POTD.com.au wrote:
> "Pix on Canvas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:433138f6$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Keith Holley wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:35:43 GMT, "Rod Out Back"
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Folks,
>>>>
>>>>I see the Panasonic Lumix FZ-30 is now listed on the Panasonic (au)
>>>>website. 8mp version of the FZ-20, with a few tweaks, and a flip-out LCD
>>>>screen on the rear.
>>>>
>>>>A nice little number for those not wanting the plunge of a true SLR.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.panasonic.com.au/products...productID=4129
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Rod.......Out Back
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Check out the following for a full review of FZ-30 http
>>>://www.dpreview.com/reviews also
>>> http ://www.dcresource.com both have review the FZ-30 and FZ-20 .
>>>One thing for sure both reviews
>>>say the FZ-30 is too noisey above ISO 100. They put the reason down for
>>>the noise to the small imager used. I wonder why Panasonic never used a
>>>CMOS imager as a way of lowering the noise.
>>>
>>>With the realse of the FZ-30 does this means that the FD-20 join the
>>>great camera club in the sky went you have FZ-5 doing the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's all bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. Sure the sensor is noisier
>>than a 1.5 times more expensive DSLR but you have to own one to understand
>>that is doesn't matter. The thing is, all SLR cameras have stuff slapping
>>around at the point of exposure and actually *NEED* High ISO just to keep
>>the shutter speed up so they'll take a sharp picture.
>
>
> Personally, I am quite happy with the 20x30inch 100ISO prints on my wall.
> Any softness is those from mirror slap has to be less noticable than high
> ISO noise, because I just can't see it.
>
>
>>The Panasonic's on the other hand are happy shooting sharp pictures at
>>1/15th speeds. There is some evidence here:
>>http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics
>
>
> Are there links to full size images for those or did I miss them?
>
>
>
You didn't miss them Russell. I posted some full size crops or what I at
the time thought were full size - they probably are. The issue of noise
is quaint. Canon use their "Digic" on-board computer to clean up the
signals from their sensors. The sensors themselves are probably no less
noisy than any other.
It's only their processed data which is noise free and they do a pretty
fair job of it given the size and power of the computer they use. It's
no equal to the power of dual processor PC and this is where I think
Canon have taken a wrong turn. What precisely is wrong with noise
removal post capture? Canon images have to be processed to yield their
full potential, why not other makers but in different ways?
The Panasonic data on the other hand, needs to be post processed to
clear the noise, a relatively simple task using something like Neat
Image. Given that the Panasonic images are probably close to what you'd
get from your work flow, minus the noise element.
My experience is that Canon High ISO images are at the limit of low in
noise terms without losing edge definition and smudging detail. Further
processing to reduce noise during development of the image degrades it.
Canon sensors also produce (not predictably or regularly) abnormal
artifacts in low light and fast moving situations. I have not found this
to be the case with Panasonic, Nikon or Olympus images.
You can remove most of the noise from a 400 ISO Panasonic image without
damaging the edge definition or smudging the detail. This is where my
argument that a FZ20/FZ30 doesn't need as high ISO to take a sharp,
properly exposed picture, given that the mirror slap prevents hand held
shots as slow as 1/30th second at any ISO with a 20D but are common
place with stable cameras, not having mirrors and stops they hit, like
the FZ's.
You might recall a fellow posting here a couple of years ago under the
name of "Admiral". Some of his 10D shots of motorbikes at speed he
posted for comment showed what I called then - "double images" in an
area otherwise free from blur. They are artifact produced by an error in
calculation by the Digic computer.
Since then I've seen the issue quite a few times and only with Canon
images. I have a notion this is related to temperature but I haven't yet
pinned it down and probably never will now I've gotten rid if my Canon
cameras.
--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
