I bought a panasonic fz50 but want to upgrade to a dslr

[bobbyz]

Regarding ISO3200, I took some shots at night time of a Hula dancer. The only lens that I had at the time was 100-400L on my 30D. I had to use ISO3200 for very first time. I just got 4x6 print without any pp except converting from RAW to jpeg. I am shocked looking at it. It is so good. I know it is small print but I bet I can't tell it from ISO400 shot. I am going to print bigger size just to see how it looks. So don't discount ISO3200. I think key is proper exposure.

[BenjaminXYZ]

I am just getting disappointed at the fact that camera manufacturers today are just merely cramming in more pixels onto an image sensor, without increasing it's physical dimensions. Ofcouse, if the camera manufacturers did increased the physical dimensions of the image sensors, what will become of our APS-C lenses??? So in my opinion, the camera manufacturers should release both types of cameras, one is the model with the low mega-pixel count for people like me!! :lol:On the other hand, they can go on with their marketing processes as of today. (Placing in more mega-pixels onto the sensor) BUT the camera bodies and features MUST be the same for (Both!) types!!

All thisare my opinions ofcouse.

[Gozinta]

bobbyz wrote:

If you need low light indoor shots, you should NOT be looking at cameras with very small sensor to begin with.

I think the Fujis have addressed the noise issue fairly well despite having a small sensor. I have the F30 and only use it as back up for my DSLR, but the Fujis are an excellent choice for thosewho simply doen't want to go DSLR.

[Gozinta]

bobbyz wrote:

Regarding ISO3200, I took some shots at night time of a Hula dancer. The only lens that I had at the time was 100-400L on my 30D. I had to use ISO3200 for very first time. I just got 4x6 print without any pp except converting from RAW to jpeg. I am shocked looking at it. It is so good. I know it is small print but I bet I can't tell it from ISO400 shot. I am going to print bigger size just to see how it looks. So don't discount ISO3200. I think key is proper exposure.

If I was looking at pictures of hula dancers I wouldn't see any noise either. :blah:

[JohnG]

Lesbs wrote:

Nice photos but you didn't meet my challenge becasue those are not taken in lowlight. All of those shots appear to betaken outdoors or if they are indoor stadiums, there appears to be plenty ofavailable light. Did you really need 3200 ISO for those shots? Also, I don't see any EXIF info, but I'll have to take your word that they are 3200 ISO.

Ummmm, not sure why you think HS football under lights isn't 'low light'. The images still should have their EXIF information attached - I didn't remove it. Did I need 3200? The answer is -yes given the fact I wanted a proper exposure (note I say proper not necessarily what the camera would meter at) and a sufficient shutter speed. Although in truth the portrait shot could have used a lower ISO since she was only walkiing but it seemed silly to change ISO for just that shot.

Overall, the pictures are decent, but a little soft for my taste. Whoever bought them got decent photos, but people buying them doesn't set the criteria as to whether or not they are good enough. Good enough for what?

Well, as I stated - my criteria is: will people buy my photos. Since people did, in fact, buy these photos then they are GOOD ENOUGH by that standard.

but I hope you're not trying to equate those pictures with something I would find in Sports Illustrated.

Nope - not at all. But most sports illustrated shots are in professional or college venues not HS - so the lighting is much better. And, of course, the photogs are much better as well. I never debated whether they were as good as low iso - just stating that they could be good enough (and again in my case both paper and parents purchased these photos so by my definition of a sale they were good enough).

Oh, so based on my opinion,"it's a cheap magician's trick",it makes me inexperianced. That pretty funny, but I don't think that statement has anythingto with level of experiance. I also don't know why you find it neccessary to attack my creditblilty based on my opinion.I didn't attack you or your level of experiance... I simply stated my opinion of 3200 ISO. It is common knowledge that 3200is basically 1600 ISO artificailly boosted to 3200.My response was to your post and I apoligize if you thought I was directing my comments to you, but I was just trying to clarify a few things that I felt are important for the Original Poster and other readers to know.

Yes, in a way, I am saying you're inexperienced.It's all about capturing a photo. When a subject is in low light and at a sufficient distance to preclude 2.0 primes (or when primes aren't practical) the only choices available are to use a 2.8 zoomand/or use flash. Flash has a limited reach and some undesirable results. So, let's putYOU in my shoes - I have a running subject 30-35 yards away and proper exposure is ISO 3200, 1/400 f2.8. Given that information whatwould you proposedoing differently to get that same shot for sale to a newspaper. Shall I drop down to 1600 and 1/200 and incur motion blur? Shall I invest $3500 in a 200mm 1.8 lens that's still too short to reach 35 yards and lose image quality to my crop? Please advise.

ISO 3200 is a tool - yes it's boosted but it still works fairly well - much better than old 1600 speed film did.So, I questioned your experience because you dismiss the capability out of hand. For some people it's a very usable feature. And in some instances it's absolutely essential.It's another possible tool in a photographer's arsenal. And you should use any tool available to accomplish your photographic goal. Sometimes that means using ISO 3200.

It's perfectly valid for you to say the photos posted aren't up to your standards - but if I followed your line of thinking I wouldn't have gotten these shots - they would have either been underexposed or unacceptable motion blur (again with the exception of the portrait). So, is no shot better than a shot of lesser quality? My bank account says it's better to have the shot than not to - the work sold - and since that was the goal when I took them then the ISO 3200 "tool" did it's job. So why not use it when the situation calls for it?

[Meatwhistle]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

I am just getting disappointed at the fact that camera manufacturers today are just merely cramming in more pixels onto an image sensor, without increasing it's physical dimensions. Ofcouse, if the camera manufacturers did increased the physical dimensions of the image sensors, what will become of our APS-C lenses??? So in my opinion, the camera manufacturers should release both types of cameras, one is the model with the low mega-pixel count for people like me!! :lol:On the other hand, they can go on with their marketing processes as of today. (Placing in more mega-pixels onto the sensor) BUT the camera bodies and features MUST be the same for (Both!) types!!

All thisare my opinions ofcouse.

I believe there is some R&D going on right now to make a lens with a variable setting, which would change the "X" factor of the lensto allow it to work with more than one sensor size. Of course this would mean the cameras would have to have the same mount but just different sensors unless Tamron could make it work with their adaptall lenses.

Actually I just started this rumour in the hopes that someone steals this idea and actually makes it come true.

[JohnG]

bobbyz wrote:

So don't discount ISO3200. I think key is proper exposure.

BINGO!!!!

[BenjaminXYZ]

I think the Fujis have addressed the noise issue fairly well despite having a small sensor. I have the F30 and only use it as back up for my DSLR, but the Fujis are an excellent choice for thosewho simply doen't want to go DSLR.

I agree;

The Fuji SuperCCD cameras are especially remarkable in the high ISO performance area. I meant "What?" such a tiny 1/1.7"image sensor have an ISO range of ISO 100 - ISO 3200??? :shock:Shocking isn't it for an ultra compact size image sensor...Furthermore, the ISO performance is also great, yes great, for such a tiny image sensor. (I was certainly very impressed)

Finally, SuperCCD(s) aside;

Sadly, a lot of new cameras out there today are PRETENDING to havethe great high ISO performance when they are NOT!! These types of digital cameras usually also have an impressive range of ISO levels. However the truth is, they are not performing as wellas the previous lower MP count image sensors with the lower "stated"ISO levels.I am finding it RIDICULOUS that the higher pixel counts of today'simage sensorscan be having ahigher range of ISO levels than the older ones with lower MP counts;it should all have been the other way round! (Considering that more MP have been cramped into similar sized image sensors!) Perhaps the camera manufacturers of today are acting desperately, trying to force the gain of the smaller photo-sites up to higher ISO levels anyway? Where it could all have been so much better, if they had done that to those previous image sensors; with the larger photo-sites. (Clearly)

[tmoreau]

Photography has never in its history expirienced such an embarrasment of riches that we have today. Ten years ago there were few, if any, options to capture such high quality high-iso images.

It rather seems that camera makers have decided this expiriment in additional sensetivity is a fruitless pursuit, and are stepping back to pursue higher resolution instead (no doubt spurred by the marketing pukes and accountants).

Most DSLR's have roughly a 6micron or 8micron pixel pitch. In the APS format thats 6mp and 10mp, in full frame 35mm it is 12mp and 24mp. The cameras known (through real-world testing and expirience) to be the better performers at high-iso settings are generally the ones with about an 8 micron pixel pitch. Its no coincidence. All these cameras seem to be phasing out though, in favor of the higher resolution models. It will be interesting to see how long before Canon releases a 24mp FF, and when they do which market it will be targeted at.

Even though there appears to be demand in the forums for more sensetivity, I have a hard time seeing manufacturers regress to lower resolutions. They will of course find ways to further mitigate noise issues in high density sensors, but I dont know if it will be the same (overall end-quality wise). Now is a good time to buy, because by the time todays camera will need to be replaced this issue will be a little better sorted I think.

[BenjaminXYZ]

The old Nikon D1H digital SLR released back in February2001, has only 2.7 million (total)sensor photo detectors on it's 23.7 x 15.5 mm Nikon DX CCD; this particular CCD has exactly the same dimensions as the ones ontoday's Nikon digital SLR cameras (With the higher MP counts). [Impressive isn't it?] Well, even more impressive was it's ISO range of ISO 200 - ISO 6400. Now, this is no ordinary ISO range as on today's boosted ISO camera series. Instead, the ISO 6400 of the Nikon D1Hwas looking more like the ISO1600 qualitytaken bytoday's dSLR cameras; and that's very impressive considering that thoseISO 1600shotstaken bytoday's dSLRs are usually viewedat smaller print sizes. We can expect an ISO 6400 shot to have more potential, especially when it comes to sports or fast action shootouts.

Iwas just trying to demonstrate that thelarger photosites/lower MP count image sensorsare having definite qualities over the higher MP/smaller photositescounterpart. Ofcouse, if theISO 6400 on the D1H's CCD can already be this good, you can expect the ISO 800, ISO 1600, & the ISO 3200 of itto be fantastic. [It's ISO1600 is just looking like theISO 400 on today's (Good)dSLR cameras]

Not mentioning that the camera also hardly uses any N.R. for it's images by default. I cannot imagine how good itcan all get ifcombined with today's imaging processors and imaging algorithms etc....