Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by RichA, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. David J Taylor, Sep 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pinky & Perky sing Parsifal, Sep 16, 2005
  4. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and that
    is very bad.
    Pete D, Sep 16, 2005
  5. RichA

    Rich Guest

    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, Sep 17, 2005
  6. 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 J Taylor, Sep 17, 2005
  7. 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 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!
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 17, 2005
  8. Pix on Canvas wrote:

    I agree that the comparison is unfair. If you compare the sensitive areas
    the Canon is 329 and the FZ30 is 38 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

    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 J Taylor, Sep 17, 2005
  9. RichA

    dylan Guest

    dylan, Sep 17, 2005
  10. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    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).
    JPS, Sep 17, 2005
  11. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    What difference does that make? The idea is to have a standard subject,
    to compare noise and general image quality.

    JPS, Sep 17, 2005
  12. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Both cameras at their best would be a nice addition, but it would hardly
    be useful as an only comparison, as you are catering to the weaker link.

    The need for low-light performance is very real and very important,
    despite what a minority of tripod-carrying still-life shooters like you
    have to say.
    JPS, Sep 17, 2005
  13. RichA

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time.
    Ed Ruf, Sep 17, 2005
  14. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature
    shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops
    to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you
    (maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes
    the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun.
    If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash
    isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine,
    If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a
    camera that is severely restricted in what it can do.
    Rich, Sep 17, 2005
  15. RichA

    Rich Guest

    If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group,
    it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take
    share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they
    are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony
    R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on
    high ISO capability?
    Rich, Sep 17, 2005
  16. RichA

    Ed Ruf Guest

    No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to
    read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz.
    Ed Ruf, Sep 17, 2005
  17. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    On a cloudy day in the woods, I'm already under-exposing at ISO 1600
    with a 400mm IS lens at 1/320.

    We have a long way to go, and film should not be remembered as a frame
    of reference.
    JPS, Sep 17, 2005
  18. Oh, Sorry Ed... I thought when one of the group's founders (Alan Browne)
    led by example and changed the rules or guidelines to suit himself and
    his style of posts, it was fine for everyone else to do the same.

    I didn't realize you subscribed to the "do as I say not as I do theory"
    of Canadian logic. I'll keep that in mind for the next time you go off

    I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
    low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
    cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
    that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
    picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed.
    It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as
    real people, you know.
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 18, 2005
  19. RichA

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Bigot? Hardy har har......! Thanks for helping me start the day with a good

    Let's see:

    If you would take 2 seconds to look at my sig, you would see I actually
    use a lowly ancient P&S camera (Coolpix 990) and a first gen "ZLR" (Coolpix
    5700) and have many photos from these on my site.

    I've posted many times about the low light capability, or not. of the 5700
    and the use of Neat Image to get usable higher ISO images from it.

    I argued against Alan's position during the initial discussions of the
    group charter before it's formation.

    The charter is the charter. I made use of it to make a point against the
    inane posting habits of a certain individual who would appear to be an
    annoyance to more than just myself.

    So, if that makes me a bigot, so be it. Glad you've joined the group(s).
    Ed Ruf, Sep 18, 2005
  20. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <432cdfcb$>,
    Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

    You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
    even convincing logic.
    JPS, Sep 18, 2005
    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.