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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 1, 2004, 8:17 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Hi Lin,

Appreciate your hard work in giving us a glimpse regarding what the FZ20 can do. But I do have a comment about one of your photos below:

http://www.lin-evans.com/fz20/4fz20.jpg

I'm not sure if I'm being too hash on the FZ20, but I notice that the bird looks as if it has just came out from the mud - the details of the feathers are almost indistinguishable. THis is quite troubling because it's taken at F8, ISO80 and 1/400, which seems to me an ideal shooting condition. This 'mudded-feather' effects is something that I've not encountered before with my FZ10, unless I applies noise reduction on it.

Would like to know your opinions on this matter. Thanks!

Calv
FZ10, Tcon-17
calv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 9:35 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 164
Default

calv wrote:
Quote:
Hi Lin,

Appreciate your hard work in giving us a glimpse regarding what the FZ20 can do. But I do have a comment about one of your photos below:

http://www.lin-evans.com/fz20/4fz20.jpg

I'm not sure if I'm being too hash on the FZ20, but I notice that the bird looks as if it has just came out from the mud - the details of the feathers are almost indistinguishable. THis is quite troubling because it's taken at F8, ISO80 and 1/400, which seems to me an ideal shooting condition. This 'mudded-feather' effects is something that I've not encountered before with my FZ10, unless I applies noise reduction on it.

Would like to know your opinions on this matter. Thanks!

Calv
FZ10, Tcon-17
Maybe it's a combination of digital zoom and noise reduction? I also noticed the file is only 1.28MB in size, is it strait from the camera or was it run through some kind of program?

Klaas
Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 9:52 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Hi Klass,

It's difficult to be sure, but I suspect I had noise reduction turned on for this one and I'm not certain about digital zoom. Unfortunately, the EXIF info doesn't include the parameters of sharpening, contrast, saturation or noise control settings and I'm really not certain whether I was into digital zoom range when I snapped this one or not. I shot a couple hundred frames and was switching from one camera to the other two and wasn't paying particular attention to the settings. In fact, I was surprised to see that the aperture was F8, but the lighting was extremely harsh for this shot and that's probably an auto-aperture selection because I don't recall using manual or aperture priority.

As for file sizes, I compressed all the files from their original sizes a bit to conserve server storage space but if noise reduction was on (and from the "muddy" look it probably was), it's entirely likely that this could account for a reduced file size vis a vis others from the same similar group.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 10:12 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 124
Default

Lin Evans wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, the EXIF info doesn't include the parameters of sharpening, contrast, saturation or noise control settings
It did include these in the EXIF for the FZ10, so I would have thought they were still there with the FZ20.

What are you using to display the EXIF? I am using exif reader.


lawrencew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 10:47 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

I'm reading them with both PhotoShop and IrfanView so it's possible that they are there but not being displayed. You can test this because all images have full EXIF attached so you might try it with your reader.

Actually, I stand corrected- IrfanView is showing me the sharpness, contrast, stauration, etc., but not showing me anything about noise control, quality settingor digital zoom - but there "IS" something which says "gain control." I need to experiment and see if that may be indicative of something I can determine.

Best regards,

Lin

Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 4:58 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Hi,

I just checked... my Irfanview Exif info (v3.92 plug in)says DigitalZoom 0.00x . Assuming that is right, it either is the post camera compression or the noise reduction. Would you be willing to send the original image through e-mail or upload it to an ftp server if you still have the straight-from-the-cam image?

Cheers,

LF
LordFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 5:22 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Hi LF,

I'd be glad to link to the original uncompressed ones but unfortunately the only copy I have is the one posted. I didn't save the originaluncompressedof any of these since I essentially have duplicates on three different cameras and compressed the entire batch as a folder for web storage.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 5:28 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Were 10D shots taken in RAW or jpeg mode and which lens used on which shot and is that 70-200 f2.8 or f4?

I have 10D and 100-400L and these shots don't look anywhere near what I get.

I just checked the exif for 210d.jpeg file, it says f3.2, so I am assuming 70-200f2.8 was used. That's real bad shot with that lens, IMHO.




bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 6:05 PM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Were 10D shots taken in RAW or jpeg mode and which lens used on which shot and is that 70-200 f2.8 or f4? I have 10D and 100-400L and these shots don't look anywhere near what I get. I just checked the exif for 210d.jpeg file, it says f3.2, so I am assuming 70-200f2.8 was used. That's real bad shot with that lens, IMHO.
Hi Bobby,

They were taken in jpg mode and the 70-200 is the F2.8 model.

I'm not certain what your point is....

As for the shots being "anywhere near" what you get - the point is that the shooting conditions were very difficult as I mentioned in the first post. Remember, I used the 1DS as well as the 10D and the Panasonic and the results reflect what the cameras, lenses and combinations could do under the circumstances. What youor any photographer "gets" with a given lens is only relevant if you were shooting right along side me on that day and at that time under the identical conditions.

Remember, I do this professionally and have for over 40 years, solet's start with thebase assumption that I do know what I'm doing and that the results were typical for the conditions which is precisely why I used all three cameras.

If you read the first post carefully:

Quote:
None of these are really "excellent" examples of what any of these cameras can do under "ideal" circmstances, but I really wanted to see how the FZ20 compared when the lighting and shooting conditions were much less than optimal. There are slight mis-focus situations with each - ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you will see that I carefully explained that none of the images were "excellent" examples of what any of the cameras could do under "ideal" circumstances..

The point is that this is what they "could" do under these circumstances and the results are not all that different.

For the record, I use the D30, 10D, 1D, 1D Mark II, and 1DS along with the Kodak DCS-760 and Kodak MF Pro Back professionally. I also have a couple dozen fixed lens top end prosumer/comsumer digicams including the FZ10 to compare with.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 10:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Hi Lin -

Thanks for your informative post, and pictures. I appreciate posts like this for my continued edumacation on things digital.

Whether implicit or implied, I thought it might be worth pointing out, to those who are critical of the FZ Lumix line, the issue of the price/performance/quality/feature ratio(s). As I was doing my homework on what camera/printer to buy, I came to the conclusion that most reviewers - including, and with all due respect to this site, tend to overvalue relatively minor variences in specs, and distortion issues - which as you point out, show up more on the monitor than on prints and can be often be easily corrected in post. And to a greater extent reviewers undervalue the price/performance ratio of the cameras they review, and tend not to do comparisons of printed pictures taken from different models viewed from a normal viewing distance.

Your comparisons here, and certain reactions to them, compels me to state that we are comparing results of models that span the $500 range up to the $6000 range for the Canon (correct me if I'm wrong on the Canon price, I'm going from memory here). In light of this disparity - these cameras are simply not in the same class, I would rate the FZ-20 as "Outstanding" judging from the pictures you've posted, if one weights Price/Performance ratio as high as it (to me) should be when evaluating a camera. I think those who seem hypercritical of the Lumix line tend to lose sight of this. No, it's not a DSLR, nor does it try to be. However, it also costs 1/2 as much as a low end DSLR, and 1/4 as much as an average one - with "comparable" quality in optimal circumstances. Less than "comparable" in some other shooting situations, such as low light. Often, it seems to me, you're paying a lot to eliminate noise in the latent image which either can be corrected in a photo editor, and isn't visible in prints, especially in smaller sizes. A little grain, by the way, never bothered me in film, nor does a touch of noise, a bit of barrel distortion or mild purple fringing in a digital print. In fact, imperfections like that go unnoticed in a well-composed shot, and dare I say can actually add(?) to it in some circumstances, at leat to my aesthetic sense. It seems to me many consumer/enthusiast obsess too much on the geeky side of things. Learn composition, lighting, and how to take the best possible pics with the equipment you have available. Have fun. It's unlikely you're submitting your stuff to a hyper critical art director for an ad agency. Enjoy just being a hobbiest. I can't afford a Canon DSLR, so for now - thankfully, there's the Lumix line with its great Leica zoom with IS. It's the next best thing if a DSLR is out of your price range, and has a high price/performance ratio. Part of the fun is learning how to shoot around its constraints and experimenting with it.

Just my 2 cents. Off the soapbox. Thanks again for your informative post,

Nick
NickTrop 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 8:15 AM.