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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2004, 10:21 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

mslan - whatever makes you comfortable. If from a psychological standpoint, you equate image quality with the number of megapixels, camera size and price, buy the FZ-20. It's still wonderful to have zoom capabilities like this and be able to take hand-held shots, sharp as a tack. Only the Lumixes give you this. They're truly revolutionary cameras, none of them will dissapoint. My point was not to dissuade anyone from the FZ-20, but rather to SUGGEST the FZ-1v2.

As Oldud points out, read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...per/030807.htm

This is just - of course, one dissenting opinion - MINE : )
I say Pana had it right with the FZ-1, it's the original and a bargain right now. Pana was forced to add megapixels to compete in the market. If considering the FZ-1, DON'T worry about only having 2 megapixels. Don't equate megapixels as the only factor in end image quality.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 11:11 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 17
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
mslan - whatever makes you comfortable. If from a psychological standpoint, you equate image quality with the number of megapixels, camera size and price, buy the FZ-20. It's still wonderful to have zoom capabilities like this and be able to take hand-held shots, sharp as a tack. Only the Lumixes give you this. They're truly revolutionary cameras, none of them will dissapoint. My point was not to dissuade anyone from the FZ-20, but rather to SUGGEST the FZ-1v2.

This is just - of course, one dissenting opinion - MINE : )
I say Pana had it right with the FZ-1, it's the original and a bargain right now. Pana was forced to add megapixels to compete in the market. If considering the FZ-1, DON'T worry about only having 2 megapixels. Don't equate megapixels as the only factor in end image quality.
Nick,

Thanks for your response. I started in digital several years ago with the Olympus 2020. Great camera, lots of clean images at 2.1 megapixels. But, this year my wife got a 4 megapixel Pentax Optio for her business and there is a huge difference in quality from the added megapixels. While I believe that there are diminishing returns in moving up the megapixel chain, there is some need to go to 4 megapixels if you are cropping and then trying to print at 8 x 11.

Obviously, Van Riper validates your opinion and that doesn't make you a dissenter; onlyone of at least two whohave validopinions. The reviews on various sites acknowledge the noise issue with the FZ20 but balance that off with kudos for sharpness. Perhaps I won't be cropping as much with that zoom available and that would give even morecredence for your opinion. But I think I will end up spending the extra for the way I have edited and printed in the past. (also I do want the hot shoe although not happy about spending the extra for it.)


mslan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 11:31 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Jose, this - indirectly, too has to do with the sensor size. Because the sensor is small, the image focused onto it is also small. As a result, Leica and Pansonic were able to develop a "mini-superzoom lens". In the film world a comparable lens would be huge, its size needed to focus on a plane 35 mm in size, the size of the film. These large lenses contain a dozen and more elements (up to 18 or more) to compensate for flare, reflections, and absorption physically caused by the light traveling down a larger lens. The more elements, the more light is lost - up to 1/2 to 2/3rds of an f/stop. The longer the zoom, the lower the T-values, the light transmission index of the lens. A regular prime lens with fewer elements results in little light loss inside the lens itself and is able to maintain its brightness.

Back to the sensor size. The small sensor means a more compact lens. Its conpact size results in less flare, reflection, and absorption physically caused by the lens itself, and no need for twice the number of light absorbing elements. The FZ-1 lens, I think (spec book not handy), contains six elements(?), as opposed to 12 to 18 elements found on a regular, large telephoto film lens.

Smaller sensor = extremely small zoom lens size = less distortion = fewer elements (six as opposed to eighteen) = lens able to maintain brightness throughout zoom range.

Oldud - Yes! Van Riper loved the FZ-1. The FZ-10? Not so much. Why make the darn thing bigger? Compactness was one if its biggest assets.
If you look at all the other big zoom cameras (other than panasonic)in the 3 to 5 MP range, you will see that they all use about the same size sensor. So... Nick... You are correct in that regard.

The FZ10, 15, and 20 lenses all have 13 elements and the 15 & 20 include an ED lense.

If what you are saying is correct, then the same problem exists in all the big zoom cameras... and not just the Panasonics.

I did not buy the FZ20 just for the extra megapixel, I bought it because it was a well constructed camera with great features. Noise is not even a big issue here or anywhere. It can easily be taken out of an image, and frankly... Every image that I posted on this site was stright out of the camera with no noise or any other processing.

Nick... Very good observation, but people who are changing their minds about the new Lumix line should go one step further and look at the other big zooms and the problems that they are having (which are probably very similar).

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 11:39 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Default

Hello NickTrop,

As I'm considering the purchase of one of the FZ's, I found your posting to be quite interesting. I'm just now learning about digital photography, but I don't know about "upgrading the firmware" of the FZ1. Could you explain a bit about what this means, and how this is done?

thanks for your help,

PhilR.
PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 12:19 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Ref the FZ1 -> FZ2 upgrade, check out:

http://www.ishots.net/fz1-2faq/fz1upgrade.htm

Austin

oldud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 12:41 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
tchuanye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,279
Default

I just like to add 2c to the discussion.

I generally agree with NickTrop, in his comments....thats the reason I bought the FZ10 in the first place when the FZ20 was coming out....

more or less MP? It all depends what you want to print.....

Ok, MP and picture quality are not related. It does not mean that given the same lens and all else being equal, a 4MP picture is better than the 2 MP picture. If you onlywant to print the exact photo you took WITHOUT cropping, at say 4x6 inch, than it makes no difference. I have a 2MP canon IXUS2 and it prints up to 8R pics just fine. HOWEVER, if you DO crop the photos you take quite extensively, than the additional MP gives you some flexibility. For example, given 2 photos, one with 2MP and the other at 4MP, and you crop say half of it.....the 4MP cropped pic can still give you very good prints at 4x6inch photos. But the cropped 2MP pic will not be able to do that.

So for most pp, if you do not crop at all, than the additional MP is relevant if you want to print really BIG pics (larger than 8R). Else, 2MP is actually fine for day-to-day use.

For me, the 4MP FZ10 is useful for me cos I cropped alot, and I still wantto print acceptable 8R pics.

hope what I wrote can be understood.....:-)
tchuanye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 1:00 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3
Default

PhilR -

I forgot to mention(getting loose between the ears) that in addition to upgrading you can get the FZ2 manual at http://www.panasonic.ca/PDP/Operatin...2ks-oi-eng.pdf

I printed it out in 2-sided bookklet form, took it to Kinko's & had it trimmed & spiral bound (~ $6).

Austin

oldud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 2:36 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 22
Default

I am agree 90% of what Nick said above. Even myself thinking that the FZ10 or FZ15 picture quality are better than FZ20.

Yes, you can always saying other companies making the same sizes sensor and pack even more MP than Pana too, then you have to ask yourself......do they have any better picture quality? Coz two wrong does not make it right :lol: As for me, I would save more money for a bigger sensor, but not more MP. Of course, everyone must have consider $$$, so pick the one you like $ vs pic quality or MP.

If you so happy with your FZ20 and so be it. Same for someone who love FZ 1,2,10,15 good for them too. But do use your own eyes to seee, not your ears okay.

Please people just for once, go to other forum or(this forum) to check out the full size pics from these camera and compare. If you are not blind, I am sure you can come up with the right answer of which camera has a better picture quality. Do not listen to anyone(even me hehe) just go see it for yourself and believe in your own eyes!!!!

Coz some FZ owner they are so defensive of what they have and would give you mislead information. So buyer beware:blah:

Good luck to all FZ owner.
CheapPhoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 10:35 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

On cropping:

Yes, you can crop more with more megapixels. My own bias against cropping is evident here. If you crop a lot I would go with the 10, if you don't, FZ-1v2 is fine. The only time I crop is to correct the 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratio issue between the digicam aspect ratio (4:3), and the the 6X4 (3:2) print. As I've gone through the learning curve, I've learned to compensate for this by giving a little more head room when composing the shot.

My last camera - which I had for 10-15 years (forget when I got it...), was a manual slr. The only thing automated was its light meter, and I never replaced the battery. I took a pic, developed the film. That was it. No cropping. I replaced this camera, when it died (RIP) with the FZ-1v2 . That's just how I'm used to taking pictures.

My Bias:
Since I only used manual SLRs my whole life - and I've had a life long interest in photography, it floors me that I can - for $250, the price of an FZ-1, get a camera that enables me to zoom to 12X optically - and take a hand-held shot, and get a sharp 6X4 print, comparable in quality to 35mm film. It would be impossible without spending big dollars to do this with a film camera. It IS impossible to find a film camera equivalent and lens as compact as the FZ-1 that has such a capability. To me, the FZ-1, compact super-zoom is a revolutionary camera in this regard. Pana was the first (actually second, Olympus made one before that, also a 2mp camera...) to put the technology puzzel together to come up with something that can not only replace a film camera, but give it capabilities that well-exceeds a film camera, at an amazing price. That's what technology is supposed to do, imo. Increase capability and reliability, and decrease cost.

Now? Excluding the FZ-3, they've increased the size of the camera for no other reason than to give it an imposing "this is a substantial, enthusiast's prosumer (whatever that is) camera" SLR-like appearance. They've taken away one of the camera's biggest initial advantages - compactness. They've also added megapixels, which has increased noise, because that's how consumers have been "trained" to rate cameras and camera quality. And, yes, the cameras are also twice as expensive: ranging from $150 to $250 over the current street price of the FZ-1.

So, two of the three advantages of the intitial product offering: capability, price/performance ratio, and compact size, have been dramatically attenuated - price/performance and compactness. The price drop on the FZ-1 has actually increased its price/performace ratio. That's why I recommend ->taking a look at<- the FZ-1 if your in the market for one of these cameras. As far as the whole line is concerned, no other digital cameras match the Panasonic capabilities, therefore no other non DSLR cameras are worth considering, IMO.

With the money I saved buying the FZ-1 over the 20 I plan to purchase:

1. A T-CON lens to increase the zoom range
2. An IR filter, which I'm waiting to arrive in the mail
3. A wide angle lens

I've already purchased a digital slave flash, so I have big flash capabilities...

So, for the same price of an FZ-20, I will have extended the capabilities of my camera to include IR photography, wide angle capability, and expanded zoom range with negligible - if any, noticeable degregation to image quality on standard size prints or PC viewing. The camera is also more compact. Again, I am not knocking the other Lumix camera's. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 10:59 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick really loves his FZ1...
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 12:18 PM.