FZ50

I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am,
frankly, disappointed.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...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.

Bill Again wrote:

I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am,
frankly, disappointed.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...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

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:52:17 GMT, measekite wrote:
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.

Bill Again wrote:

I have just found a site publishing examples of the FZ50 output and am,
frankly, disappointed.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...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?

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)

Jan Böhme wrote:
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)

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

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message news
Jan Böhme wrote:
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)

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


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

David J Taylor wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:


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)



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



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?

David J Taylor wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:


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)



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 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

Jan Böhme wrote:

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,



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
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)

measekite skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

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