Pop Photo HAMMERS Panasonic FZ30 over noise

They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:13:20 -0500, Rich wrote:

They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

I see two faces in that image; the one on the right is horrible due to
noise, and the one on the left is actually recognizable as a face, but
not by much, the noise is so bad.
If either of these faces look "fine" to you, I wonder what would look
"poor."
Are you looking at the photo in real size, or compressed?
The noise in the building in the top half and the left of the photo is
extremely bad.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Rich wrote:
They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

Yes, the FZ-30 is not a DSLR. Tell us something new. That image
was shot at ISO 400. Everybody knows what to expect from that.

Pop Photo says all Panasonic cameras have bad noise problems, but they
don't mention that all small-sensor cameras have noise problems? So
much for their credibility.

Paul Allen

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800, Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen
at comcast dot net" wrote:

Rich wrote:
They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

Yes, the FZ-30 is not a DSLR. Tell us something new. That image
was shot at ISO 400. Everybody knows what to expect from that.

Pop Photo says all Panasonic cameras have bad noise problems, but they
don't mention that all small-sensor cameras have noise problems? So
much for their credibility.

Paul Allen

Some are worse than others. Even a P&S should present a relatively
noiseless image at 100 ISO or less.
-Rich

Rich wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800, Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen
at comcast dot net" wrote:


Rich wrote:

They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

Yes, the FZ-30 is not a DSLR. Tell us something new. That image
was shot at ISO 400. Everybody knows what to expect from that.

Pop Photo says all Panasonic cameras have bad noise problems, but they
don't mention that all small-sensor cameras have noise problems? So
much for their credibility.

Some are worse than others. Even a P&S should present a relatively
noiseless image at 100 ISO or less.

Yup. Some are worse than others. The FZ30 is a bit worse than some
at ISO 100, and really terrible at higher ISO's. To assert that
Panasonic's whole line is as bad as the FZ30 (and to imply that no
other small-sensor cameras have trouble with noise) is incorrect at
best, and grossly dishonest at worst. The sample image was ISO 400,
not ISO 100, a detail that had to be dredged out of the EXIF because
the OP didn't tell us. I think he has an ax to grind.

Paul Allen

Rich wrote:
They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable."

They're not the first reviewer to hammer the FZ30 on the noise issue.

dpreview wrote: "Noise is even an issue at ISO 80, a real problem at ISO
400 or in very low light"

dcresource wrote: "Unfortunately, noise levels are above average,
especially at ISO 200 and 400," concluding "if the noise levels were
lower it would easily be one of the best cameras on the market, period."

SMS wrote:
[]
They're not the first reviewer to hammer the FZ30 on the noise issue.

dpreview wrote: "Noise is even an issue at ISO 80, a real problem at
ISO 400 or in very low light"

dcresource wrote: "Unfortunately, noise levels are above average,
especially at ISO 200 and 400," concluding "if the noise levels were
lower it would easily be one of the best cameras on the market,
period."

Whatever these so-called reviews write, there are many happy users of the
Panasonic FZ30 who are using it in real-world situations to take real
photographs of real scenes, not of some test card and measure the result
in software.

What these reviewers and their software don't yet seem to do is to figure
in the way the human eye responds to noise. Looking at an image at 100%
zoom is like displaying it 30 or more inches wide on many displays. Who
wouldn't expect and image to show imperfections at that magnification!

The FZ30 may be a little noisier than some, but it's a very usable camera.

David

Well, I am very happy with my FZ30. In fact I junked a 20D with 3 lenses to
get it and like it much better. The same image Rich wants you to look at is
not typical of the camera and it was not shot at ISO 100. He didn't bother
to tell you that in his rantings.

r

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:30 -0800, Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen
at comcast dot net" wrote:

Rich wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800, Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen
at comcast dot net" wrote:


Rich wrote:

They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable." To give you an idea of what
they consider unacceptable, the Rebel XT at 1600 was deemed as
noisy at that setting. The commented that Panasonic's line all
display this problem. Looking at the image samples on dpreview.com,
it seems that the problem manifests itself mostly in underexposed
areas of images when using higher ISO settings. All images even when
exposed for properly have under and over exposed areas. Note the
face in this image looks fine, being close to "high key", with minimal
noise intrusion because of the illumination level. The hair shows
considerable noise, as does the darker background.

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-165.jpg

Yes, the FZ-30 is not a DSLR. Tell us something new. That image
was shot at ISO 400. Everybody knows what to expect from that.

Pop Photo says all Panasonic cameras have bad noise problems, but they
don't mention that all small-sensor cameras have noise problems? So
much for their credibility.

Some are worse than others. Even a P&S should present a relatively
noiseless image at 100 ISO or less.

Yup. Some are worse than others. The FZ30 is a bit worse than some
at ISO 100, and really terrible at higher ISO's. To assert that
Panasonic's whole line is as bad as the FZ30 (and to imply that no
other small-sensor cameras have trouble with noise) is incorrect at
best, and grossly dishonest at worst. The sample image was ISO 400,
not ISO 100, a detail that had to be dredged out of the EXIF because
the OP didn't tell us. I think he has an ax to grind.

Paul Allen

Two different sources. Images from dpreview.com, review from Popular
Photography.
-Rich

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:32:25 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Rich wrote:
They reviewed it, liked the resolution, but said that noise levels
even at 100 ISO were "unacceptable."

They're not the first reviewer to hammer the FZ30 on the noise issue.

dpreview wrote: "Noise is even an issue at ISO 80, a real problem at ISO
400 or in very low light"

dcresource wrote: "Unfortunately, noise levels are above average,
especially at ISO 200 and 400," concluding "if the noise levels were
lower it would easily be one of the best cameras on the market, period."

It's resolution puts it (I believe) at the top of the list of
prosumers right now. The problem with noise is that in some
instances, it can be dealt with without wholesale destruction of
detail, but in others, it kills the images to "clean it up." People's
faces when suffused with noise are generally unrecoverable,
but things like buildings can be made to look acceptable.
-Rich