[URL]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.asp[/URL]
I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the FZ30 isn't for you.
Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images. It's a marriage made in heaven.
"David J Taylor" ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and that is very bad.
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
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
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 http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics 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 wrote: [] [] I agree that the comparison is unfair. If you compare the sensitive areas the Canon is 329 sq.mm. and the FZ30 is 38 sq.mm. 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 conditions. 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
Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is ?. You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to discuss it ?
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). --
In message <>, What difference does that make? The idea is to have a standard subject, to compare noise and general image quality. --
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. --
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, otherwise... 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
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
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.
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. --
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 topic. 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.
Bigot? Hardy har har......! Thanks for helping me start the day with a good laugh. 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).
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. --
