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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 15, 2006, 2:11 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

Panasonic DMC-FZ30 Gordon Laing, January 2006 review

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...30/page2.shtml
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 15, 2006, 8:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 194
Default

Thanks LoveLife, That is the best review site I have ever seen. I spent some time looking at various models and makes...Fred
Bootneck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 12:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 194
Default

Just realised! Shouldn't have said that on Steve's Forum.

Let's say the best generalreview site
Bootneck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 4:36 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

Bootneck2 wrote:
Quote:
Just realised! Shouldn't have said that on Steve's Forum.

Let's say the best generalreview site
Some forums pull punches when talking about weak features from camera manufactures that support them. Camera Labs delivers the real deal.
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2006, 6:41 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
Default

I just wish the reviewers would not just get the numbers, but they would do the math too.It seems to me that a 28mm equivalent frame with fuzzy edges and severe light fall-off gives about the same useful picture size as a 35mm equivalent lens that is sharp to the edges. If the camera pixel count is the same, the cropped picture has fewer pixels to cover the image.
KentC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 5:46 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

KentC wrote:
Quote:
I just wish the reviewers would not just get the numbers, but they would do the math too.It seems to me that a 28mm equivalent frame with fuzzy edges and severe light fall-off gives about the same useful picture size as a 35mm equivalent lens that is sharp to the edges. If the camera pixel count is the same, the cropped picture has fewer pixels to cover the image.
Yup, they should also do their comparisons in a better way. For example, the CA tests has the FZ-30 and Sony R1 at f/2.8 and focal lengths (in 135 equivalent) 35mm and 24mm, respectively. For a larger sensor camera (i.e., the R1), the f/2.8 at 24mm is much more difficult to do well than the f/2.8 at 35mm on a smaller sensor camera (i.e., FZ-30). They should at least zoom the R1's lens in to 35mm and do a fair comparison. The same problem happens to the long end, R1 at 120mm and FZ-30 at 420mm. This test does not reveal anything RE the lens quality of the R1 and FZ-30.

The distortion test has FZ-30 at 2.35 and R1 at 2.9. Does this mean the R1 is worse? No, because the FZ-30 is at 35mm and the R1 at 24mm, and a wider lens always has higher potential to have barrel distortion. It is similar to comparing SLR35mm and 24mm lensesat f/2.8. The same holds true for the pincushion distortion when FZ-30 is at 420mm while the R1 is at 120mm. In fact, all subsequent comparisons share the same problem: apples vs. oragnes.

As a result, while some may say this is a good test, I would simply consider a so-so one with many technical flaws in the lens comparison department. They should make their tests meaningful.

CK

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700, Panasonic FZ-10/FZ-30, and Canon A95 User Guides




shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 7:02 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

shene wrote:
Quote:
KentC wrote:
Quote:
I just wish the reviewers would not just get the numbers, but they would do the math too.It seems to me that a 28mm equivalent frame with fuzzy edges and severe light fall-off gives about the same useful picture size as a 35mm equivalent lens that is sharp to the edges. If the camera pixel count is the same, the cropped picture has fewer pixels to cover the image.
Yup, they should also do their comparisons in a better way. For example, the CA tests has the FZ-30 and Sony R1 at f/2.8 and focal lengths (in 135 equivalent) 35mm and 24mm, respectively. For a larger sensor camera (i.e., the R1), the f/2.8 at 24mm is much more difficult to do well than the f/2.8 at 35mm on a smaller sensor camera (i.e., FZ-30). They should at least zoom the R1's lens in to 35mm and do a fair comparison. The same problem happens to the long end, R1 at 120mm and FZ-30 at 420mm. This test does not reveal anything RE the lens quality of the R1 and FZ-30.

The distortion test has FZ-30 at 2.35 and R1 at 2.9. Does this mean the R1 is worse? No, because the FZ-30 is at 35mm and the R1 at 24mm, and a wider lens always has higher potential to have barrel distortion. It is similar to comparing SLR35mm and 24mm lensesat f/2.8. The same holds true for the pincushion distortion when FZ-30 is at 420mm while the R1 is at 120mm. In fact, all subsequent comparisons share the same problem: apples vs. oragnes.

As a result, while some may say this is a good test, I would simply consider a so-so one with many technical flaws in the lens comparison department. They should make their tests meaningful.

CK

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700, Panasonic FZ-10/FZ-30, and Canon A95 User Guides



Now there is a review that goes over the top to prove nothing.
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 5:30 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
shene wrote:
Quote:
KentC wrote:
Quote:
I just wish the reviewers would not just get the numbers, but they would do the math too.It seems to me that a 28mm equivalent frame with fuzzy edges and severe light fall-off gives about the same useful picture size as a 35mm equivalent lens that is sharp to the edges. If the camera pixel count is the same, the cropped picture has fewer pixels to cover the image.
Yup, they should also do their comparisons in a better way. For example, the CA tests has the FZ-30 and Sony R1 at f/2.8 and focal lengths (in 135 equivalent) 35mm and 24mm, respectively. For a larger sensor camera (i.e., the R1), the f/2.8 at 24mm is much more difficult to do well than the f/2.8 at 35mm on a smaller sensor camera (i.e., FZ-30). They should at least zoom the R1's lens in to 35mm and do a fair comparison. The same problem happens to the long end, R1 at 120mm and FZ-30 at 420mm. This test does not reveal anything RE the lens quality of the R1 and FZ-30.

The distortion test has FZ-30 at 2.35 and R1 at 2.9. Does this mean the R1 is worse? No, because the FZ-30 is at 35mm and the R1 at 24mm, and a wider lens always has higher potential to have barrel distortion. It is similar to comparing SLR35mm and 24mm lensesat f/2.8. The same holds true for the pincushion distortion when FZ-30 is at 420mm while the R1 is at 120mm. In fact, all subsequent comparisons share the same problem: apples vs. oragnes.

As a result, while some may say this is a good test, I would simply consider a so-so one with many technical flaws in the lens comparison department. They should make their tests meaningful.

CK

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700, Panasonic FZ-10/FZ-30, and Canon A95 User Guides



Now there is a review that goes over the top to prove nothing.
Perhaps you just know "nothing" and as a result could only read off "nothing" from something. All I said is a reasonable doubt from the angle ofscience and optics, which is, of course, not "nothing." Please say "something" rather than saying nothing. Or, do you have a habit of selective reading?
shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 2:50 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 194
Default

And I thought I was rude in a later thread by Puddock!
Bootneck2 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 8:07 AM.