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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 8, 2006, 9:12 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

stnkline wrote:
Quote:
LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
stnkline wrote:
Quote:
It is difficult to tell the difference in quality on a monitor. Is the 08 as good as the 07? Do you use the stepup/your ring step down?

TIA LoveLife

Stan
Now you should be able to see the difference.
http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/35784545-O-1.jpg

http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/55525674-O.jpg

The WCON08B is using a 55-62mm TRing

The WCON07 is using a combination 55-62mm Step-up ring and a 62-55mm CRing

LoveLife
Your: http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/35784545-O-1.jpg is [1854KB]
And your: http://lovelife.smugmug.com/photos/55525674-O.jpg is [4143KB]

My question was:"Is the 07 a better quality lens than the 08". The two above pictures are of different resolutions so it is difficult to check the sharpness, lack of aberrations ofeach lens, etc. So in your honest opinion Which is better?! i.e.which lens on the FZ30 takes a BETTER picture ignoring the obvious difference between a .8 [28] and a .7[24] ?

Thanks again

Stan
You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the results obtainable from the WCON07 out weights the difference with better sharpness.
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2006, 10:15 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 242
Default

LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
Stan
You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. . The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the results obtainable from the WCON07 out weights the difference with better sharpness.
Thanks. I did look at the two pictures and on my monitorI was unable to tell the different in sharpnessof the two lenses. That is why I asked the question again

Your postclears it up.

Stan

P.S.:A new Thread?:: What is the maximum possible compression of a jpegfile thatwould still provide an acceptable image on a monitor/TV or a printed picture. Most discussions are about pixels per inch.


stnkline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 1:49 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

stnkline wrote:
Quote:
LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
Stan
You are confusing file size with resolution both pictures have the same resolution just different jpeg compression. The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. . The WCON08 because of the reduced angle has a bit less distortion. But I feel the results obtainable from the WCON07 out weights the difference with better sharpness.
Thanks. I did look at the two pictures and on my monitorI was unable to tell the different in sharpnessof the two lenses. That is why I asked the question again

Your postclears it up.

Stan

P.S.:A new Thread?:: What is the maximum possible compression of a jpegfile thatwould still provide an acceptable image on a monitor/TV or a printed picture. Most discussions are about pixels per inch.

That would be very low. I can set the picture size to 800X600 then set the compression to 233k and get good results on a 20" glass screen. here is an example:


LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 8:25 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Stan: What is the maximum possible compression of a jpegfile thatwould still provide an acceptable image on a monitor/TV or a printed picture. Most discussions are about pixels per inch.
LoveLife: That would be very low. I can set the picture size to 800X600 then set the compression to 233k and get good results on a 20" glass screen.
I opened your picture above in Photoshop Elements and "save as" at 242kb, quality 12,and 71kb, quality 5,to the desktop. Compared them in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I could not see any difference in the sharpness or color on my 17" CRT [Glass!]. Does that mean if I make a slide show, 71kb is sufficient for a good presentation? Food for thought!!

Thanks

Stan

Your above picture at 71kb:



stnkline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 4:25 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 56
Default

Maybe its just me and I cant see well,:lol: but it seems (To me.) that the pics do not look very sharp. They seem to be a tad bit blury. Is this just me? Is there a better lens to check into that produces a sharper/Clearer image?
Cwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 4:53 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

Cwood wrote:
Quote:
Maybe its just me and I cant see well,:lol: but it seems (To me.) that the pics do not look very sharp. They seem to be a tad bit blury. Is this just me? Is there a better lens to check into that produces a sharper/Clearer image?

Well now you are way off target and I know were you are going with this.

1) This is done with the standard 35mm WA setting of the FZ30.

2) It was a two hour traffic jam none of the cars and trucks are moving so I blurred up the truck the car on the right and the rear of the red car to give the illusion of movement.

The original shot.




LoveLife 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 12:43 PM.