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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 3, 2004, 3:50 PM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Hi!

I'm just replace my FZ-10 for an FZ-20. And what Am I paying more?

1. Less CA. Much less than FZ1-2 or FZ10. Hardly to find ANY CA in the pictures.

2. New AF system.The 1 point AF not all time is the best. (Even I use the spot AF), many times, I need the 3 point AF when I try to shoot a couple of dancers or etc.

3. 1/60-1/250 sec external flash sync. The FZ-10 1/60 sec auto flash sync wasn't enough to shoot dancing peoples, or moving objects. (The internal flash is unusable for me...)

4. Re-designed color system, AF assist lamp, bigger hand-grip, less compact feeling (I don't like compact cameras)...

I don't care 'bout of file size. I buy 2 pcs of 512MB Ultra II SD card

A bit of noise, but Idon'tcare. I'm not using higher ISOs than 100. (I'm not need to use more. If not enough light, I just put on the external flash and rock'n roll, I can shoot over 15m :-)@ F2,8/ISO100, with Sunpak Super 383+TL8 Tele/Fill kit). At ISO100 there's no more noise, than my FZ10.Anyone tell, that FZ10-20 is noisy. Just look a 35mm film @ ISO400. It's grainy too, but ISO200 also (I used both of them for a longer time).
KTTech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 8:03 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
José A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 367
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Along with the extra megapixels, you also get additional noise. Of course, you're paying a lot more for all that noise. [...] The Rockwell article talks about real world viewing experiences. That is - what you will perceive on a printed photo. [...] 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.
NickTrop, just to be sure: Are you stating any of the following?

1) You may not see much noise on an image in your monitor, but it'll come up when you print it.

2) You may notice in a monitor when an image has been interpolated, but you won't notice it when you print it.

Thanks.

José A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 8:56 PM   #33
Fox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 254
Default

I have a request for the FZ10 15 and 20 users. What do you think about a few of you taking the same picture of something you all have in or around your houses? You know, like a bottle of Windex or 409. Or maybe you can take a pic of the sky at around the same time of day. Then you can post them and we can see the difference in noise from these camera's. Can this be done? I would think you would have to email each other to setup like conditions and what it is your are to shoot.
I realize this is not really scientific but could give us a idea what real world photo's of the same thing look like from different camera's
Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 10:21 PM   #34
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 17
Default

I have done some direct comparison of the FZ10 vsFZ20 pictures. Go to this link to compare for yourself.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=94095
lightning69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 11:13 PM   #35
Fox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 254
Default

Thanks for the link. Anyone got some of the FZ15?
Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 11:15 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

BobC -

I am NOT misinforming people. I said, in my post, the FZ-20 is an excellent choice but if you're on a budget, the FZ-1 is worth considering. I did not trash the FZ-20, to the contrary. I also said megapixels are an overrated consumer spec. There are many who agree. You are correct, I cite respected sites and articles that support my arguments - which is more than most people do. I do not, however, copy the entire text of the article, which would be absurd. Instead, I provide links, and you can judge for yourself.

If I printed out a bunch of 6X4's from my FZ-1 and cameras up to 6 megapixels, and asked the average person to person to match the picture to the camera that took it, I would bet the house they would be unable to do so beyond "random accuracy". I would push that up to 8X10 on prints for the Z-1. I would go beyond that size even, if you know how to properly resample a photo - in steps, or have Genuine Fractals software to boost the resolution for larger prints. For most output medium, 2 megapixels is all that's needed for photoquality resolution. It's actually too much for computer screens, most of which are 72 ppi. On 6X4's the ppi of 260 produced by the FZ-1 is literally considered photo-quality resolution. Between 6X4 and your computer monitor, you are accounting for 99% of how most people view their photos, and 2 megapixels is plenty enough resolution.

All I am saying here is that at $250 the FZ-1 is worth considering. There are things I like better in this model than the higher-priced, new cameras in the line, such as its size. I think the FZ-3 is too small, and the FZ-10, 15, 20 too big. And, of course, I also like its price better. In general, the more megapixels that are crammed into a sensor, without increasing its size, the more noisy the picture becomes. That's common knowledge, and it is pointed out ->twice<- in the pros and cons section of the FZ-20 review, who did extensive testing on the camera. You can also look up the Frank Van Ripper review of the FZ-1 and the FZ-10, where he trashes the FZ-10 basically but LOVES the FZ-1 for many of the same reasons I've cited. I didn't make it up. If you, as a user, have issue with this, take it up with the author of the review, link provided.

Nick T.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2004, 11:41 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

lightning69 wrote:
Quote:
I have done some direct comparison of the FZ10 vsFZ20 pictures. Go to this link to compare for yourself.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=94095

How can you compare these?

They are all different, at different zooms, different shades of blue in the sky, etc...

All the FZ20 shots are taken with a darker blue sky except for one.

Would'nt it be better to shoot the exact same composure under the exact same conditions, with the exact same settings to make this test valid?

And I see noise in the FZ10.

Just today I took over 100 shots at New Hope, Pa. and the ones that turned out good look great.

Look at the test photo's from the FZ20 review. The reviewer says it's a little more noise but the pictue quality and sharpness is far better.

I wish I had an FZ10. I would perform a test with the same shot under the same conditions, and post it.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 1:20 AM   #38
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Hi to all,

I have more than 2000 pictures taken at a cousins wedding. The pictures are from various cameras:

Nikon D70, Fuji S2Pro, Lumix DMC-LC43 (mine, didn't have my fz10 then), Sony DSC-t1, Canon S400, Canon A75, Fuji Sp-1500, Fuji 2400

They are all very different and have different megapixels. All pics look very similar in quality on my computer, but you can really see a difference when some of them were printed (regular 6x4). Pics from the 2 mega camera are definitely not as good as the 4 mega. I'm only comparing pics taken outdoor in July in a sunny day. I won't even compare printed pics against the D70 or S2Pro. Obviously the user of the camera might have made a difference, BUT...

I also printed some old pics from my DMC-LC20 (2 mega) and there's a huge difference compared to pics taken with my LC43. it might have been the different settings, but the difference is too big to ignore. All pics look great on computer though...

That is my experience with 2 megapixels camera against 4 mega cameras. I'm not quoting nobody else and my conclusion is only based on whatI see. I have never actually seen pics printed from an FZ1 and compare them tomy FZ10, but frommy experiencethere's no way that a 2 mega camera can be compared to a 4 mega camera.

My advise would be that if you do not plan to print your pics, and save money, get the Fz1 (or Fz2/3). But if you don't mind spending the extra and would like to print pics, get the Fz10/20 (not to mention you get the benefit of a hot shoe for indoor pics).

roge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 2:02 AM   #39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 22
Default

Hi bobc.

Any dummy would know that more pixels is better. But it is not true when you having a same sensor size, it would be a diiferent story.Who wouldn't know 20MP is better than 5MP, or 12MP, but when you using a 1/2.5 sensor to hold on to a 5MP(FZ20 or for your better understanding lets say a 14MP), then how would you think about the noise level of that 1/2.5 sensor image produce. Forum member here to share info, and I don't think you should trash others who intended to share info to make this forum useful.

Just my $0.02



CheapPhoto
CheapPhoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 9:00 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

CheapPhoto wrote:
Quote:
Hi bobc.

Any dummy would know that more pixels is better. But it is not true when you having a same sensor size, it would be a diiferent story.Who wouldn't know 20MP is better than 5MP, or 12MP, but when you using a 1/2.5 sensor to hold on to a 5MP(FZ20 or for your better understanding lets say a 14MP), then how would you think about the noise level of that 1/2.5 sensor image produce. Forum member here to share info, and I don't think you should trash others who intended to share info to make this forum useful.

Just my $0.02



CheapPhoto
Any dummy would know that I was merely explaining about the resolution of an image, and nothing to do with sensors.

Speaking of which... I have a question...

Is the difference in Meagapixels determided by the number of cells on the sensor?

I have randomly looked at some specs on different camera's both sensor size and number of cells.

If they can fit more cells on a smaller sensor. Is that a bad thing?

Or is it better to spread the cells out onto a bigger sensor?

I am trying to think of this in terms of electronics and optics, and to understand how they work together.

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 8:57 AM.