Panasonic FZ-20 Owners

Hi David,

It is small sensor size and not any faulty
electronics which produces these higher
noise levels.

No at all! The sensor size does not produce any noise! What produces noise
is just the sensor's electronic activity, and what makes noise more
visible is a higher noise to signal ratio -- which is dependent on the
quality of the circuitry (more or less faulty electronics) and on pixel
size, not on sensor size.

A sensor of small size can even produce *less* image noise than a bigger
one, provided that its pixels' noise to signal ratio is lower (because of
either pixel size or less better electronics)!

Anyway, the gist is that noise is indeed just electronic garbage, and thus
that FZ20's high noise levels do detract from its image quality as
compared with Minolta A2, which was the original point!

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.

That's why it is said that DSLRs do provide better image quality, which
again makes my original point!

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.

Resampling down to screen size (1024x768) is a deceptive procedure,
following which images from a HP Photosmart 945 (38.17sqmm 5MP sensor) and
even from a KMZ2 (24.72sqmm 4MP sensor) showed way better resolution and
less artifacts as compared to those from a DSLR KM Maxxum 7D (368.95sqmm
6.1MP sensor)!

Therefore, no wonder that your images from a FZ20 appeared worse than
those coming from an A2, - the fault is in the procedure!

On the other hand, resampling A2's 8MP images to 5MP, and comparing them
to FZ20's 5MP images, the result was clearly favorable to the A2, in terms
of detail resolution, noise and artifacts, as already discussed.

Whereas the wide-angle on the FZ20 is only 36mm versus
the 28mm of the A2

In the short end small differences of focal distance make a huge angle
difference!

(or the wonderful 24mm of the Nikon 8400).

Which is meanwhile limited to mere 85mm equiv. on the long end, as opposed
to A2's 200! In this sense, the A2 appears to be more versatile than
either the FZ20 or the 8400, with its useful range of 28-200mm equiv..

Personally, for the moment I stick happily to my little cute KMZ2 which,
being about half the price, size and weight of either the A2 or the FZ20,
provides me with twice as fun as both together would, and features more
than enough to produce whatever pictures I may dream of!

Thank you again for the nice conversation, and again happy solstice
commemorations to you an all,

Julio.

[Julio:]
(because of either pixel size or less better electronics)!

Please ignore the "less" (and feel free to ignore the rest as well).

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Hi David,

It is small sensor size and not any faulty
electronics which produces these higher
noise levels.

No at all! The sensor size does not produce any noise! What produces
noise is just the sensor's electronic activity, and what makes noise
more visible is a higher noise to signal ratio -- which is dependent
on the quality of the circuitry (more or less faulty electronics) and
on pixel size, not on sensor size.

In fact the simple act of detecting the light produces noise. The amount
of noise is proportional to the square root of the number of
photo-electrons detected. Because the sensor with small pixels can hold a
smaller number of photo-electrons in each sensor well, small pixels mean
more noise. Even a perfect sensor will have a finite noise level. Of
course, this is not the only noise source, and electronic noise is in
addition to any photon-limited noise.

A sensor of small size can even produce *less* image noise than a
bigger one, provided that its pixels' noise to signal ratio is lower
(because of either pixel size or less better electronics)!

Other things being equal, a smaller sensor will only produce less noise
per-pixel if the individual pixels are larger, and therefore there will be
fewer pixels in the sensor active area.

Anyway, the gist is that noise is indeed just electronic garbage, and
thus that FZ20's high noise levels do detract from its image quality
as compared with Minolta A2, which was the original point!

No, image noise is also due to photon-limited noise, a fundamental
physical aspect of the sensing process.

Far better to a get a picture with a slightly higher noise level than to
get either no picture at all, one where the subject only occupies half the
frame (because of limited focal length range), or one where the
camera-shake destroys the image quality (either because of limited
aperture lens forcing a longer shutter speed or because of the lack of
image stabilisation).

[]
Therefore, no wonder that your images from a FZ20 appeared worse than
those coming from an A2, - the fault is in the procedure!

You have this the wrong way round, the FZ20 images were better than those
from the A2. As I already explained, I looked at the images at 1:1 zoom
as well. The fault is quite specific, and has been reported on the review
sites as well. What was really disappointing was that the fault had first
been reported on the Minolta A1, but Minolta hadn't bothered to fix it on
the A2. I do not like that sort of attitude.

[]
(or the wonderful 24mm of the Nikon 8400).

Which is meanwhile limited to mere 85mm equiv. on the long end, as
opposed to A2's 200! In this sense, the A2 appears to be more
versatile than either the FZ20 or the 8400, with its useful range of
28-200mm equiv..

What camera you need depends on what photographs you are trying to take.
For architectural photography and indoor shots of rooms the Nikon 8400 may
be a better choice. If you are photographing animals in the wild the
image stabilised 432mm zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 would be better. For
other reasons, I would not purchase the Minolta A2 myself even if appears
more versatile on paper.

Personally, for the moment I stick happily to my little cute KMZ2
which, being about half the price, size and weight of either the A2
or the FZ20, provides me with twice as fun as both together would,
and features more than enough to produce whatever pictures I may
dream of!

Z2 weight 10.8oz
Nikon 8400 16.6oz
FZ20 weight 19.2oz
A2 weight 22.4oz

I envy you the weight, but not the lack of image stabilisation.

Thank you again for the nice conversation, and again happy solstice
commemorations to you an all,

Julio.

All the best to you and yours!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote in message ...

Ken, been very pleased with our FZ20. From my tests, the image quality is
equal to the 8MP Minolta A2 and as good as any other 5MP camera. You do
need to set the JPEG noise processing to "Low", though.

Hi David,

Out of curiosity, why the suggestion to keep the JPEG noise processing set to "Low"?

Ken

Ken wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

Ken, been very pleased with our FZ20. From my tests, the image
quality is equal to the 8MP Minolta A2 and as good as any other 5MP
camera. You do need to set the JPEG noise processing to "Low",
though.

Hi David,

Out of curiosity, why the suggestion to keep the JPEG noise
processing set to "Low"?

Ken

Ken,

I read somewhere that the "normal" or "high" settings were rather
agressive and could be detrimental to picture quality. Yes, I should test
this for myself! Comments welcome!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote in message ...
Ken wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

Ken, been very pleased with our FZ20. From my tests, the image
quality is equal to the 8MP Minolta A2 and as good as any other 5MP
camera. You do need to set the JPEG noise processing to "Low",
though.

Hi David,

Out of curiosity, why the suggestion to keep the JPEG noise
processing set to "Low"?

Ken

Ken,

I read somewhere that the "normal" or "high" settings were rather
agressive and could be detrimental to picture quality. Yes, I should test
this for myself! Comments welcome!

David,

I did do a limited amount of testing prior to posting and, to be honest with you, I found
the "std" setting to have a noticeable improvement on image noise with no noticeable
degradation in image sharpness, which was my primary concern. Admittedly, 6 test
pictures is not a valid test make. I'll fire up the camera again tonight when I get off
work to see if I can narrow down the plus and minuses of using more aggressive noise
processing with the FZ20. Coming up with a valid test methodology will likely be the
most challenging part of this exercise.

Ken

"Ken" wrote in message m...

Hi David,

Out of curiosity, why the suggestion to keep the JPEG noise
processing set to "Low"?

Ken

Ken,

I read somewhere that the "normal" or "high" settings were rather
agressive and could be detrimental to picture quality. Yes, I should test
this for myself! Comments welcome!

David,

I did do a limited amount of testing prior to posting and, to be honest with you, I found
the "std" setting to have a noticeable improvement on image noise with no noticeable
degradation in image sharpness, which was my primary concern. Admittedly, 6 test
pictures is not a valid test make. I'll fire up the camera again tonight when I get off
work to see if I can narrow down the plus and minuses of using more aggressive noise
processing with the FZ20. Coming up with a valid test methodology will likely be the
most challenging part of this exercise.

So much for experimentation. I can't see much difference between any of the three
available noise processing modes. I tried several different shots with varying amounts
of lighting/shadows, contrasting color combinations, hard edged and soft edged objects
as well as shooting in macro mode and long zoom and at this point in time I can't see
any loss of image sharpness in any of the three modes and only a slight improvement
in noise reduction in the "high" mode. I think I'll leave it on "std" for now until I get a
better feel for what it is really doing.

Ken wrote:
"Ken" wrote in message
m...

Hi David,

Out of curiosity, why the suggestion to keep the JPEG noise
processing set to "Low"?

Ken

Ken,

I read somewhere that the "normal" or "high" settings were rather
agressive and could be detrimental to picture quality. Yes, I
should test this for myself! Comments welcome!

David,

I did do a limited amount of testing prior to posting and, to be
honest with you, I found the "std" setting to have a noticeable
improvement on image noise with no noticeable degradation in image
sharpness, which was my primary concern. Admittedly, 6 test pictures
is not a valid test make. I'll fire up the camera again tonight when
I get off work to see if I can narrow down the plus and minuses of
using more aggressive noise processing with the FZ20. Coming up with
a valid test methodology will likely be the most challenging part of
this exercise.

So much for experimentation. I can't see much difference between any
of the three
available noise processing modes. I tried several different shots
with varying amounts
of lighting/shadows, contrasting color combinations, hard edged and
soft edged objects
as well as shooting in macro mode and long zoom and at this point in
time I can't see
any loss of image sharpness in any of the three modes and only a
slight improvement
in noise reduction in the "high" mode. I think I'll leave it on
"std" for now until I get a better feel for what it is really doing.

Ken,

Many thanks for the tests and your update. I've just been trying to find
the original reference and I can't - it may be buried in a forum not
indexed by Google.

I'm really interested to know what your eventual findings and conclusions
are.

Cheers,
David