Is Panasonic FZ50 being replaced

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Billyboy, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. Billyboy

    Billyboy Guest

    Hi,
    Several dealers in Uk are not able currently to supply the above camera and
    UKDigital are showing it as discontinued.
    Has anyone heard anything about a possible upgrading, and if so what are the
    new specs?

    Billy
     
    Billyboy, Jul 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Billyboy

    Somebody Guest

    September would be about right. The FZ's tend to come out about that time. I
    hope the new one is better than the shit FZ50.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Billyboy

    Jeff Burke Guest

    It won't get any better until they use a much larger sensor.
     
    Jeff Burke, Jul 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Billyboy

    Somebody Guest


    That isn't going to happen. They don't feel people would want a dSLR sized
    camera that wasn't a dSLR. Stupid assumption of you ask me. The FZ20 and 30
    are fantastic cameras. The high noise and extremely poor noise reduction
    make the FZ50 totally unacceptable, at least for anyone that cares about
    their images.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Billyboy

    Somebody Guest


    No a dSLR size would be fine by me for the larger sensor. In fact I would
    junk my Pentax K10D for a Panasonic FZ60 that offered the larger sensor, 12X
    Leica lens and 10MP.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    In which case you can forget about having a sharp, fast, 12x zoom in a
    lightweight, affordable camera. There's a reason for the small sensor.

    And the Venus engine doesn't do the sensor justice. The RAW data is about
    as good as one can expect from a sensor this small at low ISOs. Quantum
    efficiency is good, and read noise is lower than many DSLRs.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    They shouldn't listen to you. Smaller pixels will give no major
    improvement in image quality; only in pixel quality.

    What they need to do is stop damaging the output with heavy-handed noise
    reduction.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    There is no lens available for DSLRs with 12x zoom at a constant f/2.8 and
    sharpness throughout the range, with IS. Why do you think it would
    suddenly be possible with a non-interchangeable lens?

    APS-sensor compacts are only going to work with fixed focal length or
    narrow zoom ranges.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Billyboy

    Somebody Guest


    Who said anything about smaller pixels. He said drop the resolution to 6MP
    that means fewer sensors points on the chip and that does make a difference
    in noise.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Billyboy

    Somebody Guest


    There are several options for a 12X or higher zoom for dSLR's. Now the cost
    of these lenses are in the thousands. But, they are available. National
    Geographic photographers use them all of the time. You need to do some
    checking before you comment this is the second time you have said something
    that wasn't correct.

    As for a dSLR sized sensor that would allow for less noise and higher ISO's
    just like it does for dSLR cameras. Sure the FZ60 or whatever that did this
    would end up being a much larger camera because of the sensor change which
    means a larger lens, but it is doable. The problem is most camera makers do
    not feel that consumers would want such a thing and I think they are totally
    wrong.

    Oh, the camera would aslo cost more. Probably between $1200 to $1500 about
    what it costs for a good dSLR and high end zoom lens.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    I did. By accident. I meant to write "larger pixels".
    No, it doesn't necessarily reduce image noise at all. It makes 100% crops,
    which are an artifact of viewing methods, less noisy.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    I didn't say there couldn't be any. I said they'd be big, and expensive.
    It is not my duty to find out about obscure products not carried by any
    of the know retailers. All of the commonly available 12x zooms for DSLRs
    are slow, and optically compromised.
    If it's going to be as big as a DSLR and an interchangeable lens, it's
    going to be hard to sell unless it has some very unique features.
    You said thousands just for the lens; now the camera and permanent lens
    are only $1500.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Billyboy

    Bill Funk Guest

    Sony tried this with their DSC-R1.
    From what I understand, sales were not up to expectations.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
    San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
    Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
    chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
    age listening to his father read him bedtime
    stories.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Billyboy

    John Sheehy Guest

    Yes. There's no second-chance edit capability in usenet, unfortunately,
    and no way to guarantee that a correction will be read before the
    original by others.
    I just can not find any examples of larger pixels or bins of pixels
    giving any better results, if the data is properly handled. I believe
    that the recent backlash against small pixels is caused by:

    1) 100% pixel monitor viewing, and resampling routines that do not really
    resample properly, but emphasize a subset of original pixels, thereby
    decreasing the resolution without reducing the per-pixel noise.

    2) #1 causing manufacturers of cameras and developers of RAW converters
    to reduce noise excessively to cater to a training to look for noise at
    100% or in poor downsamples; many of those noise reduction algorithms
    only shift the noise to lower frequencies, and they do not disappear
    readily when the images are downsampled (properly or not), or viewed from
    a distance.

    3) Poor philosophy - the idea that the noise of the captured pixel
    directly determines the noise of the image.
    I do, but considering the fact that it takes 6 seconds to write the
    extremely inefficient RAW files, I would like to use JPEG for quick
    action, but the JPEGs are painfully dummied up in the fight against fine
    noise.
    I might, too, but it would depend on the trade-off. The fact is, the
    quantum efficiency on the FZ50 sensor is above average (captures more
    photons per square mm than many other cameras at a given sensor
    illumination, including some big-pixel DSLRs), and read noise is better
    than average, too, and lower than most Nikon DSLRs at all ISOs.
    Printed at the same size, with proper downsampling for the printer
    resolution, I don't think that there would be any benefit over the FZ50.

    What the FZ50 upgrades could really benefit from, IMO (assuming the
    sensor size is kept small for lens design reasons), is some kind of
    optimized read noise that leans a little more towards the higher ISOs.
    Readout is optimal at ISO 200, and worst at 800 (worse than 1600).
    Supposedly, the read noise can get down to the 1 electron range with the
    reading of small photon counts. The way I've understood it is that CCDs
    can have only one gain level at the first read stage on the sensor chip,
    but the Nikon D40 seems to have readout optimized for higher ISOs, so
    perhaps it is possible. But, of course, you will never collect a large
    number of photons on a sensor that small at ISO 1600, so the highlights
    will still be as noisy, even with a hypothetical zero read noise.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 20, 2007
    #14
    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.