Has Panasonic got it right after all?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Rich, Oct 24, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    People have complained (rightly) about the noise level
    in Panasonic cameras, even the FZ30, their newest.
    But it seems to me that all Panasonic has done has left some
    of the "sledgehammer" digital noise reduction out of the
    processing in the camera, unlike some other makers.
    In tests this methodology has allowed for greater detail in the
    Panasonic shots than other cameras. You can always apply the noise
    reduction afterward, and tune it to your liking with
    "Neat Image" or some other competent noise-reduction program.
    Isn't this the better way?
    I am excluding cameras with very low noise from this discussion
    such as the Fuji F10.
    I also do not own a Panasonic.
    -Rich
    Rich, Oct 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    John H Guest

    On 24 Oct 2005 03:51:32 -0700, wrote:

    >Panasonc fz30,that..?
    >
    >http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/nightshot200.jpg
    >
    >http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s9000-review/nightshot200.jpg
    >
    >http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/c8080wz-review/nightshot200.jpg
    >
    >look at details on wall's building...


    My unskilled eye is drawn to the Fuji but the exposures are
    not the same, the Panasonic seeming under exposed and the Olympus over
    exposed as appears to be the case from the EXIF data assuming similar
    lighting. The dates are different so could varying atmospheric
    conditions not also play a role? All are ISO 200 but time and
    aperture vary. The Fuji is a manual exposure while the others are
    auto. Should the pictures not all be taken under as nearly identical
    circumstances as possible for the most valid comparison? Hey, maybe
    buddy bumped the Panasonic tripod. ;-)

    OTOH I could be FOS. It happened once before and seemed to
    continue on from there.
    John H, Oct 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    HornBlower Guest

    Well, I think Panasonic could have done a better job with the noise. Just so
    you know I own both the FZ20 and the FZ30. However, I also have owned a
    Canon 20D and got rid of it because it was almost noiseless in most of the
    ISO settings. I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
    rendered in a 3D program.

    So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the images look
    more real. That said, Panasonic could have made the ISO 300 and 400 on their
    cameras a little bit cleaner. But, still I think they have some of the best
    cameras given price and features.

    I have shot probably 5000 images with both of the Panasonic's I own and find
    very few complaints about the pictures. I love both the cameras.


    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > People have complained (rightly) about the noise level
    > in Panasonic cameras, even the FZ30, their newest.
    > But it seems to me that all Panasonic has done has left some
    > of the "sledgehammer" digital noise reduction out of the
    > processing in the camera, unlike some other makers.
    > In tests this methodology has allowed for greater detail in the
    > Panasonic shots than other cameras. You can always apply the noise
    > reduction afterward, and tune it to your liking with
    > "Neat Image" or some other competent noise-reduction program.
    > Isn't this the better way?
    > I am excluding cameras with very low noise from this discussion
    > such as the Fuji F10.
    > I also do not own a Panasonic.
    > -Rich
    HornBlower, Oct 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:48:39 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
    <> wrote:

    >>>all Panasonic has done has left some of the "sledgehammer" digital noise
    >>>reduction out of the processing in the camera

    >
    >For the benefit of the less technical amongst us, what does digital noise
    >actually look like?
    >
    >Keith
    >
    >
    >


    A graininess to the image composed of multicoloured speckles.
    Little coloured specs where those colours shouldn't be.
    Shows up in underexposed (dark) areas at higher ISO
    speeds.
    -Rich
    Rich, Oct 25, 2005
    #4
  5. Annika1980 wrote:
    >> I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
    >> rendered in a 3D program.

    >
    >> So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the
    >> images look more real.

    >
    > When you look through your eyes do you see noise?


    Yes - see Dibley's post.

    > You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
    > than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.
    > For you, digital noise is a good thing cause it makes the images
    > look more like what you're used to seeing.


    Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich

    Pete Guest

    On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:50:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.
    >
    > David


    Yes, but I'd like to add it when I want it. NOT have to remove it when I
    don't want it (which is 99.9% of the time).

    Pete
    Pete, Oct 25, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich

    HornBlower Guest

    It is strickly a personal thing. If you like 100% noise free images more
    power to you. I don't and that is why after 3 months with the 20D I sold it.
    That and I didn't trust Canon to do firmware updates that didn't kill the
    camera.


    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
    >>rendered in a 3D program.

    >
    >>So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the images
    >>look
    >>more real.

    >
    > When you look through your eyes do you see noise?
    >
    > You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
    > than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.
    > For you, digital noise is a good thing cause it makes the images
    > look more like what you're used to seeing.
    >
    HornBlower, Oct 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:13:20 -0700, Pete <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:50:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.
    >>
    >> David

    >
    >Yes, but I'd like to add it when I want it. NOT have to remove it when I
    >don't want it (which is 99.9% of the time).
    >
    >Pete


    Like dust spots in DSLRs without ultrasonic filters. :)
    -Rich
    Rich, Oct 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich

    none Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
    > than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.


    It will probably follow the development of watches or fine gems. Fifty
    years from now, the only cameras with noisy output will cost thousands
    of dollars, because a flawless image is without soul or character. Only
    by adding thousands of tiny imperfections, can we make the image of that
    "special moment" truly unique.

    -Mike
    none, Oct 26, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. videoken
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    491
    Paul Motter
    May 24, 2004
  2. Willard

    OT - Bush has clear mandate to govern from the right

    Willard, Nov 4, 2004, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    67
    Views:
    891
  3. videoken

    Finally got my studio space and I need your help to make it right!

    videoken, May 19, 2004, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    451
    Paul Motter
    May 24, 2004
  4. Nicholas O. Lindan
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    967
    Dana H. Myers
    May 5, 2007
  5. Nicholas O. Lindan

    We don' need no stiinkin' Kodachrome. We got jets, man, we got jets.

    Nicholas O. Lindan, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Darkroom Developing and Printing
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    857
    Dana H. Myers
    May 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page