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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 20, 2005, 5:00 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

So I guess this means that , potentially, the FZ30 noise level might be slightly higher than the FZ20. It seems to me that Panasonic will match the noise level (using software or whatnot) and maybe make the improvement for the FZ40.... BTW does anyone know yet how the noise levels compare btw the 20 & 30?
Nancy Gabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2005, 11:03 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hiroshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,749
Default

Nancy Gabby wrote:
Quote:
So I guess this means that , potentially, the FZ30 noise level might be slightly higher than the FZ20. It seems to me that Panasonic will match the noise level (using software or whatnot) and maybe make the improvement for the FZ40.... BTW does anyone know yet how the noise levels compare btw the 20 & 30?
Nancy, I'm reposting this composite picture that I pasted together from DCRP. It's the night shot at different ISO of the FZ20 and FZ30. Each strip has the identical pixel number content for proper comparison:
Attached Images
 
Hiroshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 12:11 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

Definitely looks like FZ30 has more noise, but the FZ30 pictures are of a darker scene which means longer exposure which means more noise, right? So... is this a fair test? I am just trying to see if the new camera has more noise than the FZ20, and I don't know if this is a fair comparison. Can somebody puleeeze lemme know, I would really appreciate it!
Nancy Gabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 12:28 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

I can't let you know unless the comparison is done with the same lighting conditions.

You are correct that there is more noise in longer exposures and that even in digital DSLR's they recommend using the noise option that comes with the camera.

I would also like to see different in-camera noise level settings as well for comparison.

Of course, all cameras taking shots at the same time and same conditions for a fair comparison.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 1:25 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Hiroshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,749
Default

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:
I can't let you know unless the comparison is done with the same lighting conditions.

You are correct that there is more noise in longer exposures and that even in digital DSLR's they recommend using the noise option that comes with the camera.

I would also like to see different in-camera noise level settings as well for comparison.

Of course, all cameras taking shots at the same time and same conditions for a fair comparison.
Maybe STEVE can do a side by side comparison?
Hiroshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 8:14 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
anomaly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 144
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Another thing to look at will be how the pictures taken as RAW files at ISO 200/400 - it may well be the case that using RAW instead of incam jpg will produce better detail and less noise. This was the case with the LC1/D2 (check this review on luminous landscapes¬* :

Clearly, JPEG mode on the Digilux 2 is a bit problematic at ISO 200 and very much a problem at ISO 400.¬* Fortunately, the camera fares much better in RAW mode."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...x2-part2.shtml
If you read that article again, you will see that using RAW mode at ISO 200 and 400 on the Digilux 2 produces more noise than JPEG mode, not less. When the author describes the Digilux 2's JPEG mode as "problematic", he is objecting to the heavy handed noise reduction processing that destroys detail in the resulting images. He prefers the noisy but sharp RAW images to the overprocessed "waxy" JPEG images.

RAW mode will not be a defense against the (alleged) high noise levels in the FZ30.
anomaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 10:00 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

Also, unless you are shootin flowers, or still lifes, raw mode will eat up your buffer, and you can't shoot continuous for candids and such. So I rarely have a use for raw.

One of the things I didn't like in the DCRP review was that the review, when talking about "image quality", only really mentioned the noise. And image quality is far more than noise. B/c I had heard that the color reproduction in the FZ30 by far outweighs the 20, esp. when it comes to skin tones. And this, along with the focusing were my two biggest problems with the camera, both of which seemed to be fixed on the FZ30. The only thing that the camera (any camera) produces is an image. So image quality, and every aspect of it, color, bokeh, sharpness etc. is very important. And I know that the noise issue is a fairly large one, but what about everything else? How can you leave it out, or diminish its importance. Because anyone who will be ok with the noise issue wants to know everything else about the image!
Nancy Gabby 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 12:49 PM.