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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 2, 2004, 10:40 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

zoomn wrote:
Quote:
Don't forget the fz1 it still makes great pictures at a fraction of the cost.
I agree 100% with zoomn. I was tempted to run out any by an FZ-20. After reading the reviews, I decided to pass. I've concluded the following:

1. Camera companies, including Panasonic, are trying to cram too many megapixels into too small a sensor. The result is noise.

2. The borderless 8-1/2 by 11's I've taken with my puny 2 megapixels are stunning. Bear in mind, I've only printed six of these. Most are 6X4's and you simply won't see any difference in the pictures.

Save yourself some money. Remember, it doesn't stop with the camera. You'll want a case, perhaps a photo-printer, inks, paper, software, a larger SD card, a digital slave flash, perhaps a TCON lens or that Nikon macro lens, a ND filter to protect the glass...

From my perspective you're buying noise, CA, etc. and losing compactness. The lens, venus processing engine, and sensor - the heart of theses cameras, are pretty much the same in all the Lumixes. Get the FZ-1 while it lasts at a nice price of $250 on Amazon and save yourself a few hundred dollars. Here's a link that I whole-heartedtly agree with. According to this photographer, you do not notice resolution improvements in digital cameras until there is a quadrupling in the number of megapixels. That is, you will not notice an improvement in image quality resulting from an increase in megapixels untill there is a four fold increase, like say, from 2 to 8. Consider getting the FZ-1 and getting the free firmware upgrade to boost it to an FZ-1v2 with manual controls. It's the first and still the best of the Lumix line. Here's the link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:03 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
According to this photographer, you do not notice resolution improvements in digital cameras until there is a quadrupling in the number of megapixels. That is, you will not notice an improvement in image quality resulting from an increase in megapixels untill there is a four fold increase, like say, from 2 to 8. Consider getting the FZ-1 and getting the free firmware upgrade to boost it to an FZ-1v2 with manual controls. It's the first and still the best of the Lumix line. Here's the link:

The next 2 posts will include one picture each. Both where shot with an FZ-20, from a tri-pod with the same settings.

The first one was shot at 1280 x 960 (2.0MP).

The second was shot at 2560 x 1920 (5.0MP).

The first one was then resized to 2560 x 1920 in Photo Shop 7.0.

I then cropped the same section out of both pictures.

If you cannot see a drastic difference between 2 & 5 meagapixels, then I don't know what to tell you.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:04 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

1280 x 960 Re-sized to 2560 x 1920 and cropped.


Attached Images
 
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:05 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

2560 x 1920 cropped.


Attached Images
 
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:14 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
José A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 367
Default

Well done bobc. It is important when you can SEE how things are and not just give the reasons why they should be.
José A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:24 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

According to this photographer, you do not notice resolution improvements in digital cameras until there is a quadrupling in the number of megapixels. That is, you will not notice an improvement in image quality resulting from an increase in megapixels untill there is a four fold increase, like say, from 2 to 8.

Nick,

This is not the Leica lense thing. This is something that we can run tests on and proove ourselves.

Accourding to this guy, who knew someone, who heard someone say, that they read somewhere, that the person who wrote the article knew a photagrapher, who said that you wont notice a difference between a 2 & 5 megapixel camera until it was an 8 megapixel camera... DON'T CUT THE MUSTARD...

We cannot proove the Leica thing, but we can certainly give people valid information, and samples on things that we can test our selves.

And I am not saying that the FZ1 is not a great camera. It got a 5 star rating. But there is clearly a difference between a 2 and a 5 megapixel camera.

And those are just basic photo's, and using Photo Shop (which enhances any image on resizing). I would imagine that if these where macro shots and the user did not have Photo Shop, and had to use one of the cheaper image softwares to re-size the image that there would even be more of a noticable difference.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 1:28 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Thanks JoseA,

I try to give the best information I can to other people. I would not want someone to make a decission based on something that I mis-informed them about.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 2:43 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Let me explain this further.

A 2.0 MP image is 1280 x 960 pixels.

At 72ppi (pixels per inch) it is17.778 x13.333 inches at 100% (size).

A 5.0 MP image is 2560 x 1920 pixels.

At 72ppi (pixels per inch) it is 35.556 x 26.667 inches at 100% (size).

If you do the math, the 5mp imageis exactly 2 time the size of the 2mp image.

What this means is, you would have to double the size of the smaller image to make it the same size as the larger image. By doing that, you pixelate the image to a certain extent.

Sure you can print an 8 1/2 x 11 inch print and it will look fine, or even print it at 100% (17.778 x 13.333) and it will still look pretty good.

The advantage to having the higher mega pixel camera is...

For example... What if you took a picture of a bird in flight, and where lucky or skilled enough to get a good clear shot. Now lets say the bird only took up 30% of the image and you wanted it to take up 60%. With a 5mp image, you could crop it by 50% and still get a crystal clear 8 1/5 by 11 inch print if you wanted to.

The point here is that you cannot change the math of pixels, the 5mp is twice the size of the 2mp. This gives you double the image to work with. And that is the defference between the 2.0MP camera and the 5.0MP camera.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 12:39 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Along with the extra megapixels, you also get additional noise. Of course, you're paying a lot more for all that noise. In the case of the F-20, more that twice the cost of the FZ-1. Note the "Pros" and the "Cons" of the FZ-20 review:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa...ew/index.shtml

What I liked:
Very good photo quality (though a bit noisy)

What I didn't care for:
Above average noise levels, redeye, and barrel distortion

The Rockwell article talks about real world viewing experiences. That is - what you will perceive on a printed photo. You simply will not notice any difference on a 6X4 snapshot viewed from a normal viewing distance between a 6X4 shot with a FZ-1 and an FZ-20 or any other extraneously-megapixeled (for marketing purposes) camera. It is the heighest weighted spec to consumers, and it is the least important. As a testimonial, I along with most other Z-1 owners, are shocked at the results when we finally print an 8X10. Your test is a blow up, and yes the differences in resolution do show up when magnified 100X or whatever, expecially when viewed on a monitor. The gains are invisible, however, under normal viewing conditions, especially on a print. The flip-side of a multi-megapixel camera is:

1. You're paying more than twice the price for a noisier image

2. You're paying more than twice the price for a camera that is not as convenient or as compact.

3. The larger image files really cut the amount of pics you can store on your SD card.


Yes, you do have more options when you crop. That's a nice advantage. There haven't been too many instances when I've wanted to do this but it does come up from time to time. All I'm saying here is, don't discount the FZ-1v2 in your decision. Right now it is an absolute steal at $250 on Amazon, less then 1/2 the price of the FZ-20 (an excellent camera, as are all in the FZ line...) And there are actually some advantages over the FZ-20 imo. This is especially true if you're on a budget, and it's worth mentioning that there are other expenses after the initial camera purchase.

By the way, Bobc - great moon shot!
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 3:35 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick,

You are getting to the point of rediculous in this forum. All you are doing is reading articals, picking out the things that suit what you want to believe, and attempting to lead people into believing your hear say.

You did not mention the fact that the same review that you say bashes the FZ20, went on to say that it is one of, if not the best digital camera in it's class...

no...

You just quote the parts that suit your opinion. I show you proof, and you just ignore it, and continue rambling on, and mis-informing people.

I have tried being reasonable with you, and even apoligized for being harsh in a post to you.

I for one, feel that you are hurting this forum by mis-informing people. I also feel that you are so consumed with thinking you are right all the time (with no substacial proof except what you read (and only the parts that you want to be accurate)), that you really don't care what the true facts are.

I am going to send Steve a personal message requesting that he look into this himself. Not as a strike against you personally (because personally your posts do not hinder my judgment), but there may be people who make decissions based on your mis-information, and one sided quotes. I would not like to see anyone buy something that they where mis-informed about.

I don't know what else to say at this point. I have nothing pesonal against you, but I for one am not going to sit by and watch this go on any further.

bobc
bobc 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 6:51 AM.