«

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

"Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42b23e65$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

Juan wrote:
> "Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:42b23e65$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>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

"Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42b24c8c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Juan wrote:
>> "Ryadia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:42b23e65$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>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.

Juan>> Yes, you are off-topic. Post this in rec.photo.digital, not
here. Thank you.
>
Ryadia>Well smarty pants... the post is not off topic, it refers to
DSLRs
Ryadia>in 2 different paragraphs. You ought to really study more before
Ryadia>pinning 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.

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

"Chrlz" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

"David J Taylor"
<david-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:BLvse.51708$(E-Mail Removed) 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

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

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.