Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Camera Manufacturers > Panasonic Lumix > Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-16-2005, 04:47 PM
RichA wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp


I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the
FZ30 isn't for you.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pinky & Perky sing Parsifal
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-16-2005, 04:56 PM

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp
>



Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with
Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images.

It's a marriage made in heaven.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-16-2005, 07:16 PM

"David J Taylor"
<david-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:JGCWe.109779$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
> RichA wrote:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp

>
> I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
> photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the
> FZ30 isn't for you.


ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and that
is very bad.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 12:10 AM
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:56:37 +0100, "Pinky & Perky sing Parsifal"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp
>>

>
>
>Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with
>Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images.
>
>It's a marriage made in heaven.
>


Not really. One thing Olympus did in it's upper end was avoid the
hideious plastic bodies of the Panasonics. Now (E-500)
that's bleeding into Olympus. Pretty soon, if they aren't careful,
they'll be just another Kodak.
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 06:10 AM
Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote in message
> news:JGCWe.109779$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
>> RichA wrote:
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp

>>
>> I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
>> photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
>> then the FZ30 isn't for you.

>
> ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
> that is very bad.


The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pix on Canvas
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 07:53 AM
David J Taylor wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>"David J Taylor"
>><david-(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote in message
>>news:JGCWe.109779$(E-Mail Removed). co.uk...
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp
>>>
>>>I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
>>>photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
>>>then the FZ30 isn't for you.

>>
>>ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
>>that is very bad.

>
>
> The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
> the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
> bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
> to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
> by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
> coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.
>
> David
>
>

I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility is
shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.

The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
truth for the sake of promoting Canon.

If the Panasonic had mirrors and hinges flapping around at the time of
exposure it would be perfectly fair to say it's images are noisy at high
ISO and it can't take a low light picture as well as a Canon. It
doesn't. It actually performs quite well in low light situations. I
don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
in low light, to boost shutter speed.

The Canon "S" series DSLRs have a particularly bad mirror design which
shudders more than most SLRs during exposure. The Canon's (ands nearly
every other SLR - film and digital) actually need high ISO in order to
maintain high shutter speeds in low light and produce a sharp (or clear)
picture. The Panasonic does not.

The pictures here http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics are from
a FZ20, the forerunner of the FZ30 but none the less, relevant to this
discussion. You simply could not take these pictures with the same ISO
settings as the Panasonic, using a Canon DSLR. Not even on a tripod. The
only way is to wind up the ISO.

A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the
same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview
never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you
believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon
DSLR... Total bullshit!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 08:46 AM
Pix on Canvas wrote:
[]
>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp

[]
> I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
> Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
> sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility
> is shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
> manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.
>
> The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ
> cameras don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR
> does so attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is
> distorting the truth for the sake of promoting Canon.

[]

I agree that the comparison is unfair. If you compare the sensitive areas
the Canon is 329 sq.mm. and the FZ30 is 38 sq.mm. Therefore if you are
going to show the XT at ISO 1600, the similar figure for the FZ30 would be
ISO 200, not ISO 400. The results would be comparable under such
conditions.

Of course, the original posting was simply stating the obvious, that a
small sensor camera is not as sensitive as a large sensor one!

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
dylan
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 12:34 PM

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z30/page14.asp
>


Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is
?.
You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to
discuss it ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-17-2005, 01:37 PM
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Pix on Canvas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
>don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
>attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
>truth for the sake of promoting Canon.


That is easy to circumvent; DPR gives the f-stop and shutter speeds, so
all you have to do, really, is the math to expose the absolute exposure
of each; wher one has x stops more exposure than the other.

Personally, I think that the better way to compare is to use absolute
exposure that is fixed in a comparison, and then bringing the resulting
images to the same tonal curve in the display images. Then you are
really comparing two cameras at the same light level (assuming that the
f-stops and shutter speeds are fairly accurate in the cameras compared;
shutter-speed can be circumvented with manual flash, leaving only f-stop
as questionable).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Panasonic trying to disrupt sales the OM-D by offering up rumours ofa new, high-end Panasonic? RichA Digital Cameras 4 02-15-2012 01:16 PM
Panasonic FZ7 Accessories in stock at Panasonic.com J. Clarke Panasonic Lumix 0 05-12-2006 05:00 PM
Panasonic TC-7WMS1 Color LCD Video Monitor FA Panasonic TC-7WMS1 Color LCD Video Monitor FA: Panasonic TC-7WMS1 Color LCD Video Monitor Panasonic TC-7WMS1 Color LCD Video Monitor Mr. Tapeguy Professional Video Production 0 12-05-2005 02:13 PM
Panasonic Vs Kodak Vs Minolta Vs Canon Nihal Panasonic Lumix 24 12-05-2004 03:45 AM
can i do this? panasonic dvd burner from my analogue panasonic 5100hs via s-video output? ace in indiana Professional Video Production 3 10-25-2004 02:34 PM