Previous news story Next news story

Updated: Panasonic DMC-FZ150 studio samples re-shot

Sep 8, 2011 at 23:37:00 GMT

STUDIO SAMPLES PANASONIC

Pin It

Print view

Just posted: Updated Panasonic DMC-FZ150 studio comparison shots. We've just re-shot our standard studio test scene with the latest firmware (1.0), and these are now in the comparison tool. During the process, we were able to compare the improvements made between the pre-production image output from firmware v0.2 and the final, consumer-ready quality. As well as updating the samples, we've made a demonstration of the difference.

Click here to compare the Panasonic DMC-FZ150 firmware v1.0 shots to the cameras of your choice

Just what difference can JPEG engine fine-tuning make?

Below are comparisons between firmware 0.2 (the pre-production firmware we were allowed to use in our pre-production samples gallery), and firmware v1.0. In each instance, the top two rows of images are the JPEGs, with v0.2 on the left and v1.0 on the right. Their respective Raw conversions are shown underneath them, to show the difference is all down to image processing, not differences in focus.

ISO 1600

Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3

ISO 3200

Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3

Comments

Total comments: 50

Give v1.0 to the CHDK guys ... ;-)

0 upvotes

what is CHDK ? I could not guess..

0 upvotes

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

Would love to have that on my LX-5. Scripts! (for example, shot when detecting movement. Or programmable, flexible bracketing --- like bracket 9 images changing two parameters in a matrix way). I really do not understand why no vendor offer something similar.

0 upvotes

IMO v1.0 looks fairly better, images are crispy and sharp, but...unfortunately at high ISOs the yellow blotches are still there! V=0.2 offered softer images but smoother noise (and much less yellow stains!!!!).
I think I'll keep my old FZ35
AJEJE

0 upvotes

This is a great demonstration of just how much difference good firmware makes. With the releasefirmware even 1600 becomes vaguely useful...

1 upvote

To me it has the same Sony 12mp sensor that SX230
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=39316514

0 upvotes

SX230 HS 1/2.3 (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
FZ150 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
FZ100 1/2.33" (6.12 x 4.51 mm)

so less than 2% size difference makes the difference? 2% is insignificant.

As a panasonic fan, I am not comfortable comparing SX230HS output with FZ150 output.

1 upvote

I am not saying that FZ150 is that good because of it's slightly bigger sensor compared to FZ100 no, my point was that FZ150's sensor has the same dimensions that all other Sony's cmos (and ccds to) sensor wich is 1/2.3 (6.17 x 4.55 mm) when all other pana's compact's sensors including FZ100 cmos have dimensions of 1/2.33" (6.12 x 4.51 mm) which makes my think that the sensor on FZ150 is the same Sony's sensor seen on canon sx230
I jute copied pasted my own message on that forum :)

0 upvotes

In ISO 1600 jpg V1.0 , The word "INDIAN" in the dark navy blue in "Indian ocean" mark, in light blue background are distinctly "readable" which were only guessable in V0.2.

Colors are slightly better too. Especially not too much 'water color' like v0.2.

Good. I did not like that output with V0.2. Now IQ is surely a little better despite a little coarse.

I am not clear why ISO 400 which is more commonly used was not considered for comparison displays here.

1 upvote

I don't understand why RAW is much noisier than JPG. I would have thought the opposite

0 upvotes

Not very much at all.Probably not visible in print.
Most could probably be attributed to the higher sharpness and increased saturation. RAW also gives noise control in LR that is very good.

0 upvotes

To make it clear, the Raw files are processed with our standard process, which is to turn noise reduction down as low as it'll go in Adobe Camera Raw.

However, there is no reason to expect a Raw file (which normally wouldn't have any noise reduction applied at all), to be less noisy than an out-of-camera JPEG (which almost always have noise reduction applied). As has been said, having access to the Raw data gives you the ability to apply more sophisticated noise reduction and produce a better final image.

0 upvotes

Mr Butler,
when compared with SX230HS, I still see FZ150 lacks both sharpness and saturation. I don't think it is be merely due to post processing of SX230HS, but rather due to FZ150's too many lens elements in compact body caused desaturated, less detailed output. I know this is apple to orange, but I don't see another apple to compare with.

So at this situation I think basic wide angle studioshot comparison is going to do no justice for FZ150. I know you will take a real world zoom shot and do comparisons too. But, Would it be possible to create a widget like the one you have for lens reivews? where users can move the zoom of the lens and aperture to understand the total performance and weakness of camera?

1 upvote

Apart Martini bottle area FZ150 clearly outperforms FZ35

0 upvotes

WOW. I'm amazed at the JPG difference of the face at 1600. The LHS looks so soft in comparison with the RHS.

0 upvotes

Maybe I have some eye problem but I really cannot see any improvment on the jpgs. Just look at the face in the coin. The small detail it had was lost, and it looks smeared.
Even with RAW files detail is lost. Look at the map picture: the word INDIAN is much more visible in the original FW picture!!!
I really don't understand why almost everyone is so excited with this new FW. Pictures don't look better at all!!

0 upvotes

Either you do have some eye problem, or you have the order wrong:
- LEFT side is the OLD firmware (pre-release 0.2)
- RIGHT side is the NEW firmware (release 1.0)

The face shot with fw 1.0 has *much* more detail than the one shot w. fw 0.2. Ditto for the "INDIAN" on the map.

RAW is unchanged in both, as should be expected.

0 upvotes

You're right, I also thought left was new, probably because the '2' figure. I think Dpreview should mark it more clear.
NEW FW IS ON THE RIGHT !

1 upvote

aaaaaahh!! Ok... now that makes sense!!! I thought the new one was the 0.2. I'm glad it's not!!

0 upvotes

Huge improvement. More fine detail, less smearing, although it looks like they did all the work in the luminance, the chroma noise got crisper and didn't increase.

Still, big improvement. I find it easier to remove chroma noise in post processing than luminance noise.

0 upvotes

Perhaps I'm just not sensitive enough to see, but I can barely see much differences among the pictures. Even the 11 year old CAnon S100 looks to be in the ballpark

0 upvotes

If you can't see a BIG difference on the JPEGs, then go buy the "Barbie photo cam" instead of this one!

Just joking, please take no offence, but hey, they are night and day.

0 upvotes

BitFarmer,
I am not blind.. I see difference, but just a little like Corpy2 said practically not night and day. If you think it is night and day, meet your doctor.

p.s: you seriously lack sense of humor. Please avoid trying any joke.

0 upvotes

Do not forget that what you can see depends on the quality of your display screen/graphics card not just the picture. The text legibility is markedly different and the pictures look much sharper.

0 upvotes

Greynerd,
Please.
The IQ of SX230HS was slightly better than FZ150 V0.2. Now FZ150 V2.0 it is even closer, almost same.

It is possible that my monitor was purchased in 1995 or I am partially blind. We cannot rule out such a possibility. But in such a case, just like I won't be able to 'see' the difference between v0.2 and v1.0, I should NOT be able to 'see' the difference between FZ150 V0.2 and SX230HS . right ? But I could see more difference then. That proves I am able to differentiate between slightly different outputs of SX230 and FZ150 and hence there is no vision or monitor problem.

If BitFarmer said were correct, that there is night and day difference between FZ150 V0.2 and V1.0, then, SX20HS gives output better than FZ150 with a difference night and day too (though artificial saturation,sharpening) and hence we must conclude to avoid FZ150 and buy only SX230HS. neither I agree this conclusion.

0 upvotes

I agree with those that don't see much difference. If I really wanted better results at 1600 iso and above I would get a dslr. But I suppose people would pull out their magnifiers and quibble over pictures from one of those.

1 upvote

Yup, much-much better JPEG quality - pretty much comparable to the SX230 HS (unlike with FW 0.2) now and way better than both the FZ100 and the DSC-HX100V. Well done Pana!

2 upvotes

Camera makers should start giving us noise reduction selection, even on point and shoots. Many good cams, which can do quite well, even with noise, are crippled with NR and manufacturers are relying on NR to seemingly make the pictures, not help clean them up.

0 upvotes

Agreed. It's the NR and subsequent sharpening that seriously degrades the IQ of the Nikon P300 (at least compared to the 1/1.7" cameras and the older Pana TZ/ZS series; e.g., the ZS3).

0 upvotes

dpreview, I'm interested as how you see this new firmware as an "improvement". What little detail there was originally has been smeared over with excessive noise reduction. I find it hard to believe Panasonic would feel viewing these photos would be an inducement to potential customers to buy this camera.

0 upvotes

You've probably made the mistake I made at first. New firmware images are in the right hand column.

1 upvote

I second digitall.
Actually noise reduction is applied less and photos are slightly sharper and better though looking rough.

0 upvotes

The higher the ISO the more the improvement can be seen, particularly the raw globe at 3200. I appreciate DPReview being all front page about the update.

But I got to wonder who is to blame for wasting our time pouring over the earlier images. Panasonic for releasing the cameras for review when they knew the firmware was going to make such a difference. Or the publishers racing forward with data when asked not to by the manufacturer.

This site is awesome and thank you. But I think I might know why so few reviews have surfaced.

2 upvotes

Exellent!Thank you Dpreview! Now we are waitng for update of the sample images gallery!

1 upvote

The conclusions - one can take - are quite different, IMO:
1 - Of course, the updated (from an early version) firmware is supposed to do better, specially in what the "jpg engine" is concerned; this can be clearly seen...
2 - Regarding "sensor IQ quality" - RAW files territory - the "gain" is more marginal from version 0.2 to 1.0; again, this is obvious from the pictures...

So, definitively firmware 1.0 produces better IQ, but the improvements are not night-and-day, in other words, firmware updates (can) make a difference, but miracles can't be expected... :)

Best regards,
Pedro

1 upvote

They appear to have done a decent job with this. If you compare the raw file to the Lx5, Canon S95, and Olympus XZ-1, this camera is right in there at iso 800.

1 upvote

I own an S95, so I was piqued by your remark.
Surely a 1/2.3" sensor cannot equal a 1/1.7" sensor that has been shown to be the best there is in todays market ?
But after checking the RAWs myself, I have to agree. Panasonic has a winner here. I wonder who makes the sensor ?

1 upvote

It's likely a Panasonic sensor, since they make various sensors, just like Canon and Sony and Samsung.

0 upvotes

No, Canon, Nikon and very likely Samsung as well use SONY sensors for their P&S cameras. So far only Olympus/Panasonic and Fuji use their own sensor. However, because the sensor size of the FZ150 is identical with the SONY 12 Mp sensor, there is a faint possibility that FZ150 is equipped with the SONY sensor, which would be great, as this sensor is definitely one of the best. Panasonic sensors have been traditionally noisier than Sony's ones.

0 upvotes

Bravo to DPReview for not only updating the jpegs in the widget, but for putting this front page. The photos show that there is visible difference in IQ from the shots taken with the early firmware. And a bravo to Panasonic for updating the firmware for better jpeg output.

3 upvotes

Firm ware 1 is better. Detail suffers with noise reduction.

0 upvotes

Thanks for this.
I am glad to see a clear reason for not jumping to conclusions based on the earliest samples from a new camera.

3 upvotes

I'm at a loss as to why this just-another-small-sensored superzoom is getting so much attention.

1 upvote

Maybe because Panasonic superzooms are relatively popular. And maybe because this one (like many Panasonics) atleast offers RAW support. ;)

2 upvotes

Went to the state-fair, all i seen is a bunch of superzooms.

0 upvotes

For most people, the new superzooms provide all the quality and features they need. Baring the need for ruggedness, pocketability, and budget concerns, they don't need any other camera.

If i didn't decide i needed SLR quality, i'd just own a super zoom.

4 upvotes

It is small and light, big zoom range, EVF, articulating LCD, video, raw files. The IQ from the raw files is very good for such a small sensor.

0 upvotes

i own both & very rarely carry the heavy cumbersome d40
he majority of people , do not need them

0 upvotes

What large sensored superzomm are you thinking of then? I understood a small sensor was essential for this sort of camera.

0 upvotes

If your monitor is good the jpeg improvement is very obvious. Yet I do believe their is some, not so obvious slight improvement in the raw as well. the "I"s and Final "N" in Indian Ocean at 3200 raw are considerably better in the new firmware. But at the same time, A. B. C. & D, really is relevant:

A. Version 1.O images are all on the right.
B. I just was just last month fited with a very good eyeglass prescription.
C. My monitor is adiquate with good video card and latest drivers, as well as set to optimum resilution an refresh. Sony TV, 32" Bravia XBR9, in my case.

But if a person either can not see the differences or isn't willing to invest in a good physical ability to differentiate. That is fine for them. In truth I have transient visual impairment do to baby brain stroke induced double vision. But even then I feel obligated to present the best work with the best tools I can afford.

That means also comparing brands.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 50


Just posted: Our Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM preview samples gallery Jun 4, 2013	Studio scene comparison pages added to Pentax MX-1 preview May 22, 2013	Just posted: Pentax MX-1 Preview Samples May 3, 2013	Just posted: Canon EOS 100D + EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM samples gallery Apr 25, 2013

	Pentax Efina Jun 3, 2013
	Olympus PEN E-P5 May 10, 2013
	Samsung NX2000 May 1, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Apr 24, 2013
	Ricoh GR Apr 17, 2013
	Samsung NX1100 Apr 11, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Apr 9, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix S8400W Mar 22, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix XP200 Mar 22, 2013

Sobering Sales Numbers for Mirrorless	150
Hmmm AF fine tuning : Bullsh#t	80
New Pentax K-50 leaked	77
Mirrorless & DSLR Jan-April shipment & ...	47
How to turn my Canon PowerShot S3 IS into a ...	44
Thom Hogan: DSLRs going obsolete	42
K5(II) SD Card Door Coming Open	42
Sigma 60/2.8... sigma be damned (for its ...	41
Help me create the best 6D system on a $3500 ...	39
Still no signs of an Olympus f2.8 zoom?	39
Selecting Camera	39
electronic first curtain shutter - on or off?	37
USPS... The worst mail servie in the world	36
Replacing Olympus OM-D with Fuji XE-1 or Xpro-1	32
micro 4/3s , Owls IF	32
Done Deal - Switched to Fuji XE-1 from ...	32
What's Happening to Sony Stores?	31
Focal reducers, why complexity for the sake of ...	30
Too many pixels ? so why not reducing it ...	30
Yet another also-ran from Nikon.	29

Your email address:
Your name: