Panasonic DMC-FZ30

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:15:09 GMT, "Sandy Bloom, Ph.D."
wrote:

I'd appreciate hearing what you folks think of this camera. I have read
many good reviews along with some very critical ones about image quality and
noise. I was considering a DSLR, but the price and features of this camera
have caused me to rethink my plan.

Grab one of the noisy images from sites like dpreview.com and run it
though a program like Neat Image. If the program works, produces the
noise reduction you need while maintaining enough of the detail, then
the camera is obviously a good choice because it has the highest
resolution of any camera like it. But it is noisier than other
cameras in it's class.
-Rich

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:24:04 -0800, Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen
at comcast dot net" wrote Re Panasonic DMC-FZ30:

Vic Dura wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:59:41 +0100, "P" wrote Re
Panasonic DMC-FZ30:

I have made over 2000 photos with my FZ30 and I am happy with it. I upgraded

from FZ20.

Can you tell us what you prefer about the FZ30 over the FZ20? I would
be interested.

Here's the list of advantages I put together a while back:

Thanks very much.
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

Also, Steves Digicams does not join the noise lamentation choir! Go see
their ISO comparison pics.
My Canon S2IS, as well as most other super zoom cameras have much more noise
att 400 ISO than the FZ30!
/per

On 31 Dec 2005 13:33:43 +0100, "per" wrote:

Also, Steves Digicams does not join the noise lamentation choir! Go see
their ISO comparison pics.
My Canon S2IS, as well as most other super zoom cameras have much more noise
att 400 ISO than the FZ30!
/per


Panasonic's claim to fame is resolution that is excellent. Which is
great at 80 ISO, big print potential is there.

But....

Keep the images small, it should be ok. But a 400 ISO shot just looks
ugly up close. The noise isn't "nice" noise that approximates
a film grain pattern (like, for instances Nikon's 8080 produces) it's
big and blotchy and colourful. Like lots of noise supression was used
but didn't really work.

There (IMO) are three kinds of noise.
1. Noise that is present but not too offensive, presenting a film
grain-like appearance (Nikon 8080, etc)
2. Noise that is present and truly ugly (Panasonic FZ30)
3. Noise that although visible can be dealt with in a noise program
like "Neat Image" with little or no effect on fine detail.

Here is a Panasonic FZ30 image from dpreview's review. At a distance
(small image or print) it doesn't matter much. Up close, it's
terrible. 400 ISO. Where I've found noise really offensive is when
someone's face is involved. It makes the person look like they have
some skin disease!

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-268.jpg

In article ,
says...
On 31 Dec 2005 13:33:43 +0100, "per" wrote:

Also, Steves Digicams does not join the noise lamentation choir! Go see
their ISO comparison pics.
My Canon S2IS, as well as most other super zoom cameras have much more noise
att 400 ISO than the FZ30!
/per


Panasonic's claim to fame is resolution that is excellent. Which is
great at 80 ISO, big print potential is there.

But....

Keep the images small, it should be ok. But a 400 ISO shot just looks
ugly up close. The noise isn't "nice" noise that approximates
a film grain pattern (like, for instances Nikon's 8080 produces) it's
big and blotchy and colourful. Like lots of noise supression was used
but didn't really work.

There (IMO) are three kinds of noise.
1. Noise that is present but not too offensive, presenting a film
grain-like appearance (Nikon 8080, etc)
2. Noise that is present and truly ugly (Panasonic FZ30)
3. Noise that although visible can be dealt with in a noise program
like "Neat Image" with little or no effect on fine detail.

Here is a Panasonic FZ30 image from dpreview's review. At a distance
(small image or print) it doesn't matter much. Up close, it's
terrible. 400 ISO. Where I've found noise really offensive is when
someone's face is involved. It makes the person look like they have
some skin disease!

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-268.jpg

I downloaded that image and played with Neat Image to see if could be
useful. I could not make much of an improvement. I suspect the reason
is that Neat Image was working on the output of the noise reduction
software in the FZ30. The FZ30 does have a raw output but dpreview
described their raw converter as "pointless". ACR now supports the FZ30
raw format and I wonder if ACR and Neat Image is enough to shift the
camera from your category 2 above to category 3?

In article ,
says...
Here is a Panasonic FZ30 image from dpreview's review. At a distance
(small image or print) it doesn't matter much. Up close, it's
terrible. 400 ISO. Where I've found noise really offensive is when
someone's face is involved. It makes the person look like they have
some skin disease!

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-268.jpg

I downloaded that image and played with Neat Image to see if could be
useful. I could not make much of an improvement. I suspect the reason
is that Neat Image was working on the output of the noise reduction
software in the FZ30. The FZ30 does have a raw output but dpreview
described their raw converter as "pointless". ACR now supports the FZ30
raw format and I wonder if ACR and Neat Image is enough to shift the
camera from your category 2 above to category 3?

I just had a better look at dpreview and see that they have covered this.
Sorry for wasting your bandwidth.

"Bruce Graham" wrote in
. au...
In article ,
says...
snip...
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/pan...icture-268.jpg

I downloaded that image and played with Neat Image to see if could be
useful. I could not make much of an improvement. I suspect the reason
is that Neat Image was working on the output of the noise reduction
software in the FZ30. The FZ30 does have a raw output but dpreview
described their raw converter as "pointless". ACR now supports the FZ30
raw format and I wonder if ACR and Neat Image is enough to shift the
camera from your category 2 above to category 3?

I tried the default setting in the free version of Imagenomic Noiseware with
that pic, and it was very effective.
/per