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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 26, 2005, 4:17 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
even my G5, are clearly superior in clarity and image resolution. Fine details, which are a blur¬*on the Panasonic (as well as on any other non-Canon camera I tested, with the possible exception of some 8MP cameras, such as the Nikon 8800) are crisp and sharp in the enlarged prints from both Canon cameras
Canon makes a great camera, and obviously you're in the "Canon camp". However, I would counter your claims regarding resolution with this excerpt from the technical review of the G5 from Imaging Resource:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G5/G5A12.HTM

"Resolution/Sharpness: The G5 performed very well on the "laboratory" resolution test chart... The G5's performance though, shows the tradeoff manufacturers face between aliasing and resolution. In the G5, Canon seems to have cut their antialiasing filter to the bare minimum, while keeping their unsharp masking operator very tight. The result is excellent rendition of fine detail, and minimum perturbation to the raw image data,but at the cost of a greater tendency to alias (visible in the form of "jaggies" and varying widths of the fine target lines here) than some of the competition. - See the resolution chart section of the Test Pictures page for further details."

-> I would be careful about coming out and making such bold assertions as, "...my G5 is clearly superior yadda, yadda, yadda." In the case of the Canon, a firmware engineering decision was made to emphasis detail at the expense of visible jaggies. I would prefer a softer image to one that suffers from alaising, personally. I can always sharpen an image in post.

What would be the deal breaker for me on this camera - apart from jaggy images, and also apart from it's lack of a 12X optical zoom that maintains its 2.8 brightness throughout the zoom range, coupled with an effective image stabilization system (which translates from a practical standpoint in the ability to capture clear images, hand-held, that the G5 simply can't since it ain't got the glass to do it) is the Canon's substandard noise handling capability, relative to other cameras in its class, as shown below:

I would argue that a real analysis (read pretty much non-subjective) would point to the "FZ-20" being "clearly superior" to the G5:

1. Much less noisy
2. Costs less
3. Zoom/IS capabilities
4. Less "jaggy" images

Though I would never be so arrogant as to make such a proclaimation based on my glancing at a few prints, and would much more heavily weight an impartial technical analysis regarding these specs. (Sorry, I teach college. If you make an assertion, support it with evidence. Or, I'll take your head off...:G)

Have fun "fiddling with your teleconverter" and waiting for Canon to come out with a model that Panasonic already has. While you do that, I'll be taking pictures.


Attached Images
 
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 4:59 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Man I hate to see guys like "rdude" go. He obviously knows his stuff. I'm sure he'll be happy with his clearly superior Canon making perfect 11x19 prints on his Canon i9900. He will be missed:arrow:

The G5 suffers from higher noise than the G3, and notably higher than the competition, it also has a chromatic aberration problem which is more than I would expect to see on a modern digital camera. Dpreview
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 5:40 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I am not sure if that was genuine or sarcastic. :-)In any case, to answer both of the previous postings. I don't consider myself in any "camp" at all. And if I made a statement about the Canon's clear superiority, I have to admit that this is purely subjective, based only onwhat I see with my eyes. Which, to me, is the deciding factor. My whole evaluation wasdoneon large prints I made from Steve's images and looking at them closely. While Ifound that the Canon's are sharper and more like you are "right there" vs. most other brands, I did not notice anytradeoff in the form ofjagged lines at all. Maybe the lab tests prove me wrong, but this is what I see clearly in front of me. I had done the same tests before purchasing the Canon G5 in the first place. At the time I compared it to the Minolta Z1 and Kodak 6490. I had come up with the same conclusion then, leading me to purchase my first Canon.

In any case, I stilllong forthat 10-12x zoom. I am holding on for the next generation to find my perfect match, and I am taking gorgeous shots with my Canon G5 in the meantime. By the way, here is another endorsement for Canon: The i9900 printer blows away my previous Epson 1280 printer, in image quality, color balance, saturation, and speed.

Thanks, Guys!


rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 6:52 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Bye................The Canon forum is just around the corner:arrow:
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 8:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
I did not notice any¬*tradeoff in the form of¬*jagged lines at all. Maybe the lab tests prove me wrong, but this is what I see clearly in front of me.
Right, the reason Canon pictures look different I've already explained, its image processor has a bias toward sharpening at the expense of alaising. 5 mgpxls of resolution = 5 mgpxls of resolution; that is 5 million pixels = 5 million pixels. I can print on the "Vivid" setting and you would proclaim that "...the colors pop more!" Have you ever heard of Photoshop? Most of the differences in images among cameras in a given price range have to do with firmware decisions - which are intended to lure customers, regarding temp, color saturation, and sharpening. Few things "blow anything away" these days with the exception of the Lumix line's compact zoom/IS system. Most latent camera jpegs look how they look by design, and are easily altered to suit your individual preferences with Photoshop.

You're "in love" with your G-5, and your assessment isn't reality based. Reality is the ->objective<- assessments I've posted, which cites the Canon as a competitive model overall with an image bias that favors sharpness at the expense of alaising. And what's up with all that noise??? And, as Nooner points out in the DPreview, the G-5 has a problem with CA. Noise? CA? Alaising? Run of the mill zoom? No IS (obviously)...

As far as printers, I'm sure your new Canon i9900 outperforms the five year old Epson 1280. Let's see if the Canon printer is a relevant technology, which you're still using, in 2010.

Are you back sniffing those empty inkjet cartridges again? Don't do that, it's affecting your reasoning abilities.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 8:34 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
I am not sure if that was genuine or sarcastic. :-)In any case, to answer both of the previous postings. I don't consider myself in any "camp" at all. And if I made a statement about the Canon's clear superiority, I have to admit that this is purely subjective, based only onwhat I see with my eyes. Which, to me, is the deciding factor. My whole evaluation wasdoneon large prints I made from Steve's images and looking at them closely. While Ifound that the Canon's are sharper and more like you are "right there" vs. most other brands, I did not notice anytradeoff in the form ofjagged lines at all. Maybe the lab tests prove me wrong, but this is what I see clearly in front of me. I had done the same tests before purchasing the Canon G5 in the first place. At the time I compared it to the Minolta Z1 and Kodak 6490. I had come up with the same conclusion then, leading me to purchase my first Canon.

In any case, I stilllong forthat 10-12x zoom. I am holding on for the next generation to find my perfect match, and I am taking gorgeous shots with my Canon G5 in the meantime. By the way, here is another endorsement for Canon: The i9900 printer blows away my previous Epson 1280 printer, in image quality, color balance, saturation, and speed.

Thanks, Guys!

Why don't you back up your findings with some pics. Let everyone see the results with their own eyes.

If you want to prove a point... Prove a point... Don't just state one...

If you don't post the proof... I guess your just talking sh****t...:blah:

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 8:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

"Hello, I'd like to buy an argument." :G
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 9:00 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

You guys are something else. I didn't come here to argue and I am certainly not in any company's camp. I am not in love with my G5. I don't like the lack of zoom, the slow and unreliable focusing, especially in low light, and the noise in higher ISO's. That's why I am shopping for another camera.I simply wrote what I observed. The photos I used for my comparisons are Steve's sample images. I consistently getcrisper results in my large prints from Canon compared to pretty much anything else.I have shown the same prints to others and asked them what they see with consistently the same results. As I had said in an earlier posting, I would gladly make the printsavailable for anybody to look at. So, the last poster's attack about me not being willing to back up my observation is moot. I am talking about prints, not jpeg's. You can look at those yourself in Steve's sample image section. On the screen, the noise of the Panasonic is terrible, even in the clear blue sky. However, that does not show up in the prints. If you have a high resolution printer, print out a couple 8x11's and look for yourself. Not glance, but look at the individual bricks of a building, the AC vents, the leaves of the trees, etc. Simply more alive! I wish it was different because I REALLY wanted to buy the Panasonic.

Remember, I came here because I was already selling my Canon, readyto purchase the Panasonic, not to put it down. And I still think the FZ20 it's probably by far the best camera with the most features for the money.

Anyway, I'm out. Peace. For good!
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 9:07 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

How can you miss 'em if they won't go away?:arrow:

OH...quit teasing. You said that last time. By the way I would like to see the prints you made on your brand new printer. I'll PM you. I need [email protected] please.:!:
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 9:09 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
I did an in-depth test last night. Enlarging, cropping and printing some of Steve's sample images. My verdict: Nothing can hold a candle to Canon. The Canon Pro1, but even my G5, are clearly superior in clarity and image resolution.
Wait... you said, "nothing holds a candle to the Canon." You came out and made a bold assertion; I countered it. Okay, so I threw a few ad homenims in while I was tearing your assertion to shreds. My bad. Your "in depth test" is 100% subjective, and laughable I'm sure by even the weakest QC standard and statistically invalid. It's meaningless.

Here as in anywhere, if you make an assertion, support it. And, do so in a way that's verifiable by reasonable means. It's your assertion. It's your baby.
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 3:48 PM.