If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Panasonic FZ20, first shots in low light
Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not
about a DSLR, shall we? If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to be as bad in real life! Douglas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryadia" wrote in message ... Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not about a DSLR, shall we? If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to be as bad in real life! Douglas Yes, you are off-topic. Post this in rec.photo.digital, not here. Thank you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Juan wrote:
"Ryadia" wrote in message ... Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not about a DSLR, shall we? If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to be as bad in real life! Douglas Yes, you are off-topic. Post this in rec.photo.digital, not here. Thank you. Well smarty pants... the post is not off topic, it refers to DSLRs in 2 different paragraphs. You ought to really study more before pinning on the star, deputy. Douglas |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryadia" wrote in message ... Juan wrote: "Ryadia" wrote in message ... Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not about a DSLR, shall we? If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to be as bad in real life! Douglas Yes, you are off-topic. Post this in rec.photo.digital, not here. Thank you. Well smarty pants... the post is not off topic, it refers to DSLRs in 2 different paragraphs. You ought to really study more before pinning on the star, deputy. Douglas I am devastated by your rapier-like wit, Pancho. You state that it is a "post clearly not about a DSLR" in the first paragraph then tell me that IS by dint of the fact that you mention "DSLR" in your post. You add that DSLRs are "clumsy" in the second--is this to get "DSLR" into your post a second time in order to justify posting it in a DSLR group? Are two mentions of DSLRs sufficient to post ANY nonsense in a DSLR group? In your header you establish that your post may be off topic by adding a question mark after "OT". Are you contradicting yourself? If not, please explain how your post is NOT off topic, Einstein. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Juan Yes, you are off-topic. Post this in rec.photo.digital, not
here. Thank you. RyadiaWell smarty pants... the post is not off topic, it refers to DSLRs Ryadiain 2 different paragraphs. You ought to really study more before Ryadiapinning on the star, deputy. What sort of moron says in his original post that it is "clearly not about a DSLR" and then, when nicely told exactly that, complains sarcastically and says it's ok because he mentions the word? Yes, Douglas MacDonald, of course. By the way, your mediocre, tiny images (as usual, with blown highlights*, camera shake*, and blocked colours*) do not show ANYTHING useful about the performance of the FZ20 in low-light anyway. Do you really expect an 800x600 image to show much noise? Do you really think they are examples of potential low-light problems? (And can a setup studio shot *really* be *that* bad??? (O: ) * - None of these issues has anything to do with you reducing the images for web use. They simply show, again, you have little grasp of digital imaging. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia wrote:
Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not about a DSLR, shall we? If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to be as bad in real life! Douglas The folks in the newsgroup: rec.photo.digital.zlr would probably be interested as well. I have stuck with the lowest ISO setting (80) when using my FZ5, and my observation is that at long exposures it may do an automatic dark frame subtraction. Haven't played enough to confirm that, though. Which, specifically, are the low-light shots in that gallery? David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Chrlz" wrote in message What sort of moron says in his original post that it is "clearly not about a DSLR" and then, when nicely told exactly that, complains sarcastically and says it's ok because he mentions the word? Yes, Douglas MacDonald, of course. By the way, your mediocre, tiny images (as usual, with blown highlights*, camera shake*, and blocked colours*) do not show ANYTHING useful about the performance of the FZ20 in low-light anyway. Do you really expect an 800x600 image to show much noise? Do you really think they are examples of potential low-light problems? (And can a setup studio shot *really* be *that* bad??? (O: ) * - None of these issues has anything to do with you reducing the images for web use. They simply show, again, you have little grasp of digital imaging. Ah yes... The dole bludger from South Australia's department of unemployment rear's it's ulgly head once again... Where you been charlie? The rock you hide under too heavy to slither out of before this? Douglas |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" wrote in message k... Douglas The folks in the newsgroup: rec.photo.digital.zlr would probably be interested as well. I have stuck with the lowest ISO setting (80) when using my FZ5, and my observation is that at long exposures it may do an automatic dark frame subtraction. Haven't played enough to confirm that, though. Which, specifically, are the low-light shots in that gallery? David Maybe your idea of low light and mine might vary. I thought f2.8 at 1/20th and ISO 200 was low light but on reflection, maybe it's just natural light indoors. anyway, to shoot the same with a 20D (hand held of course) would require 1/125th to avoid shutter shudder fuz so a 20D, DSLR would need to either be on a tripod or use considerable higher ISO number than the FZ. The noise thing is, I think, blown out of proportions too. If you can shoot a scene at 200 ISO which requires 800 ISO from a low noise camera, then high noise at high ISO doesn't have the same meaning as the numbers would seem to suggest. I though my post would interest those who use their cameras inside without flash. The inside shots were in my reception area which has no windows, only reflected light from the gallery area. I used to be able to take OK (hand held) shots with my 10D at 1/60th with an IS lens but I would never attempt that with a 20D due to the increased mirror slap. Over all, I think that I cannot do without my DSLRs but I also think that rangefinder cameras have a lot of benefit in questionable lighting. Although I had mixed lighting, Fluros, tungsten and daylight, the FZ read it better tahn the Canons do. Douglas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia@home wrote:
[] Maybe your idea of low light and mine might vary. I thought f2.8 at 1/20th and ISO 200 was low light but on reflection, maybe it's just natural light indoors. anyway, to shoot the same with a 20D (hand held of course) would require 1/125th to avoid shutter shudder fuz so a 20D, DSLR would need to either be on a tripod or use considerable higher ISO number than the FZ. The noise thing is, I think, blown out of proportions too. If you can shoot a scene at 200 ISO which requires 800 ISO from a low noise camera, then high noise at high ISO doesn't have the same meaning as the numbers would seem to suggest. Living where I do, such light levels are not unknown outdoors in the Winter!, but yes, having the IS allows hand-held with the FZ20 where a higher ISO on a DSLR would be another way of getting a similar result. I though my post would interest those who use their cameras inside without flash. The inside shots were in my reception area which has no windows, only reflected light from the gallery area. I used to be able to take OK (hand held) shots with my 10D at 1/60th with an IS lens but I would never attempt that with a 20D due to the increased mirror slap. Over all, I think that I cannot do without my DSLRs but I also think that rangefinder cameras have a lot of benefit in questionable lighting. Although I had mixed lighting, Fluros, tungsten and daylight, the FZ read it better tahn the Canons do. Thanks for the report. I guess that low-light to me means inside churches where you're trying to photograph the architecture. I recently had some 2-second shots with the FZ20 in Barcelona Cathedral with the camera firmly wedged (poor man's tripod) and was very pleased with the results. Laying the camera on its back is my favourite trick for ceiling photos, but the protuberances on today's cameras don't make this easy! Cheers, David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ryadia wrote:
Lets start a precedent for this group and accept a post clearly not about a DSLR, shall we? The Charter of this group prohibits such direct discussion that has no link at all to DSLR's. Post in the .zlr newsgroup. OT: Those shots (link) show nothing about its ability in low light. A friend has the FZ20 and he does great work with it. He's a former pro photog, now semi-retired in a different line of business. His knees and back give him problems so the SLR kit is long gone. He does better photography from the seat of his car with the FZ20 than most people can do in any situation with any camera. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
300d vs 350d for action shots and low light | David Geesaman | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | May 13th 05 01:02 PM |
Canon S1 IS vs Panasonic FZ20 | measekite | Digital Photography | 31 | March 21st 05 05:21 PM |
Charging NiMH batteries (for Panasonic FZ20) | Pierre Jelenc | Digital Photography | 13 | March 7th 05 12:16 PM |
Panasonic FZ20 AC adapter | Dave | Digital Photography | 2 | February 14th 05 11:43 PM |
Panasonic Lumix Series (FZ3, FZ10, FZ20) | Lukas Varossieau | Digital ZLR Cameras | 8 | December 5th 04 08:15 AM |