Canon compared to Panasonic $4200 compared to a $650 wonder bug.

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by D_Mac, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens,
    should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow
    detail and long range image clarity?

    One day while out with Margie spotting planes as she loves to do, we
    stood side by side and took identical pictures... Her's were in JPEG
    mode ("I don't understand all that RAW mumbo jumbo") and mine in that
    hugely over rated RAW format which requires endless time in post
    processing to get a usable image...

    Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    D_Mac, Sep 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. D_Mac

    Marutchi Guest

    Nuh, not with your credibility.
    Marutchi, Sep 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. ask him to post the EXIF data :)
    Insert Name Here, Sep 25, 2007
  4. OOPs, haven't set up this news server properly yet, but all corrected now,
    D-Mac has been caught in the past being less that forthright with
    "comparison" photos so I wouldn't believe the little weasel unless he took
    the photos and then handed the memory cards directly to an impartial arbiter
    for a full and proper examination.
    I noticed that Doug has not included any EXIF information with the photo's
    but then that's par for the course for Doug :)
    Atheist Chaplain, Sep 25, 2007
  5. D_Mac

    Mr.T Guest

    You are actually advertising the fact that is the best you can manage with a
    20D and L series zoom?

    Certainly makes *me* wonder why you'd bother!

    Mr.T, Sep 25, 2007
  6. Exactly. How could a 'photographer' end up shooting at 1/140 sec with
    an f2.8 lens in bright sunshine on a large sensor camera? Gee, just
    as well he used RAW to keep the inevitable resulting quality intact..
    But I'm sure Douglas will be back to tell us it was really a joke and
    that he just meant to troll. He's such a humorous wag, is our Doug.

    (I wonder if he has noticed that every response here questions his
    credibility and skill... (O: Ah, 'tis a grand and well-deserved
    reputation to have, to be sure!)
    mark.thomas.7, Sep 25, 2007
  7. D_Mac

    Avery Guest

    Gee Mark, are you still here?

    I thought that Dougs' appeals to the Queensland Police/Federal
    Police/Asio/FBI/ KGB/SS/Stazi/RSPCA/RAOOB would have had you locked up
    and disposed of by now.

    Maybe Dougie messed up the paperwork... again.
    Avery, Sep 25, 2007
  8. D_Mac

    Vonable Guest

    Then go ahead and wonder and shoot with the Panasonic who gives a flying
    ..... If you knew photography then you wouldn't post and waste space with
    dribble so tell someone who cares.
    Vonable, Sep 25, 2007
  9. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Makes me wonder why you used Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight command on
    the pano pic and then tried to paint it back in where it made the sky
    too light around the plane.

    Also, can we assume the dark blob underneath the right wing of the 20D
    pic is sensor dust? Shoulda got the 40D!

    Now please post the RAW file from the 20D and an unprocessed JPG
    straight from the Panasonic so that we may do a fair comparison. I
    won't hold my breath.
    Annika1980, Sep 25, 2007
  10. D_Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    There is very little "Fair" in anything you post, why then do you expect me
    the do what you don't? No hope of getting your wish... But you knew that
    before you posted your drivel, didn't you?

    Your assumptions about the Photoshop tools are wrong too. I don't use the
    shadow/highlight tool. It's way too damaging to the images it's applied on.

    The fact is simply that these are two pictures taken at the same time (or
    within seconds of each other) at the same place but with two entirely
    different cameras. That the JPEG from the Panasonic is a technically better
    quality image, is not just surprising but a shocking damnation of Canon's
    1.6 crop sensors.

    Weren't you the one who accused me of trickery when I posted a pic from a
    1.6 crop Canon and a different one from the Panasonic demonstrating the God
    awful way Canon handle shadow detail? So now when I post shots of an
    identical subject, it's not good enough for you? You must be a terrible
    worry to your mother, child.

    I expect this sort of disbelieving from disciples of EOS. Be happy with your
    "more of the same crap" new toy. I've got my eyes open. Your problem is that
    you believe the spin doctors. Your loss baby!

    All my Canon gear is starting to sell. A few gullible disciples are getting
    some cheap stuff.

    The Nikon speedlites that arrived yesterday really ought to be marketed by
    Canon instead of the shit they sell. The lenses should be here in a day or
    so and the new bodies next month. It's Canon bye bye time for me.

    The planes are just one example of the weak spots Canon 1.6 crop DSLRs have.
    They have way too many faults in way too areas to be considered anything but
    a slight improvement over cameras that cost just a little more than the
    infamous Canon camera "grip" that only uses one of it's batteries!

    D-Mac, Sep 25, 2007
  11. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Of course I knew you were too chickenshit to post the originals.
    It would just prove you to be a charlatan and a liar.
    Bullshit. That one has S/H written all over it. Now you just need
    the I/T filter. Then you'd really have some S/H/I/T.

    Call me when you can post a meaningful comparison. Until then, you're
    wasting everyone's time with your deluded nonsense.
    Annika1980, Sep 26, 2007
  12. D_Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Well now... in reply to my intended offer to help you sell some of your
    pictures, when I enquired if they were full frame shots... "consider all my
    pics are cropped" Who wrote that gem of understatement? Not you by any

    I seriously doubt you could create a picture without cropping it and using
    Photoshop to make the colours so un natural even Dolly magazine would ask
    you to tone it down.. Why is it that you think full on, in your face
    saturation of colour is the ticket to fame?

    I'm afraid child, you are the one deluding yourself. Put me down for one of
    your first "coffee table" books too. We could use a good laugh around here.
    The ones we get to print are all way to serious from real perfectionists who
    demand natural looking photographs in their publications... And have sell
    out launch parties.

    But then Mr know it all wouldn't want to put himself in their class for fear
    of failure... Hmmm?

    D-Mac, Sep 26, 2007
  13. Off topic..
    Yep, probably the same paperwork he used back in March 2006 (iirc),
    and on earlier occasions.. Don't know how I survive the onslaught..

    PS - I just had to look up 'raoob'.. dang it. You a member? Can I
    get a t-shirt?
    mark.thomas.7, Sep 26, 2007
  14. D_Mac

    Avery Guest

    I think I still have a card in my wallet. Haven't been a part of it
    for some years. I must make some calls...
    Avery, Sep 26, 2007
  15. D_Mac

    MJW Guest

    Well i'll be... That one went right past me till Mark brought it out!
    Just checked my card, became a member in 1980. Still have all my
    original bits & pieces tucked away somewhere too!

    Welcome Brother!

    MJW, Sep 26, 2007
  16. D_Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    No mess up Avery.
    Just as soon as the Police are finished their investigations I'll post their
    results right along with a picture of the process server delivering his

    D-Mac, Sep 26, 2007
  17. D_Mac

    MJW Guest

    Oops, my bad. That should be 1989.

    Still have all my
    MJW, Sep 27, 2007
  18. D_Mac

    Avery Guest

    I can't find my card.

    My shout I guess.
    Avery, Sep 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.