Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 12, 2006, 12:55 PM   #31
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Reply to John:

Isn't it true that a camerawith better high ISO performance; would be the better one for indoor shots, theater shots, and (or) action shots?

Would you crank up your ISOlevel if your camerais not going toproduce quality results?

Here you go with tunnel vision again. Concentrating on only one aspect - high ISO performance. You mention the F30 - so let's look at that camera. It has a max equiv zoom of 108mm - that is not very much at all. Are you going to be within 20 feet of the stage? (Remember in a social situation you are that close) What, you're 50 rows back? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter how good the high ISO performance is.

Point #2 - the lens becomes f5 when zoomed out. Even at ISO 3200 and f5 - are you going to get the shutter speeds you want for the types of shots you want? The answer is: Are you ready for this? It DEPENDS. Maybe yes, maybe no. It just depends on the style of shots you want. This is why you are dangerous - you don't apply any real world shooting context to your thought process.

Social situations = typically close distances &limited movement. Hmm, don't have to zoom - that's an extra stop.

That's not even talking about action shots where there are yet other factors in play (YES BENJAMIN THERE IS MORE TO A CAMERA THAN HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE) - what is the shutter lag, what is the frame rate, what is the buffer handling ability, how fast is the focus, how accurate is the low light focus, how good is the servo focus ability.

Absolutely none of those topics is covered by test shots of ISO performance. But they're all requirements of the end solution. You have to look at the big picture.

Now, I am not saying any particular camera is good or bad. Only that the proof is in image results for similar types of shooting. Social scenes are not the same as club scenes or theater or sports - there are different distances and speeds and focus needs. One of the longer reach Fujis may be outstanding for theater shots - and so might the F30 if you're close enough to use it. But, you can't keep fixating on one feature and ignore everything else.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:03 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
Here you go with tunnel vision again. Concentrating on only one aspect - high ISO performance. You mention the F30 - so let's look at that camera. It has a max equiv zoom of 108mm - that is not very much at all. Are you going to be within 20 feet of the stage? (Remember in a social situation you are that close) What, you're 50 rows back? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter how good the high ISO performance is.

Point #2 - the lens becomes f5 when zoomed out. Even at ISO 3200 and f5 - are you going to get the shutter speeds you want for the types of shots you want? The answer is: Are you ready for this? It DEPENDS. Maybe yes, maybe no. It just depends on the style of shots you want. This is why you are dangerous - you don't apply any real world shooting context to your thought process.

Social situations = typically close distances &limited movement. Hmm, don't have to zoom - that's an extra stop.

That's not even talking about action shots where there are yet other factors in play (YES BENJAMIN THERE IS MORE TO A CAMERA THAN HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE) - what is the shutter lag, what is the frame rate, what is the buffer handling ability, how fast is the focus, how accurate is the low light focus, how good is the servo focus ability.

Absolutely none of those topics is covered by test shots of ISO performance. But they're all requirements of the end solution. You have to look at the big picture.

Now, I am not saying any particular camera is good or bad. Only that the proof is in image results for similar types of shooting. Social scenes are not the same as club scenes or theater or sports - there are different distances and speeds and focus needs. One of the longer reach Fujis may be outstanding for theater shots - and so might the F30 if you're close enough to use it. But, you can't keep fixating on one feature and ignore everything else.

I was talking about the ISO matter only.

I was only using the F30 AS an AN EXAMPLE ONLY.

My main pointWAS to demonstrate to you how useful a review could be.

Imagine if I was in that situation about the social shot thingy, would I choose the noisy LX1 or the F30? (You should know) Thanks to the review.

Anyway, there is always the new Fujifilm FinePix S6500fd. (For your reply above)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page12.asp

Talking about ISO matter only, which one would I choose if lowlight shooting was my criteria?

This is to fan offall the mentalities in here that "Reviews are_______"




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:06 PM   #33
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
a grainy/noisy shot is better than no shot at all!!
True enough. But when buying a new camera to fit a specifc need you want to be sure the camera you buy will meet your expectations for that need. If it doesn't you have 3 choices:

1. Adjust your expectations accordingly

2. Choose a different camera and the trade-offs that implies

3. ALter your situation to compensate (e.g. if your camera doesn't have enough reach the solution may be to buy better seats).

My only point is you should see some samples of similar styles of shooting. If I want to buy a camera to shoot wildlife, I want to see wildlife pics with that camera. Doesn't that make sense? If Ii specifically want to shoot birds in flight I should try to find birds in flight pictures. Same is true here. That's all. Otherwise there are plenty of people on these forums that bought one camera and regret it because it didn't really fit their needs. The easiest way to validate that a camera fits your needs is to see the pictures it produces taken in the situation you plan to shoot in.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:13 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Alright, for dim theater shots;

Would you choose the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 for it??>>>

Quote:

In many ways the FZ30 is everything the FZ20 could (and maybe should) have been, and Panasonic must be applauded for implementing a huge raft of handling and control improvements, as well as speeding up overall performance. On the other hand you cannot help but wonder how much better this camera would be with a less noisy chip - the 7MP Sony CCD used in models such as the SD500 springs to mind (not that Panasonic would be caught dead using a Sony sensor of course!).

On the positive side this is as near as you'll get to a digital SLR with the equivalent image-stabilized lenses, without the cost or bulk, though also without the low light capabilities. Handling and control particularly have been improved almost beyond recognition, and for this alone the FZ30 can be considered a worthwhile upgrade from its predecessor.

But if the FZ30 represents a quantum leap in terms of handling and control it is little more than a tiny step forward in terms of image quality. Yes, there's more detail, but there's also more noise and a less effective image stabilization system. If you want a camera that can beat all the 5MP super zooms (including the FZ20), you'll be happy, but if you actually need the additional pixels to produce larger prints you may well be disappointed - it simply isn't that much better. The one saving grace is that ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) is - with a little tweaking - capable of getting far more out of the FZ30's RAW output than either in-camera JPEGs or RAW files converted using the stunningly useless utility supplied in the box (we have heard rumors that Panasonic is working on a better RAW converter, let's wait and see).

So, in the end this is a camera that improves on its predecessor in almost every aspect, and one that makes most of the current crop of 5MP super zooms look like toys in comparison, but it's also one that is frustratingly disappointing for anyone looking for a significant improvement in image quality over the (admittedly class-leading) FZ20. Buy one for it's handling, control, features and sheer class, but don't buy one if you want much better image quality than an FZ20 in anything but very good light, as you simply won't get it. A stunning camera, but not a perfect one.




http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...z30/page17.asp

Or would you choose the Fujifilm FinePix S6500fdwith the superior F30's 6 MP SuperCCD HR???

Clearly, reviews are moreinformative, useful, and dependable than you had ever thought of. In fact, I tend to trust properly run reviews thanmost bias owners...

Many of them in the past had destroyed my impression of certain cameras, and had made me in favor of certain models that Ishouldn't have been.




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:38 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Quote:
a grainy/noisy shot is better than no shot at all!!

There is another issue with this post.

I was talking about how the reviews had informed me about the high ISO performance of the individual cameras. The reviews had differentiate for me those camera with great ISO performance and some others that are not so.

So this reply was like trying to say"Forget the reviews, A grainy/noisy shot is better than no shot at all!!"

I meant, if I already know which is the better ISO performer, why should I go for the worse one and then try to put up with it? (Sounds foolish in my opinion) That is why I am thankful for the reviews.

Quote:

I stand by my statement. DO NOT JUDGE HOW WELL A CAMERA WILL PERFORM IN LOW LIGHT ACTION BASED UPON TEST SHOTS OF A LABEL OR CLOSE UPS OF A PERSON's FACE. That is a completely different scenario than what you will be shooting in. Noise characteristics will be different with the theater shots. Noise will be much worse for any camera in that instance.

There is another problem here;

If a camera can perform well in the review condition, you can expect it to perform better in real life THAN a camera model that performs badly in the review condition (To start with).

ISO performance in this case.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:42 PM   #36
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

forget it. you're honestly not worth my time Benjamin.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:43 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
a grainy/noisy shot is better than no shot at all!!
Sorry, I should have used an emoticon as I was attempting to make a joke. However, as a lot of us know, point and shoot camera's really tend to struggle in low light situations. High iso performance will be important, but large aperatures will be equally important. Unfortunately, most P&S digicams aren't capable of either, especially at longer zooms. Knowing this, the user will likely have to accept the limitiations and take what you can get out of the equipment you have (or will buy based on your budget). You can get the shot you need with almost any equipment available, and in this case a grainy/noisy shot is better than no shot at all.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 1:58 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
forget it. you're honestly not worth my time Benjamin.


John, you didn't understand my point.

(It seems like your entire post since the start have been slating the reviewsas not being capable of providing information)

As I have already stated before:

Reviews have shown me which cameras were goodor bad in thehigh ISO performance arena. So the way you were trying to tell me that "REVIEWS CAN'TBE DEPENDED ON" "THOSE TEST SHOTS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO TELL HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE" "YOU NEED TO SEE SHOTS OF THAT SITUATION TAKEN BY THAT CAMERA TO QUALIFY" or, "REVIEWS DON'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE CAMERA'S HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE". (This is the message that I have got)

As it is, the reviewswere helpful, and definitely not like the way you had put it all. (I have tried to make you and the others understand)

Reviews have shown me "Prove" to back up their words.

I have provided many examples above in previous posts^^^








BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 2:39 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Your current ISO400 F/2 1/20 settings = LV4, so with the new lens ISO1600 F/1.4 1/125 = LV4 (you need that shutter speed to stop camera shake).
Shouldn't that last be 1/160s? I believe F1.4 is twice as bright as F2. So with that and a 2 stop ISO difference you're 8 times as bright, so the shutter can be 8x as fast for the same exposure. And it might be 12-16x as bright at an equivalent focal length.

And I don't think John said reviews weren't useful, just that:

Quote:
What I would caution you about is to seek out real life photos of similar nature (not test shots of labels or close ups of a face but shots from a distance of moving subjects like you'll be shooting) to determine if the noise levels in a given camera are acceptable to you.
And you really don't have to go hunting around forums to find a member with the camera to do that. Head over to pbase and do a search. You can even find groups dedicated to individual cameras at flickr. It would be nice if you could search at pbase for a camera type AND a tag like theatre, gymnastics, dance, football, etc. But if you just do one or the other and hunt around a bit you will see what cameras are being used for.

Finally, just to make it clear, while it's been pointed out that the G2 lens is twice as bright where it starts, at F2, as a typical lens starting at F2.8, I'm not sure it's been emphasized enough that it is near four times as bright at it's long end, at f2.5, as the f5.0 on the Fuji F30.

Now I do believe that the Fuji is near 2 stops better in high ISO performance than even some of the best competing models. And the G2 is a bit older, so maybe it's even worse. But even if there's a 3 stop advantage for the Fuji, it ends up a 1 stop in practice for the conditions described. So there's not likely to be a big difference. Maybe twice as bright. Compare that to the difference with a DSLR and prime lens described above. Whether it's enough of a difference to be worth an upgrade, you might want to look at some actual photos first to determine.

In the case of the F6000, there aren't going to be many (any?) user galleries out there yet, or reviews for that matter. There is a user who has posted recently posted some samples in the Fuji forum here. And they do look similar to the F30 in quality.

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=the...hotos&c=sp
http://search.pbase.com/search?q=con...hotos&c=sp
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/fujifilm/finepix_f30
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/kodak/z650
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/fujifil...pix_s5200_zoom
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/panasonic/lumix_dmc_fz20


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 3:30 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Carskick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 276
Default

LOL,

and increasing exposure compensation will only over expose the image and cause further camera shake. If anything, lower it. You will get a darker, though sharper images due to the shutter not being open as long. You can brighten them a little in photoshop, but under exposing can help in some low light situations.
Carskick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:47 AM.