Need subjects in center so as to judge center sharpness.
Looks very nice at f/8.
Crowd scenes like this are great for judging image quality.
Totally agree with Maximo.
I love all cats.
I was able to hammer this into good shape with "PS."
It takes time, though.
My life is going down the drain correcting images.
I think I'll be bracketing the crap out of my shoots. Might save me a heap of time.
LaMesa: The colors look better, more natural than on any JPGs I've seen from Panasonic before. There seems to be a large dynamic range, and skin tones are really good.
Forgive me, LaMesa.
With respect, this is hard to believe.
DPR, please adjudicate.
Ulfric M Douglas: I'm seeing "grey" results overall. This could be due to the day's light.Did DPR try to vary the Jpeg choices and see what came out?
DPR, please address.
Pandimonium: Looks very similar to this amazing gallery: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-g7/panasonic-g7GALLERY.HTM
Images in this gallery (imaging Resource)are much better than DPR's. Only 2 or 3 are flat.
DPR, please comment on the photos in your samples.
Spkeasy: I would buy (80%) the LX100 (or something like it) if it had at least a 16MP sensor. I need the occasional big enlargement and pixelation becomes an issue at the 12MP level. Add zoom to about 10x to that and I think I would be 100% likely to buy, especially if they shrunk the width a little so it would fit a pocket more easily. The slap-on little flash (or bigger option) on my EM5 works out fine since I rarely need flash with the low-light options I have with high speed sensor (they all seem to be getting these today) and great stabilization allowing me to use natural light for almost everything.
SSantana75 wroteit's around 16"x24". This is a good place to get that sort of info (along with other great articles) https://photographylife.com/how-to-enlarge-photographs-for-printing--------------------------------------
Very pertinent piece.
Convinced me to acquire an upscaling app, like BenVista PhotoZoom.
Pat Cullinan Jr: These images are flat and have a cool cast. I hit some of them hard with Photoshop and achieved snap and pop. I applied White Point to remove the cast. Digital ROC was no help.
Is this a beta example?
Everybody's having a great time on a memorable sunny day.
Thank you, RJ.
Anyone else want to have a say?
Searching: You can hardly call these high octane samples, quite frankly I'm disappointed and was expecting more, these are quite average in every regard.
Expectation Management is a recognized business tool.
These images are flat and have a cool cast. I hit some of them hard with Photoshop and achieved snap and pop. I applied White Point to remove the cast. Digital ROC was no help.
SmilerGrogan: Meerkats FTW. Thanks for getting more furry and feathery subjects in your galleries. They are excellent torture tests for lens-sensor combos and show more about a camera than any 10 star charts.
They're no substitute for possums.
Argh! i went and bought one. I'll take it and photograph the crap out of the Botanic Garden. Then I'll give it to the kid up the block.
mosc: Clearly a superzoom review is in the making. I have some suggestions:
1) Take an FZ200, blow off the dust, and do a 2x crop to 1200mm . Shoot all these f-nothing superzooms and shoot them all at 1200mm. Downsample to 2mp and lets see what's what.2) Repeat the same exercise using crops of other formats at 1200mm. For example a Canon 24mp APS-C with a 16-300 Tameron (or other 300mm cheapy) cropped to 1200mm. Should just about get to 2mp3) Try an FZ1000 400mm cropped 3x to 1200mm equiv, also around 2mp
I think it would really help to show the actual results for something as extreme as 1200mm you can already get out of much more general purpose type solutions. Maybe shed some light (or show the lack of light more accurately) on the real value of incredibly long zoom ranges at well past diffraction resolution/aperture/sensor sizes.
I appreciate the leg work. Sure beats the chin music.
Couscousdelight: How to make a best seller camera in 8 lessons :
Use a small and dull viewfinder.A plastic body.A sensor who lack behind competition in almost every aspect...Forget about internal AF adust, even if the camera is prone to it.Use the famous Canon ergonomy aka "who need a second control dial ?" with a stupid thumb wheel placed too low.Implant Auto-iso without exposure compensation, i mean, who need that ?USB2 transfert for24mpxl, in 2015 : a must-have.
>A high percentage of the units had defective sensors.
Can you provide us with some references or citations?
If this is really the case, it is bad scoop indeed.
bernardly: Canon and Nikon—are you seeing this? Your overpriced 1DX and D4 cameras are being undercut by Samsung with a product that has the same form factor with dramatically lower size, weight and drastically lower price. It includes a lens with all the focal lengths a photog dreams for. You better watch out CaNikon—Samsung is coming after you.
With the side and bottom handles, it does resemble the shtarkers, only it's small, at less that 5in x 5in.
It was announced in January of 2014. And so what.
KonstantinosK: From all the superzoom samples you posted recently, this must have the worst IQ. Terrible sharpening halos...
I'm noticing that some smartphone and tablet photos are disturbingly good, in good light.
What can this spell?
How about that Sony Z3+ with 20MP, 25mm f/2.0? Zow. Only it goes for 699 Euros ($762). Ouch.
Can't save my soul, though.
Again no possum shots.
I actually opened up the foreground with some merciless, macabre curves.
You might get an OK 8x10 from it.
Looks like a lot of detail smudging, especially in the background.