Comparative Results - Canon S2 vs Pan FZ5

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
. uk...
In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs
is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest,
simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual
grass, trees, houses etc..

Cheers,
David

This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between
taking pictures of posters and real objects:
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg
Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy.
Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color
comparison.
I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it
was not for that, I would go for the Panny.
/per

Dave Sill wrote:
"David J Taylor"

writes:
[]
You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of
photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl
objects with any degree of accuracy.

No, I agree completely and said as much in my previous message.

-Dave

Thanks, Dave. I hadn't seen the details to which you referred.

Cheers,
David

per wrote:
[]
This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference
between taking pictures of posters and real objects:
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg
Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy.
Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin
color comparison.
I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and
if it was not for that, I would go for the Panny.
/per

Whereas:

- we don't know what the original looks like

- to me, all the colours in that image look possibly oversaturated. You
could always set the FZ20 to reduce the saturation.

- colour is a very personal thing!

I suggest you try out both cameras with subjects where you know the
colour, and see which you prefer.

Cheers,
David

Bart Bailey wrote:
In k posted
on Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:11:50 GMT, David J Taylor wrote: Begin

You may beg to differ, but I think that you cannot use photographs of
photographs to compare the colour response of cameras to real-wordl
objects with any degree of accuracy.

What about photographs of gray-scales or Munsell wheels,
aren't they similar to photographs of photographs?

Possibly, although I would suspect that both are produced by a printing
process which differs from that used for a photographic print, and uses
different dyes etc.

I would hope that the grey card, at least, had a measured spectral
response which was reasonably flat, even just outside the visible
spectrum. How precisely greyscales or colour wheels are calibrated will,
I suspect, depend on the cost.

However, photographing these charts will provide only a limited guide to
how real objects appear, due to the different spectrum of the light coming
from real-world objects with real-world illumination.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]


The only conclusive statement that I can make at the present time is
that they are differences and they are noticeable. However, I cannot
tell if one is considered better quality over the other. I am not
even sure which I like better and when I can express a preference it
does not always point to the same camera.

The only thing that I can categorically state is.

Favor Panasonic - Black Body, Lens Hood and Filter Ring, smaller and
lighter, currently cheaper

Favor Canon - Leader in making digital cameras, swiveling lcd, better
movie mode



I'd modify that slightly:

- Canon leads in some aspects of digital cameras but not all.

- from the samples presented, the images from the Canon are noticeably
worse than those from the FZ5



Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo,
would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are
noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see
where they are worse.

You now have to decide whether the other factors you listed are more
important, perhaps making up some sort of weighted comparison chart and
see which camera score the most points for your weighting of the factors.

What is perhaps more important is to handle both cameras and see which you
prefer. I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Cheers,
David

per wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
.uk...


In terms of photographing real objects, taking photographs of photgraphs
is, in my opnion, completely useless. I'm not saying it's dishonest,
simply that the results will not be representative of photographing actual
grass, trees, houses etc..

Cheers,
David



This is, as I have poited out recently, an example of the difference between
taking pictures of posters and real objects:
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...19-1100-10.jpg
Look at the skin tones of the posters and the real guy.
Try to find other samples of portraits from these cameras, for skin color
comparison.
I believe the Canon has much nicer skin tones than the Panasonic, and if it
was not for that, I would go for the Panny


/per



Why?

measekite wrote:
[]
Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo,
would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are
noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see
where they are worse.

Well, you could look at the comparison in DPReview where the purple
fringing is worse, and the problems I noted included the "roughness on
horizontal edges" (which may be an image processing artefact) and the
poorer resolution on the grass (possibly a JPEG compression effect) (but
that should be retested with real grass....).

But it's a close call, and the different facilities on the Canon might
outweigh the poorer images.

Cheers,
David

From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong)
you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera.

From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling, features,
prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera do you think
will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And if you have a
choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And is that
choice based on a large difference or a very small difference.

If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and one
is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase that
one. However, if the differences are so small that one could almost
call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like features,
menu friendliness, handling etc.

I have until Thanksgiving to make my purchase.

For now I am using a Sony DSC-P9 (do not like but results are ok) and a
Nikon F2A film camera.

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]


Other than the house and basing your opinion on more than one photo,
would you please tell me how and where the images from the Canon are
noticeably worse. I do see they are different but I would like to see
where they are worse.



Well, you could look at the comparison in DPReview where the purple
fringing is worse, and the problems I noted included the "roughness on
horizontal edges" (which may be an image processing artefact) and the
poorer resolution on the grass (possibly a JPEG compression effect) (but
that should be retested with real grass....).

But it's a close call, and the different facilities on the Canon might
outweigh the poorer images.

Cheers,
David

measekite wrote:
From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong)
you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera.

Yes, I have one and my wife has an FZ20, so I am biased, but trying to be
objective.

From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling,
features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera
do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And
if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And
is that choice based on a large difference or a very small
difference.

I would expect both cameras to produce consistently good 10 x 8
enlargements. For most of the time, I would expect that it would be
difficult to see a difference without using a magnifying glass, but (from
the reviews I've seen) the Panasonic FZ5 might be slightly better some of
the time. Based on the purple fringing from the lens & sensor and the
JPEG artefacts visible in the Canon samples.

If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and
one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase
that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could
almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like
features, menu friendliness, handling etc.

Personally, I would forget the Sony because of the poorer image quality (D
P Review) and its use of the memory stick. Between the other two it
depends whether the swivel LCD and better movies from the Canon are more
important than the marginally better image quality of the FZ5, lower
weight, and convenience of the single Li-ion battery. I suspect you would
be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality
alone. I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case
one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras
too small!).

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:


From what I hear from you over many posts (correct me if I am wrong)
you are very partial to the FZ5. I too think it is a find camera.



Yes, I have one and my wife has an FZ20, so I am biased, but trying to be
objective.



From a pure results point of view, not withstanding handling,
features, prestige if any, body color, swivel lcd etc, which camera
do you think will produce consistently better 8x10 enlargements? And
if you have a choice what criteria and why did you make that choice. And
is that choice based on a large difference or a very small
difference.



I would expect both cameras to produce consistently good 10 x 8
enlargements. For most of the time, I would expect that it would be
difficult to see a difference without using a magnifying glass, but (from
the reviews I've seen) the Panasonic FZ5 might be slightly better some of
the time. Based on the purple fringing from the lens & sensor and the
JPEG artefacts visible in the Canon samples.



If I am choosing between (for now) the FZ5, Sony H!, and the S2 and
one is far superior in producing 8x10 results then I will purchase
that one. However, if the differences are so small that one could
almost call it a draw then I will then look to other criteria like
features, menu friendliness, handling etc.



Personally, I would forget the Sony because of the poorer image quality (D
P Review) and its use of the memory stick. Between the other two it
depends whether the swivel LCD and better movies from the Canon are more
important than the marginally better image quality of the FZ5, lower
weight, and convenience of the single Li-ion battery. I suspect you would
be happy with either, and choosing on features rather than image quality
alone.


If you had no digital camera and was going to choose between these two
today, what would you choose and why?

I think that actually handling the cameras is important in case
one suits you much better than the other. (Some people find these cameras
too small!).

Cheers,
David