more ghastly FZ200 samples

Started Jul 27, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
wkay
wkay Senior Member • Posts: 1,058
more ghastly FZ200 samples

http://www.lenstip.com/1996-news-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ200_-_sample_shots_and_movies.html
corner softness, CA abound, what's going on?

Look at Panasonic sign on the catwalk image, huge CA. Look at the 100mm F4, corner blur beyond belief. No f2.8 images at all (except 5mm which FZ150 has), why is everyone afraid to use it?

I guess we can hide behind 'pre-production' claims but surprised Panasonic would want this stuff to get out.

bimbobo
bimbobo Regular Member • Posts: 202
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

To me all this "try to find the bad thing" posts are as stupid, as well as those who get excited just because they read the specs. of a cam.

When we saw the first pics of the FZ 150 they were as bad, but then the fw update came out and, and the "real" product arrived all was good again.

So all this pre, beta, alpha product do not influence me at all.

First when the real thing is out, and some "pro-reviewer" uses it, I will see what the result is.
--
Ignorant photograph beginner

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MountainTrekker
MountainTrekker New Member • Posts: 4
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

Agreed...noise, blur, looks like they were shot thru a mist covered window pane.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kkardster
kkardster Senior Member • Posts: 6,749
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

Any/all cameras are capable of ghastly pictures. This product is not yet avaiable as a production unit - why not hold off on the negativity until then. Remember, the FZ150 produced "ghastly" sample images until its firmware was finalized and it is now touted as the industry leader in its category.

 kkardster's gear list:kkardster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pap38
Pap38 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,744
Re:+ 1 Bimbobo

Why, oh why with the introduction of every new model do the negative soothsayers feel a need to opine on how terrible the IQ, etc. is? Why not wait for the real world examples in the hands of at least a somewhat competent individual.
Pap
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08

 Pap38's gear list:Pap38's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS8 Nikon D60 Nikon D5100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary S
Gary S Veteran Member • Posts: 6,145
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

CA is always more noticeable outside of the focal plane. And of course on white/black contrast areas more than ever. I've seen worse on some very expensive lenses and cameras. Nothing real surprising to me here.

Panasonic cameras have always been good about minimizing the CA, which is one of the reasons I first moved over to the Panasonic digicams and away from Canon. Canon had some really horrendous CA issues on some of their models.

And just to reiterate, let's see how the photos look from final production units. No need to string up the Panasonic representatives just yet. It's still early.

 Gary S's gear list:Gary S's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Jaseck
Dave Jaseck Veteran Member • Posts: 5,482
Hard to believe....

that people find fault with an image shot at 3200iso that surpasses anything seen just a couple of years ago. I come from a long line of film cameras, 35mm, 21/4, 4X5, shooting weddings with nothing but a Rollleiflex with fixed 75mm lens, pocket full of film, and a strobe light. Sorry, but people today have nothing but last years camera to compare against. The strides with digicams today are enormous. Appreciate the day folks, these picture taking machines are a work of wonder. BTW...a little bit of photoshop can fix virtually anything the complainers complain about, but I understand, it must be perfect out of camera. I have 3 digicams, including Canon DSLR and lens, my next camera is the FZ200, amazing 25mm to 600mm with fixed 2.8...I remain amazed!!!!
--
http://www.pbase.com/davidjaseck

Be careful how you interpret the world: It is like that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pap38
Pap38 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,744
Re: +1 I agree!!!

came from the background, about the same era I suppose.
Pap
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08

 Pap38's gear list:Pap38's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS8 Nikon D60 Nikon D5100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
samualson
samualson Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: +1 I agree!!!

It's human nature to want a successor to be worse than what you just spent a good amount of $$$ on.

Learn to love what you have and enjoy it, there will always be better models coming out. If you always feel the need to have the best prepare to spend lots of money .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hans Gruber
Hans Gruber Contributing Member • Posts: 913
Re: Hard to believe....

Please don't confuse the forum with logic. If you so we won't have much activity here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Jaseck
Dave Jaseck Veteran Member • Posts: 5,482
I can tell....

Looking at some of your fine galleries, you have been kicking around with cameras for awhile....
--
http://www.pbase.com/davidjaseck

Be careful how you interpret the world: It is like that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jimmyjoebob
Jimmyjoebob Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

wkay wrote:

http://www.lenstip.com/1996-news-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ200_-_sample_shots_and_movies.html
corner softness, CA abound, what's going on?

Look at Panasonic sign on the catwalk image, huge CA. Look at the 100mm F4, corner blur beyond belief.

The 5 mm, f/4.0, exp. 1/100 s, ISO 200 shot of the building with the ivy around the windows is pretty bad, too. And we can't blame this result on the person using the camera, because the ivy in the center of the image is reasonably sharp but everything starts to blur badly as you move out from the center in any direction.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
morepix
morepix Veteran Member • Posts: 8,730
Re: Hard to believe....

Hans Gruber wrote:

Please don't confuse the forum with logic. If you so we won't have much activity here.

You've become more philosophical since you no longer have your "main" FZ150. I too have a near-new FZ150, and I too have ordered an FZ200. You were smart: you got rid of your 150. I'm not: I haven't (yet).

Logic? What's that? Where can I buy some?
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

 morepix's gear list:morepix's gear list
Ricoh GR Olympus Stylus 1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus OM-D E-M10
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stephen McDonald
Stephen McDonald Forum Pro • Posts: 12,953
Re: more ghastly FZ200 samples

These photos don't look as bad as some people are describing them. The light conditions were generally not ideal and the shooter had probably never used the camera before. What interests me is how good my own pictures could be, after some months of practice, with a production version that has more refined firmware.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trekkeruss
trekkeruss Veteran Member • Posts: 3,899
Quite nice FZ200 samples
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MooCows
MooCows Contributing Member • Posts: 535
Re: Hard to believe....

I couldn't agree more Dave.
Well said.

Thanks
Kim

Shoot first and ask questions later!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GeraldW
GeraldW Veteran Member • Posts: 6,922
Re:Did you read the note at the top?

It says the shots were taken at the LOWEST settings for sharpening and noise reduction. If you download those and add some sharpening, they look a lot better.
--
Jerry

 GeraldW's gear list:GeraldW's gear list
Canon PowerShot A720 IS Canon PowerShot S95 Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS Canon PowerShot G15 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Don Richardson
Don Richardson Senior Member • Posts: 1,454
Re: Hard to believe....

Dave Jaseck wrote:

that people find fault with an image shot at 3200iso that surpasses anything seen just a couple of years ago. I come from a long line of film cameras, 35mm, 21/4, 4X5, shooting weddings with nothing but a Rollleiflex with fixed 75mm lens, pocket full of film, and a strobe light. Sorry, but people today have nothing but last years camera to compare against. The strides with digicams today are enormous. Appreciate the day folks, these picture taking machines are a work of wonder. BTW...a little bit of photoshop can fix virtually anything the complainers complain about, but I understand, it must be perfect out of camera. I have 3 digicams, including Canon DSLR and lens, my next camera is the FZ200, amazing 25mm to 600mm with fixed 2.8...I remain amazed!!!!
--
http://www.pbase.com/davidjaseck

Be careful how you interpret the world: It is like that.

I'm with you Dave! A P&S with a 600mm f2.8 lens is amazing. Sure it woun't do for someone that prints posters but how many of us do that. I had the FZ-20 and ony passed it along 3 years ago but it looks like the FZ-200 is in my future to go with my Canon 60D. I've only printed ladger that 8X10 twice and this should do that with flying colors. (Pun intended)
--
DonR
http://donr.zenfolio.com/

 Don Richardson's gear list:Don Richardson's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Epson Artisan 835 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Jaseck
Dave Jaseck Veteran Member • Posts: 5,482
At 100% actual pixels

I picked an image from the collection at random. Here is a portion at 100% (4000X3000 pixels). The fact that you can recognize a face in the car is good enough for me to make a print 18" high. Just basic touch up in photoshop, and as pointed out, not the best lighting conditions for the photograph

-- hide signature --

http://www.pbase.com/davidjaseck

Be careful how you interpret the world: It is like that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jimmyjoebob
Jimmyjoebob Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re:Did you read the note at the top?

GeraldW wrote:

It says the shots were taken at the LOWEST settings for sharpening and noise reduction. If you download those and add some sharpening, they look a lot better.

Sure, but the one I mentioned green (ivy around windows on the side of a building) has the center of the frame looking fairly sharp but once you get past the center bulls-eye it gets softer and softer. This is not an in-camera sharpening or photographer's skill issue - it's the lens.

But yeah, agree with the guy who said cameras are amazing now. I'm simply blown away by what my $260 LX5 can achieve. I remember around a decade ago a friend bought a $1000 Nikon digicam that shot 1.3MP and I thought that was an amazing accomplishment then.

The thing is information is so readily available now that us geeks can compare and contrast different products, and for some of us that's part of the fun in choosing new gadgets and tools.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads