a
very dusty environment, but apart from that you'd have something the size
and shape of a DSLR without its versatility.

The Sony R1, an example of fixed-lens APS-sensor camera, does not seen to
have been spectacularly successful.

Cheers,
David

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:56:36 -0700, "Somebody"
wrote:

As for a dSLR sized sensor that would allow for less noise and higher ISO's
just like it does for dSLR cameras. Sure the FZ60 or whatever that did this
would end up being a much larger camera because of the sensor change which
means a larger lens, but it is doable. The problem is most camera makers do
not feel that consumers would want such a thing and I think they are totally
wrong.

Sony tried this with their DSC-R1.
From what I understand, sales were not up to expectations.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:28:31 GMT
John Sheehy wrote:

Paul Allen wrote in
:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:14:08 -0700
Jeff Burke wrote:

I think they should keep about the same sensor size and drop the
pixel count down to 6Mp or so, where the FZ30 should have been.
The package is very nice. It just needs to go on a pixel diet.
Fat chance they'll listen to me. :-)

They shouldn't listen to you. Smaller pixels will give no major
improvement in image quality; only in pixel quality.

Apparently, you meant to say "larger pixels". I'm not sure why
you would say the better signal/noise ratio of larger pixels gives
no major improvement in image quality. Perhaps you've got some
special meaning of "major" or "improvement" in mind?

What they need to do is stop damaging the output with heavy-handed
noise reduction.

Shoot in raw mode and do the noise management yourself if it bothers
you so much. I'd rather have somewhat fewer clean pixels than lots
of noisy ones. In fact, if Panasonic were to introduce an FZ25
combining the physical package and electronics of the FZ30 with the
5Mp sensor of the FZ20, I'd figure out a way to buy one.

Paul Allen

Paul Allen wrote in
:

Apparently, you meant to say "larger pixels".

Yes. There's no second-chance edit capability in usenet, unfortunately,
and no way to guarantee that a correction will be read before the
original by others.

I'm not sure why
you would say the better signal/noise ratio of larger pixels gives
no major improvement in image quality. Perhaps you've got some
special meaning of "major" or "improvement" in mind?

I just can not find any examples of larger pixels or bins of pixels
giving any better results, if the data is properly handled. I believe
that the recent backlash against small pixels is caused by:

1) 100% pixel monitor viewing, and resampling routines that do not really
resample properly, but emphasize a subset of original pixels, thereby
decreasing the resolution without reducing the per-pixel noise.

2) #1 causing manufacturers of cameras and developers of RAW converters
to reduce noise excessively to cater to a training to look for noise at
100% or in poor downsamples; many of those noise reduction algorithms
only shift the noise to lower frequencies, and they do not disappear
readily when the images are downsampled (properly or not), or viewed from
a distance.

3) Poor philosophy - the idea that the noise of the captured pixel
directly determines the noise of the image.

What they need to do is stop damaging the output with heavy-handed
noise reduction.

Shoot in raw mode and do the noise management yourself if it bothers
you so much.

I do, but considering the fact that it takes 6 seconds to write the
extremely inefficient RAW files, I would like to use JPEG for quick
action, but the JPEGs are painfully dummied up in the fight against fine
noise.

I'd rather have somewhat fewer clean pixels than lots
of noisy ones.

I might, too, but it would depend on the trade-off. The fact is, the
quantum efficiency on the FZ50 sensor is above average (captures more
photons per square mm than many other cameras at a given sensor
illumination, including some big-pixel DSLRs), and read noise is better
than average, too, and lower than most Nikon DSLRs at all ISOs.

In fact, if Panasonic were to introduce an FZ25
combining the physical package and electronics of the FZ30 with the
5Mp sensor of the FZ20, I'd figure out a way to buy one.

Printed at the same size, with proper downsampling for the printer
resolution, I don't think that there would be any benefit over the FZ50.

What the FZ50 upgrades could really benefit from, IMO (assuming the
sensor size is kept small for lens design reasons), is some kind of
optimized read noise that leans a little more towards the higher ISOs.
Readout is optimal at ISO 200, and worst at 800 (worse than 1600).
Supposedly, the read noise can get down to the 1 electron range with the
reading of small photon counts. The way I've understood it is that CCDs
can have only one gain level at the first read stage on the sensor chip,
but the Nikon D40 seems to have readout optimized for higher ISOs, so
perhaps it is possible. But, of course, you will never collect a large
number of photons on a sensor that small at ISO 1600, so the highlights
will still be as noisy, even with a hypothetical zero read noise.

--


John P Sheehy