Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 6, 2006, 2:53 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

FZ 50 images posted, not sure how long theyve been there, not long I think

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...dmc_fz50_4.php
and quote
This is a selection of sample images from the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, which were all taken using the 10M Fine mode. The thumbnails below link to the full-sized versions, which have not been altered in any way.
end quote

Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 6, 2006, 3:25 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

I have opended # 5 and 20.

Iso 200, low NR, incredibly patchy images.

In a previous post I had praised the results of ISO 800 pics which looked to me better than FZ20 at ISo 200 when resized.

I must say that these images make me change my mind.

The more they go up with Megapixels on low CCD the more the 100% pics look horribly "de-detailed", and now we are at 4,5Mb each image !!!

If I had to upgrade I would probably go for the FZ30 (although even its 100% pics are poorly usable without resizing them at least to half their size) even if also the latter would have been far a better camera at 6Mp.

I agree with who's written the post about the FZ firmware petition:

give us better images, color reproduction, real resolution and other important things not a 20 MP sh.. which can only be used on screen at 1/3 its size....

Narmer
Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 3:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

I just looked at 2 and 18 [iso100] and I wouldnt attack it as vicously as all that. There is some strange bluring going on under the butresses of 18.

Although I must say images in such grey flat light have the best chance of reduced noise exposure by the very nature of the light conditions.

Riley

Edit: now Ive downloaded 20, and I see the hair on the brunette, not good at all @250%
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 5:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

Have looked at them and ...i must say that i don't have a point of reference. My first and only digicam i have is a fz5, and am completely lost to compare this camera with the fz50.

Most remarks i've seen on this forum, and anywhere else is that the noise is bad. Although http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...-quick06.shtml- tels that the iso400 is not so bad. With the fz5 i find the iso400 setting unussable and the iso200 just do-able.

Can anybody give me an idea about how these to camera's compare to each other, if the upgrade is a good idea.



rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 5:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
romerojpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 198
Default

They all look a little odd to my eyes it has to be said.
romerojpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 7:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

RHermans

FZ5 has the better color reproduction of all Lumix (including FZ30 which tends to saturate more and has some odd greens, reds and blues hues)-
The only lack of this cam. is the missing hot shoe, although one can use servo flash triggered by the on board one.

Maybe now FZ30 is a better choice, considering the debating price, especially if you can renounce to the TTL flash, higher iso (up to iso 800 the images are usable if much reduced in size), the better fine WB adjustment ans a few more features.

10 Mp are definitely too much for a 1/1,8" ccd.
Maybe the images are not noisier than FZ20 and 30, but more NR is applied by the Venus III. And you can quite see it, from ISO 200 upwards...

FZs are great cams, but the developers should really try to improve other aspects, not only the "resolution".

Francesco

Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 8:28 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9
Default

rhermans wrote:
Quote:
{snip} My first and only digicam i have is a fz5, and am completely lost to compare this camera with the fz50.... Can anybody give me an idea about how these to camera's compare to each other, if the upgrade is a good idea.
(First, apologies to all for the length of this post, but it seems details are desired.)

Rhermans,
My set-up is similiar to yours. I have the FZ7, where only ISO 200 and below are usable. Trying to escape the horrendous degree of noise at ISO 400 and above, during the past month, I've purchased, and returned, a Minolta 5D dSLR and a Sony R1 (Ritz Camera's 10-day return policy). Just wasn't sufficiently impressed with either to justify the $$$. (Mind you-- I've returned all of three electronic items in my 40+ years, including the two just mentioned, and I average a couple of major electronic purchases per year.)

Then I ran into talk of the FZ50... which arrived at my door yesterday/ Wednesday.



------------- THE MECHANICS -------------
I have the Panny LT55 teleconverter lens for the FZ7, and was thrilled to see that it fits the FZ50 (no conversion lens needed). Likewise, my 55mm circular polorizer also works on the FZ50. I was actually happy that it was rainy and dreary at the time the digicam arrived, as it's just the kinda "light" that the FZ7 can NOT handle without the flash.

Dropping down on the FZ50 to, for example, 5mp/EZ, the native optical zoom bounces up to 17.5x. Other increased optical zooms are possible with other configurations. Most commands are the same, but the major diffs, mechanically speaking:

-- There is no FZ7 twirl thingie by the shutter release, used for zooming during playback and zooming in and out. Instead, there is a zoom ring for taking the pic. And, there's a dial on the front, under the shutter release, which you turn to the right to zoom during playback. Great for the right index finger, though I suspect it will irritate lefties. BTW, the zoom ring does not lock, so I had to readjust my usual handling for bracing purposes.
-- The lens on the FZ7 physically moves in and out while zooming. With the FZ50, it is stationary. (Hence, the zoom ring.)
-- No joystick. Instead, you use a dial on the back (perfectly situated for the right thumb) to set exposure comp, white balance tweaking, and a few other things, after tapping the "function" button. (easier than with the FZ7 customization system)
-- There's also a manual focus ring on the lens-- also easier to deal with than the FZ7's focus deal.
-- My 3rd party spare battery works fine with the FZ50.
-- Same fit within my camera bag, even with teleconverter lens attached.
-- Overall, seems to be a more substantial body build as compared with the FZ7.
-- You can still crop/"trim" within the camera.
-- Overall, with the exception of the playback zoom, I was able to pull the FZ50 out of the box and deal with commands without hassle.
-- Now, a swivel style LCD, rather than stationary.

The new system makes it even easier to customize just prior to taking a pic, due to the profoundly intuitive layout. (Read: I only had to check the manual once, to pinpoint how to zoom during playback).


------------- THE HIGHER ISOs -------------
My backyard is certified as a "backyard habitat" by the Wildlife Federation. My habit is to sit in a lounge chair in front of the sliding patio glass door (cleaned with alcohol and a squeegee), and shoot pics of the birds at the feeders, water features, or brush pile -- thru the glass. (Typically, no lens hood is used, and I'm about 3-4 feet from the glass door.) With the FZ50 in hand, I sat down with two goals in mind: find out (1) would the higher ISO's permit me to take pics I couldn't take with the FZ7; and (2) determine if I could crop the pics, and come up with a satisfactory image. The answer to both = YES! After changing noise reduction to low, and contrast to high, I've been delighted with the final results. Anything that didn't thrill me "outta da box" popped quite nicely with moderate tinkering in Photoshop and Noise Ninja. That's a heck of a change-- with the FZ7's 400+ ISO, NOTHING could salvage the pics. The noise was too blotchy and intrusive. Any noise in the FZ50 pics is more uniform, and thus can be resolved in PP, usually without noticeable loss of detail.

I purchased from Amazon, despite the fact that the FZ50 can be had elsewhere for $50 or so bucks less. Reason: After studying Amazon's return page specific to cameras, I was satisfied with its very generous 30-day return policy, from date of receipt. But, turns out, this baby is a keeper.

While the FZ7 (and presumably, the FZ5) was a no-show in dusk / dawn/ low light scenarios, the FZ50's 400 & 800 ISO's are, in my judgment, worth the price of entry. I'm still tickled that I could actually take pics this morning at dawn. Regrettably, 1600 and 3200 remain pretty much for emergency only, i.e., shot or no shot, period. 1600 will work, provided you print small (4x6) and skip cropping. 3200 is water-color plastic-world time. But note: last night, some sort of hawk was high up in a neighbor's tree, barely viewable from my (unclean) living room window. I took the pic at 3200 --- it was good enough for me to be able to zoom in and identify the bird as a Redtail Hawk, but it ain't going into the photo album due to pityful overall quality. Still, I'd have gotten, at best, pure pixelated fuzz with the FZ7 per that zooming.


------------- PERSONAL CONCLUSION -------------
I am mindful that every photography book I've seen, without exception, whether discussing digital or film, concurs that "clean" images mandate using the lowest ISO possible for the situation. I sense that the Rebl XT(i) and D50 offer better high ISO performance re 1600. But, to ALSO get the reach/quality of the FZ's zoom + teleconverter, I'd need to invest, literally, a couple of grand. That, plus the whole interchangable lenses syndrome, is not something I'm willing to engage presently. So, I'm quite happy with the trade-off. If I won the lottery tomorrow, would I invest in a dSLR system? You betcha. Would I still keep, and use, my FZ50? You betcha.

I am well aware of dang near every review/preview out there re this camera. My reality is that I do not print huge blow-ups, nor do I inspect my pics with a magnifier. I simply want great looking, quality "pop" prints, at my usual 4x6 size. Simply stated, the FZ50 delivers at most of its ISO settings, with the exceptions noted previously.

Bottom-line: you will get more TRULY usable higher ISO's on the FZ50, which exist in name only on the FZ5 and FZ7. Beyond that, my best suggestion is that you get the FZ50, or whichever camera, from a place with a good return policy. This is one of those things that you truly need to try for yourself, dealing with the type of pics **YOU** tend to take most frequently. Crop as **YOU** usually do-- that is, for the sake of the picture, not just to hunt for noise--, then, and only then, make your final determination. This I've done, which explains why I'm such a happy camper today!

========
{edit} For the birdwatching folks, re taking pics thru the glass: spot metering, & no continuous auto-focus{/edit}
TreoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 8:50 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

TreoRenegade
thanks for the reply, long yes but worthwhile ballance too
its true FZ50 has taken a lot of hits on the noise front
and I hope I havnt contributed much too that
I feel its true too that its not as bad as all that, a reviewer says that too
especially in the sort of instance u mention

thats said
its disappointing that the lens resolution exceeds the clarity the camera seems capable of delivering. They can and should do better
On most all other points, the TTL, the movable LCD, the fixed barrel zoom, its a good camera. Many people might be happier if it were the FZ40 that people seem to want, more a FZ30 update than a 10Mp digicam.

Despite the 'movement' to provide firmware update to rectify the situation, I cant see that or the release of the mythical FZ40 happening; more's the pitty

If you look around these forums, you find that the panasonic lot, are more active than most, and perhaps this has taken Panasonic by surprise. In the short term many people have waited their limit, and are going to make a move on serious camera purchases elsewhere. This will make no difference to the panasonic bottom line, but it must be a wasted warning, that you have to be good at this business and listen to your custom, or go the way of the other also rans.

While Panasonic does check out reviews, and gleefully adds them to its success list on the Panasonic site, there are none as yet for the FZ50. That must say something too.

closing to add: the notes I made concerning FZ50 on photographyblog site were erased today.

Riley



Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 6:20 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

Sorry to have almost hijacked this post ...

I've seen pictures with the fz50 now that are noisier and with more artifacts that i would want, but I normaly crop/resize the images to screen size or 4*6 print's. So after resizing i won't see any of them.

thank you TreoRenegadefor the great comparison between the fz5/7 and the fz50.

ps: i'm getting the fz50


rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 12:10 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9
Default

I want to clarify the business about the super-zoom options. If you drop down to, say,*3mp or 5mp resolution, this will max zoom to 17x or 21.4x, respectively. This is not a digital or software gimmick. Rather, the camera hones in on the central 3 or 5mp area, cropping out the excess. No image deterioration. Indeed, the quality is so superb that when I'm zooming, I just keep the camera at 3mp. Typically, I include exposure compensation, such as -1/3, using either shutter or aperture priority, and have yet to use the auto mode.

What truly blows my mind-- when I add my 1.7x telconverter lens, I can STILL handhold the sucka, even at 1/25 shutter speed at full zoom.

FYI: Amazon (US) just shaved roughly $45 off the price. It's now in the $600 ballpark. (Yeppie, I've requested a credit, but am not concerned, since I used AmEx to mark the purchase. Amazon always gets back to me within a day or two, so I expect to hear from them shortly.)

Rhermans, glad to provide hands-on user thoughts. I remain spellbound at the number of people who apparently print primarily/only blow-up size pics, as opposed to the more standard snapshots. Still scratching my head wondering why they don't just max out the zoom options, which pretty much kills the need for big-time cropping. Live and learn, eh?!


{edit} Refund confirmed by Amazon, for differential per price drop 4 days after purchase. {/edit}
TreoRenegade 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 5:43 AM.