Panasonic FZ2

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Kong, Jun 21, 2004.

  1. Kong

    Kong Guest

    I just got myself the FZ2 from Harris Scarfe for $399. Only 2MP... but for
    that price, its great value. According to the sales guy, the price changes
    (probably up) this Wednesday.

    The IS is brilliant BTW. I can get sharp handheld shots at 1/6sec! I could
    NEVER do that with my A70.
     
    Kong, Jun 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kong

    Miro Guest

    How do you know they are sharp ..... you are only shooting 2mpx.
     
    Miro, Jun 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kong

    dnas Guest

    That doesn't make any sense.....
    3M pixel has only 28% more resolution than 2M pixel, and 4M has only
    40% more resolution than 2M pixel. So YOU can tell if it's sharp at 3
    or 4M pixel but not at 2M??? That shows a lack of understanding of
    sharpness.

    1600x1200 =1,920,000 pixels (2 Mpixel) 0%
    2048x1536 =3,145,728 pixels (3 Mpixel) +28%
    2240x1680 =3,763,200 pixels (4 Mpixel) +40%
    2560x1920 =4,915,200 pixels (5 Mpixel) +60%
     
    dnas, Jun 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Kong

    Miro Guest

    You really think its sharp do you ? Did someone just scream out Beyer or was
    it my imagination.
     
    Miro, Jun 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Kong

    dnas Guest

    You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary....... just some off
    the cuff remark. So how many M pixels do you need to get a "sharp"
    image?
     
    dnas, Jun 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Kong

    Miro Guest

    You need pixels to get an image. So in a 2mpx camera there are only ~
    220,000 px per colour layer, the rest are fictitious.

    Up to 66% of the image is camera generated. So yes, it is sharp, it was made
    mostly made with guesses from analog CCD data.

    I fail to see that any person can suddenly improve the sharpness with a
    digital camera let alone a 2Mpx camera. It just goes to show that in your
    previous camera the lens was a dud.

    It is lenses that improve image resolution. If anything a good lens on a
    crap film body vastly outperforms a good lens on a humble digital setup.
     
    Miro, Jun 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Kong

    dnas Guest

    OK.... maybe the original poster didn't make it clear. The Camera has
    IS (Optical Image Stabiliser). He meant that at 1/6sec the camera
    shake when hand held makes the image blurry. With the IS engaged you
    can take shots at 1/6 sec and get a sharp (read non-blurry) image
    regulary. I have Panasonic FZ10 (4M pixel) and the IS is brilliant. I
    took some shots in the dark with just car headlights illuminating other
    cars and the shots were very sharp (non blurry due to camera shake)
     
    dnas, Jun 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Kong

    Luke Welling Guest

    I am not going to participate in the sharpness debate, but you show a lack
    of understanding of mathematics.

    Let us start from the start 3 is 50% bigger than 2, 4 is 100% bigger than 2
    and 5 is 150% bigger than two.

    I can see by eye that 3145728 is more than 50% greater than 1920000, and
    certainly more than 28% greater.

    In fact it is 64% greater.

    You are getting confused because the resolution is only 28% greater in each
    direction. Two and three dimensional things don't work if you only look at
    one dimension though. For two dimensional things you need to square the
    difference (1.28*1.28 = 1.64)

    If you were looking at two blocks of land in the same area and one was 50m x
    50m and the other was 100m x 100m, would you expect the four times larger
    block to only cost twice as much as the smaller one?

    For three dimensional things you need to cube the difference. A two litre
    milk bottle only needs to be about 25% bigger in each direction to hold
    twice as much as a one litre milk bottle. A two litre milk bottle is still
    a 100% bigger than a one litre bottle, and not 25% bigger.

    Luke
     
    Luke Welling, Jun 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Kong

    dnas Guest

    Resolution is measured in linear distance along an edge.
    Hence 3M is 28% more RESOLUTION than 2M. You are talking about area.
    The area is 50% more, but we are not talking about area, we are talking
    about resolution.... the ability to resolve DETAIL.

    Printers measure resolution in dots per inch.... that's dots along an
    edge.
     
    dnas, Jun 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Kong

    Luke Welling Guest

    I am specifically not talking about area.

    If you have two cameras with identical lenses and sensors of the same size
    but one has a 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels sensor and the other has a
    2000x2000 pixels sensor, then by your one dimensional logic the higher
    resolution one has only twice the resolution. In fact, a detail that would
    be captured as one pixel on the cruder sensor would be captured as four
    pixels on the higher resolution sensor.

    Food packaging is measures in millimetres. Does that make a two litre milk
    bottle 25% bigger than a one litre milk bottle?

    Luke
     
    Luke Welling, Jun 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Kong

    dnas Guest

    Food packaging is not measured in millimetres, it is measure in litres.
    When did you see a 220mm carton of milk????

    We are not talking about milk we are talking about the word
    "resolution". Resolution is measured in number of dots per unit
    length. Resolution is the measure of ability to RESOLVE.

    If you want to talk about image size, that is different. e.g a 2M
    image can be printed to, say A4. A 3M image that has a resolution of
    28% more can be printed to A3. This being the case the number of DOTS
    PER INCH on each PRINT is approximately the same.
     
    dnas, Jun 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Kong

    Adam F Guest


    ....but you can't choose 1/6sec, which is annoying - honestly how hard could
    it have been to put in at least aperture priority AE :p


    //Adam F
     
    Adam F, Jun 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Kong

    Ken Chandler Guest

    Maybe you misheard them, it's more likely they would have said "Bayer".
     
    Ken Chandler, Jun 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Kong

    Ken Chandler Guest

    What are counting as a pixel? 222,000 seems a little low.

    In a 2MP camera there are around ... suprisingly ... 2 million photosites.

    The common Mosaic Bayer pattern places one red filter and one blue filter
    for every two green filters. So ~480K each of R and B and ~960K of Green
    As far as I understand none of the photosites directly represent a 'pixel'
    in the final product. Depending on the process to 'demosaic' each pixel
    might be taken mathematically from four neighboring pixels, it might be
    derived by taking into account many more of the surrounding pixels. To say
    that pixels are generated by 'guesses' is over simplification.
     
    Ken Chandler, Jun 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Kong

    Kong Guest

    I have the FZ2 which adds the two priority modes. The controls are finicky
    but I can definately choose to shoot at 1/6sec! :)
     
    Kong, Jun 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Kong

    Miro Guest

    I get the same result from a broom handle. Works on any camera without
    adaptors.
     
    Miro, Jun 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Kong

    Miro Guest

    Are you correcting my funky math ?

    Good because it needed doing.
     
    Miro, Jun 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Kong

    Adam F Guest


    Really? I thought the only difference between the FZ1 and the FZ2 was the
    name (FZ1 for america, FZ2 for everywhere else) - and all the reviews say
    the FZ1 has only full auto + exp. compensation.

    ?


    //Adam F
     
    Adam F, Jun 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Kong

    Ken Chandler Guest

    No I am questioning your understanding of the way a Bayer Mosaic filter on a
    CCD operates.

    You stated that a 2MP CCD image cannot look sharp because 66% of the image
    is 'camera generated'.

    The Bayer Mosaic filter on a CCD means that every pixel is camera generated
    as there is no direct correlation between a photosite and a pixel with the
    value of *every* pixel being based on the reading of a photosite and the
    surrounding photosites.

    What exactly did you mean by 'mostly' in the following:

    Which 33% are not camera generated.
     
    Ken Chandler, Jun 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Kong

    Ken Chandler Guest

    The FZ2 has Aperture priority and Shutter Priority modes, the FZ1 doesn't.
    AFAIK this is the only difference.

    I vaguely recall a poster here (aus.photo) a while ago who converted his FZ1
    into a FZ2 by feeding it the FZ2 firmware update.

    http://groups.google.com might yield some hits ...
     
    Ken Chandler, Jun 22, 2004
    #20
    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.