FZ50

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

measekite wrote:
[]
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?

Having recently travelled under the current very restrictive, UK
air-travel, hand-luggage rules, I was very pleased that my camera could
fit into the available space in a briefcase sized bag.

I have looked through the viewfinder of some of today's DSLRs and found
the image much darker than on my film SLRs - of course f/5.6 lenses don't
help. It's much easier to frame with my Nikon 8400 in darkish conditions.
There are times when the higher sensitivity of a DSLR would be useful,
coupled with f/1.4 or f/2 fixed-focal length lenses. Such lenses would
give an excellent ability to create a narrow depth-of-field shot as well.

It would be the added versatility which would attract me to a DSLR, not
the print quality. I would expect that, an 11 x 14 enlargement from the
best of today's non-SLR cameras should be quite acceptable, viewed at a
sensible distance. By the way, I hardly ever print (most images are
viewed on screen), and my largest prints are A4 size (297 x 210mm), so
likely my needs are somewhat different to yours.

David

measekite wrote:
[]
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?

No idea - it would be pure guesswork. If they use the same processing
engine, I hope they provide an option for less agressive noise reduction
than the FZ50 is reputed to have.

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.

Fuji are supposed to have increased the picture quality from
small-sensors, if only Panasonic could use Fuji sensors! Be careful when
comparing image quality - looking at images at 1:1 magnification on your
screen may be the equivalent of looking at prints 30 inches wide. It may
be best to print any images you compare.

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.

Larger numbers sell better - look at audio and "watts".

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.

Yes, I think you're right. Whilst I can see a difference between the 5MP
FZ5 and the 8MP Nikon 8400, it's not a lot, and the image stabilisation
more than makes up for the slightly better pixel quality on the Nikon.
The Nikon 8400 has a 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor compared to the 5.76 x 4.29 mm of
the FZ5. Nikon pixels 7.26 sq. um compared to the 4.94 sq um of the
Panasonic. Bigger pixels, more photons, lower noise. Bigger sensor,
heavier, bigger camera and lens. Your choice!

You could buy an FZ5 second-hand now, use it to gain experience, and
either keep it, or sell it in favour of something else at
Thanksgiving......

David

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:59:51 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
measekite wrote:
[]
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?

Having recently travelled under the current very restrictive, UK
air-travel, hand-luggage rules, I was very pleased that my camera could
fit into the available space in a briefcase sized bag.

I have looked through the viewfinder of some of today's DSLRs and found
the image much darker than on my film SLRs - of course f/5.6 lenses don't
help. It's much easier to frame with my Nikon 8400 in darkish conditions.
There are times when the higher sensitivity of a DSLR would be useful,
coupled with f/1.4 or f/2 fixed-focal length lenses. Such lenses would
give an excellent ability to create a narrow depth-of-field shot as well.

It would be the added versatility which would attract me to a DSLR, not
the print quality. I would expect that, an 11 x 14 enlargement from the
best of today's non-SLR cameras should be quite acceptable, viewed at a
sensible distance. By the way, I hardly ever print (most images are
viewed on screen), and my largest prints are A4 size (297 x 210mm), so
likely my needs are somewhat different to yours.

I've made a couple of big prints (16"x20") off my FZ5, and they look
good mounted on a wall above a bookshelf. In other words, they won't
bear close-up inspection, but at actual viewing distances, the camera
has enough resolution to make a decent print.

-dms

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]


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?



Having recently travelled under the current very restrictive, UK
air-travel, hand-luggage rules, I was very pleased that my camera could
fit into the available space in a briefcase sized bag.

I have looked through the viewfinder of some of today's DSLRs and found
the image much darker than on my film SLRs - of course f/5.6 lenses don't
help. It's much easier to frame with my Nikon 8400 in darkish conditions.
There are times when the higher sensitivity of a DSLR would be useful,
coupled with f/1.4 or f/2 fixed-focal length lenses. Such lenses would
give an excellent ability to create a narrow depth-of-field shot as well.

It would be the added versatility which would attract me to a DSLR, not
the print quality. I would expect that, an 11 x 14 enlargement


I liked to display my photographs. I plan on getting a wide format
printer that can print up to 13x19 inches so I am thinking that there
should be a striking difference in image quality printing a cropped
photo that size. By striking I mean noticeable with out having to use a
magnifying glass.

Let me know if you do not think that is the case. Also I plan on doing
more of the 11x14 size.

from the
best of today's non-SLR cameras should be quite acceptable, viewed at a
sensible distance. By the way, I hardly ever print (most images are
viewed on screen), and my largest prints are A4 size (297 x 210mm), so
likely my needs are somewhat different to yours.

David

David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]


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?



No idea - it would be pure guesswork. If they use the same processing
engine, I hope they provide an option for less agressive noise reduction
than the FZ50 is reputed to have.



In order for that to happen Panasonic must first listen to their
customers but before they can listen their customers need to talk.
Somehow customers who have an interest need to find a way to express
their desires to Panasonic.



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.



Fuji are supposed to have increased the picture quality from
small-sensors, if only Panasonic could use Fuji sensors! Be careful when
comparing image quality - looking at images at 1:1 magnification on your
screen may be the equivalent of looking at prints 30 inches wide. It may
be best to print any images you compare.



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.



Larger numbers sell better - look at audio and "watts".



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.



Yes, I think you're right. Whilst I can see a difference between the 5MP
FZ5 and the 8MP Nikon 8400, it's not a lot, and the image stabilisation
more than makes up for the slightly better pixel quality on the Nikon.
The Nikon 8400 has a 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor compared to the 5.76 x 4.29 mm of
the FZ5. Nikon pixels 7.26 sq. um compared to the 4.94 sq um of the
Panasonic. Bigger pixels, more photons, lower noise. Bigger sensor,
heavier, bigger camera and lens. Your choice!

You could buy an FZ5 second-hand now, use it to gain experience, and
either keep it, or sell it in favour of something else at
Thanksgiving......

David

In article ,
measekite wrote:

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.

That should be incorporated in all future models but better yet would be
to increase the size of the sensor a little before increasing MP to
create a better image that can be enlarged more.

Unfortunately that sets off a chain reaction starting with needing a new
lens. The FZ30's lens is a marvel*, I'd hate to have them mess it up.

--
S. Nufkin
[I started life with nothing and still have most of it left]

*Well, apart from sometimes being a bit erratic focusing at Infinity

measekite wrote:
[]
I liked to display my photographs. I plan on getting a wide format
printer that can print up to 13x19 inches so I am thinking that there
should be a striking difference in image quality printing a cropped
photo that size. By striking I mean noticeable with out having to
use a magnifying glass.

Let me know if you do not think that is the case. Also I plan on
doing more of the 11x14 size.

A difference visible when viewed from what distance? Many cameras today
will give you broadly equivalent quality to typical 35mm film - but the
pictures look different because of the different shape of the
lens/anti-alias filter/sensor MTF curve and the difference between film
grain and digital noise.

Undoubtedly the best DSLR should be able to give you pictures strikingly
better than those from a cheap small-sensor camera. Whether pictures from
the poorest DSLR and cheap lens would be "striking different" than those
from the finest small-sensor camera is more debateable. There would be
slightly more noise, making the image look a little grainy, but it might
well be sharper. Which pleases the eye better is a matter of personal
preference. Cropping might favour the full-frame DSLR or the high
megapixel small-sized DSLRs, although cropping to less that 50% linear
dimensions is best avoided in any digital camera (as you will be using
less than 25% of the sensor pixels).

But if your DSLR outfit is so heavy and bulky that you left it at home, or
if you could not afford good lenses with image-stabilisation and ended up
with a more limited capability as a result, what good is that?

If you can afford and carry a DSLR outfit including flash and tripod, that
is undoubtedly the way to go, if the absolute best image quality is your
only goal.

David

measekite wrote:
[]
In order for that to happen Panasonic must first listen to their
customers but before they can listen their customers need to talk.
Somehow customers who have an interest need to find a way to express
their desires to Panasonic.

Well, why not write to them?

Panasonic did conduct a survey some months ago asking photographers what
they wanted. I don't recall other manufacturers who did this.

David

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

My FZ 15 makes those pics look like crap.
There just isn't any detail.
Nothing from Panny/Leica could be that bad.
The blogger must not know how to take pictures.
I'll wait for Steve to review it before passing final judgement.
Looks like there was movement during the exposure.
Totally unacceptable.......Sigh
Bob Williams