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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:19 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Hi Folks,

Well, I bought this little gem as an alternative to my 1D that has the same reach with the right lens, but weighs a good five pounds more! So, now I'm trying to figure out WHEN each camera will be a better choice. I went out this AM in sunny weather to shoot the same subject at similar ISO (Canon only goes down to 200 and FZ was set at 100), same f-stop (f8) and because they were set at aperture priority, a slightly different shutter speed (1/200th on the fz and 1/250th on the Canon).

Here are two photos taken with these cameras from the same spot a few seconds apart with similar settings. I processed using levels, curves, and USM with same settings. I think I have in-camera sharpening set to 'standard' on the FZ and there is none in the Canon. (Wish I could post these side-by-side in this message, but will have to upload the FZ shot first, then the Canon in the reply. Here goes...


Attached Images
 
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:27 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Ok, heres' the Canon version. I chose this image because I think it shows quite well the difference between the DOF that one camera gives vs the other. The DOF w/ the fz is MUCH wider! The Canon shotat the same mm range, is actually a longer reach because of the multiplier effect w/ thesensor. At400mm, the lens has a reach of approximately 130mm further because of the 1.3Xmulitplier. I was able to get a shot of this cairn with the Canon that was focused on the cairn with the background OOF. With the FZwith the same settings, the background is MUCH more visible and in better focus! Neither one is better than theother....justdepends on what you want! I know that there are advantages in carrying BOTH camera! (OUCH! That makes my situation worse...not better. NowI'll carry TWO cameras! Yikes!)



Well, here it is...


Attached Images
 
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:31 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

One other observation on these two shots. I think you see slightly better shadow detail on the Canon image as well. Perhaps it has to do with the distance from the cairn. The Canon shot appears to be closer.



Wanna see more? Stay tuned...
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:35 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Ok, now here are two of Ram Island Light. These were taken with each lens zoomed to the max. I forgot to mention that I used the 100-400 USM IS on the Canon. It's pretty equivalent to the FZ, except that it is HEAVY and cost more than the fz! Yikes! Here's the fz shot.....
Attached Images
 
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:41 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Now for the Canon shot...keep in mind that these are processed jpegs. I see some difference in white balance. There is more of a green tint to the Canon, but since this is a processed file rather than an original, it's possible I did that when I processed these, though I see similar tint differences in the originals as well. I can't tell you whicih one is more accurate. The aspect ratio is different on these cameras, so the image sizes are just a bit different as well.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I think that the fz holds up well when you compare detail. It may actually be just a dite better??? What do you think? (It's a 5 mp camera vs a 4 w/ the Canon. The Canon has been compared favorably with 6 mp cameras, so I think it's a fair comparison.)

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Ok, here goes...please share you thoughts on these comparisons and I have more if you ask for them...at least ONE more.


Attached Images
 
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 10:52 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Looking carefully at these two shots, it appears that the details on the fz shot are crisper than the Canon shots, but since they weren't taken from a tripod, it's hard to say whether this is due to the camera or the photographer. I may have not held the Canon as still. Who knows! Guess I should do my tests more carefully or they don't qualify as tests at all! Sorry!

At any rate, I think you all should feel quite happy that you have a camera that can compete (at least in full sunlight)with a system that costs at leastfour timeswhat you paid for yours...heck the lens alone cost almost double what the fz CAMERA costs!!

Don't get me wrong, I would not trade my 1D for an fz, but I think together they each have strengths. You should feel good that you have a camera capable of taking really nice quality landscapeimages in good lighting conditions!

And if my conclusions sound 'off the wall' please say so. I'm happy to hear what YOU think!
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 11:00 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 63
Default

Since the size of FZ10's CCD is smaller than 1D's CMOS, DOF of two camera are different even at the same aperture setting.

I would like to see 1:1 crop comparsion :-)
akirabbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 11:08 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Let me see what I can do. Which shot would you like? I could give you the lighthouse....just the lighthouse....unprocessed. Would that be good?

Beth
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 11:14 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Ok, here's what I did. Opened file...sized to 100% and cropped just the light. Then opened next file and did same, cropping same view. Is that how it should be done?

The Lumix file is considerable bigger, but that's probably related to the pixel count???



Oh, these are 72 dpi files, if that helps.

Here's the Lumix....


Attached Images
 
cokids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2004, 11:16 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Oh, one more piece of info...these are totally unprocessed files other than converting the Canon one from raw...yes, it was shot in raw while the fz one was shot in highest quality jpeg. A better test might be to shoot the fz in tiff. Another test for another day!

Here's the Canon one....


Attached Images
 
cokids 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 7:06 PM.