Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!

In message ,
Pix on Canvas wrote:

I
don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
in low light, to boost shutter speed.

What difference does that make? The idea is to have a standard subject,
to compare noise and general image quality.


--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Pix on Canvas wrote:

A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the
same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview
never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you
believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon
DSLR... Total bull****!

Both cameras at their best would be a nice addition, but it would hardly
be useful as an only comparison, as you are catering to the weaker link.

The need for low-light performance is very real and very important,
despite what a minority of tripod-carrying still-life shooters like you
have to say.
--


John P Sheehy

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:53:51 +1000, Pix on Canvas
wrote:

David J Taylor wrote:
Pete D wrote:

"David J Taylor"

wrote in message
.co.uk...

RichA wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp

I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
then the FZ30 isn't for you.

ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
that is very bad.


The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.

David


I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility is
shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.

The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
truth for the sake of promoting Canon.

If the Panasonic had mirrors and hinges flapping around at the time of
exposure it would be perfectly fair to say it's images are noisy at high
ISO and it can't take a low light picture as well as a Canon. It
doesn't. It actually performs quite well in low light situations. I
don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
in low light, to boost shutter speed.


Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature
shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops
to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you
(maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes
the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun.
If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash
isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine,
otherwise...
If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a
camera that is severely restricted in what it can do.
-Rich

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:16:47 -0400, Ed Ruf
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:34:16 +0100, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"dylan" wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message
groups.com...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp


Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is
?.
You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to
discuss it ?

Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time.

If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group,
it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take
share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they
are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony
R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on
high ISO capability?
-Rich

In message ,
Rich wrote:

Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature
shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops
to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you
(maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes
the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun.
If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash
isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine,
otherwise...
If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a
camera that is severely restricted in what it can do.

On a cloudy day in the woods, I'm already under-exposing at ISO 1600
with a 400mm IS lens at 1/320.

We have a long way to go, and film should not be remembered as a frame
of reference.
--


John P Sheehy

Ed Ruf wrote:


No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to
read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

Oh, Sorry Ed... I thought when one of the group's founders (Alan Browne)
led by example and changed the rules or guidelines to suit himself and
his style of posts, it was fine for everyone else to do the same.

I didn't realize you subscribed to the "do as I say not as I do theory"
of Canadian logic. I'll keep that in mind for the next time you go off
topic.

I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed.
It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as
real people, you know.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

In message ,
Pix on Canvas wrote:

I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
picture entirely like a Canon can.

Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
even convincing logic.
--


John P Sheehy

wrote:
In message ,
Pix on Canvas wrote:


I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
picture entirely like a Canon can.


Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
even convincing logic.

One of the annoying things about your questioning John is your
insistence on evidence for everything you can't comprehend, rather than
accept the fact that maybe someone other than you actually takes photos
with a variety of cameras and knows which one to use in which
circumstance to obtain the best results rather than intimately
understand the whole (boring) spectrum of electronic imaging.

I'm a Photographer, not a technologist. My assessment of a camera's
value is based only on how good a picture it takes. I couldn't care less
if I tried, whether it used a 4/3 sensor or a 35mm size sensor. If a
camera can be used for something and it's better for that use than
another, I'll use it.

http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics

None of these pictures could have been taken with a 20D at the ISO
settings of the Panasonic and the resulting images, still have been
sharp. I know because I tried. The mirror shudder of a 20D almost
guarantees you can't get a sharp picture under 1/125th shutter speed at
any ISO setting when it's got an f2.8 lens on it.

From where I stand, that makes the Panasonic a better low light camera
than the 20D. Just try and take a picture with a 20D at 1/15th shutter
speed while hand holding the camera... Don't bother what lens you use,
just make sure it's a f2.8 like the Leica on the Panasonic is.

Some may argue that the FZ can do this because it has an image
stabilizer. Big deal. It came built in to the camera. Others might claim
using ISO 1600 with the 20D will result in a sharp image. So what?
That's subscribing to the same theory I've just offered...

The Panasonic has no shutter vibrations. It has no mirror slap. It can
take sharp pictures at ridiculously slow shutter speeds so it doesn't
need to use a high ISO to do this. The two cameras are so different they
can only be judged when allowed to work at their own best settings for a
given scene.

Nothing about the specifications of these two cameras can be validly
compared to each other unless you let the finished photograph be the
point of judgment... And isn't that what Photography is all about?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

wrote:

Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
even convincing logic.

He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error.

--
Jeremy |

In message ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

wrote:

Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
even convincing logic.

He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error.

Well, he seems to be shifting on the subject, too. He used to sing this
about "noise reduction at high ISOs", but now it's hand-holding the
Canon without IS, vs the FZ20 _with_ IS. Maybe he realized there was no
such noise reduction in the RAW data.
--


John P Sheehy