FZ30 with Noise Supression Software - How easy to use?

[KENNETHD]

Gasp....! The pics I posted were 800x600, shot using the full 8 mp setting. I posted them to show what you can expect from the FZ 30, in normal situations, with low light, where you can expect noise if there's going to be any. At full screen resolution they look much better. N A T U R A L L Y they will be grainy and gross looking at 45 inches. But, at 11x81/2 prints, they look great. Even at the 17 inch size they look good. Don't judge a camera by pushing it's limits to something absurd. Judge it by the standards at which you want to see a good picture presented. What you see in my post is a fair indication of what you will get with your own FZ 30, only yours will be nicer by virtue of the fact mine were reduced in resolution to allow the post. Any digital camera's pics can be made to look grainy and noisy if you push the pixels far enough apart...go with the realistic sizes, judge by that. Best regards,

KennethD

[akaloith]

"And I do not buy into this wierd Idea that underexposing a shot(which promotes noise) can then be altered to achieve a good result, take the photo correctly in the first place."

i told you its a way to use 1600 while the camera does not offer it
if you cant understand it its not my fault
of course this is done in raw only
ITS A WAY TO USE ASA WHICH IS NOT OFFERED BY YOUR CAM
ITS THE BEAUTY OF RAW

i never said that i dont like panasonic
i told that ALL 8 megapixel cameras with small sensor have high noise
but it can be reduced with noise reduction programs especially if you use raw so as not to loose much detail

i still believe that if you just want to fit your images to your screen you should buy something muuch cheaper
an fz20 would be enough
even something cheaper, any long zoom camera is enough to just view your photos on your screen
you dont need 8megapixel to just view them at 1024x768 which is 0,78 Mpixel!!!

[KENNETHD]

akaloith wrote:

"And I do not buy into this wierd Idea that underexposing a shot(which promotes noise) can then be altered to achieve a good result, take the photo correctly in the first place."

i told you its a way to use 1600 while the camera does not offer it
if you cant understand it its not my fault
of course this is done in raw only
ITS A WAY TO USE ASA WHICH IS NOT OFFERED BY YOUR CAM
ITS THE BEAUTY OF RAW

i never said that i dont like panasonic
i told that ALL 8 megapixel cameras with small sensor have high noise
but it can be reduced with noise reduction programs especially if you use raw so as not to loose much detail

i still believe that if you just want to fit your images to your screen you should buy something muuch cheaper
an fz20 would be enough
even something cheaper, any long zoom camera is enough to just view your photos on your screen
you dont need 8megapixel to just view them at 1024x768 which is 0,78 Mpixel!!!

I sense a little annoyance seeping thru, but you do make yourself clear. I follow your logic. Another note I will add tho, (and I keep saying this) while there really is no need to acquire the 8 MP's to view at monitor size, I will buy cameras with as many pixels as they can build. (If I can afford them)I photograph birds and wildlife,and tho I admire the stealth and cunning some people acquire getting close enough to capture their wonderful shots, I have already acquired some very satifactory shots just because I had the extra range of pixels...8 mp as opposed to 5 I had been used to...and cropped but still ended up with a keeper. Even tho I avealmost completed the prototype Romulan style X-573 personal cloaking device, it's still a few months away from field trials. I must, therefore, continue to follow the path of least resistance, and seek out those digtal wonders equiped with ever more powerful zoom lenses and more massive amounts of pixel real estate. Oops, sorry, gotta beam up now. Best regards, and thanks for your insight...

KennethD

[akaloith]

congratulations for your 1000 post

ok then if you need an equivalent 1000mm lens then the 420mm of fz30 and the crop from the 8mp image will give you what you want
as i remember you get an equivalent of 700mm lens at 3mp so its nice

but as you say few people need 8 million pixels also few people need the 1000mm equivalent lens

its a great camera in any case
i used to love the fuji s9500
but when i saw the clarity of the shots panasonic has, which is because of the terrific lens i decided to dump the fuji one

will someone be kind enough to upload somewhere a 400 iso file in two versions
a raw one and a jpeg one???
please??
of course with the same settings
want to do some tests and share the results with you but i dont have the camera (not yet i hope)

and to be greedy i would ask the same raw file shot with exposure compensation -1 and -2

but for the begining just the comparison between raw and jpeg at 400 asa would be enough

[Nancy Gabby]

Hey Kenneth!, I do have some ISO pics somewhere, but I saw your Halloween pic, and thought I would share (sharing is caring----awwwwh!), my nieces, I took them out to one of the richer neighborhoods in Queens - the pumpkin you see is real:

[genece]

i still believe that if you just want to fit your images to your screen you should buy something muuch cheaper
an fz20 would be enough
even something cheaper, any long zoom camera is enough to just view your photos on your screen
you dont need 8megapixel to just view them at 1024x768 which is 0,78 Mpixel!!!

And I believe I have the option to use what I wish and I will do so.

And they print wonderfully with no noise evident what more do you want?

And the best I know thats all you can do with a photo view it or print it.