FZ30 - what a shame

xxl

I'm currently using the following cameras:

Kodak 14n

Nikon D100

Canon 350D

Minolta A200

Fuji S5500

I'm always interested in maximising image quality so wherever possible I shoot raw, base ISO, prime lenses and use a tripod.

I find that none of these cameras even the so called silky smooth Canon sensor provides images at ISO 800 that meet my personal taste. Only the Canon can do so at ISO 400 and then only just. All the cameras except the fuji I find completely acceptable at base ISO (although the Kodak benefits from half a stop of overexposure and keeping shutter speeds above 1/15th sec).

I say this just to establish the fact that I am quite aware of noise in images and I don't like it one bit.

Now against that background I can say hand on heart that at base ISO I find no more practical noise at all in the Minolta shots in prints than there is from the Canon (at base ISO). Yes you can see a difference at 100% onscreen but in prints the images are essentially identical.

No I wouldn't use the A200 above ISO 50 but with the anti shake and fast lens that is more than enough for any purposes I would use it for so I utterly reject statements to the effect that 8MP digicams are completely unusable. Certainly the A200 has less visible noise than my Olympus E10 2/3 sensor 4MP DSLR exhibited and people love the image quality from that camera.

There are no cameras currently available that do everything in one package. If you want complete flexibility you will have to buy different types.

I bought my A200 for those times when I needed a small, lightweight pocket camera with a wide zoom range that produced image quality roughly equivalent to entry level DSLRs. I found it.

By the way, my 4MP Fuji produces unpleasant levels of noise even at ISO 64 in anything other than bright sunlight. It was fine on safari in Tanzania but in typical English weather I find it the noisiest camera I've ever come across in jpeg and even worse in raw. I may just have a bad sample because reviewers rate it but mine's a stinker.

xxl said:

WOW, you can't see much of a difference if you restrict yourself to
shooting at ISO 64 in perfect light.
That's incredible.
I always wondered why cameraes have more than a ISO 50 setting
since that is more than enough for 99.99% of all situations.

Click to expand...

Roughtrade's main point is valid.

It is a shame a marvel like the Panasonic; fast electronics, good lens, etc. is partly spoiled by the megapixel hype.

Please stop making the point of comparing it with DSLR or about putting a bigger sensor in...this is not possible because we want a "pocketable" camera with a superzoom lens...this means a tiny sensor.

The point of discussion here is: what's the effect of lowering the megapixels/increasing pixel size?

Most people don't need 8Mpix...a sharp, no noise, 2Mpix image produces nice A3 prints for mounting on a wall. For use in an album (watching nearby) 5 Mpix might be needed to have very sharp A4's (e.g.identifing peoples faces in group portraits). But besized resolution we also have SNR, Dynamic range, true colors, etc. For all these properties everybody has minimum requirements. For me the SNR is too high on the current crop of camera's and for a lot of other people, because what we do now is after taking the picture sacrificing the resolution again to have lower noise. While the hardware and memory vendors are smiling, because of the large files :-(

I liked the technical discussion about the influence of resizing on SNR and Dynamic range. Another small point in favor of bigger pixels is less place is proportionally lost for circuitry (or at least pixel borders) on the sensor.

This megapixel hype is pure marketing and makes me also very angree at the masses, who are not always right...history has proven this many times (the earth is flat...etc). I also think the online reviewers need a good dynamic range test instead of focusing that much on resolution.

I'am eagerlee waiting for the next Fuji superzoom, since they have tried to not sheepishly follow the market and tried to bring the message that resolution is not the beginning and end of everything.

neuron09 said:

I agree with this comment totally. There are too many DSLR elists,
who think their pounds of expensive equipment makes them a good
photographer.

Click to expand...

Some of them use DSLRs. A photographer is a type of person too. Some of them use digicams.

(I'm a point & shoot, but I don't use a DSLR, or want to.)

It is clear that there are some people who prefer to believe their pet theories above mere facts (very Platonic).

So I've decided to conduct a little experiment.

The attached image file was originally shot on my A200. It's nothing more than a casual snapshot taken in very dim light on a grey, overcast rainy day.

The shot is of the weir and Pultney Bridge in Bath.

Rather than post the original file, Ive decided to do something different. I scanned a print (somewhat scruffy one too) on my Epson 3200 scanner. This is a jpeg of the print resized so it will look about the same size on screen as the actual approx 10 x 8 inch print.

I'd be interested to know whether people see evidence of and I quote "unusable" noise levels...

xxl said:

Interesting comment Lin, - so large sales- and user numbers are
automatically a measure of the better tecnical compromise?
If we extrapolate that "logic" to a broader range of subject, the
result is truly interesting.
While I do not agree with the immature and emotional tone on both
sides of the issue, I must agree, that from a purely image point of
view, it would have been a much better compromise to use fewer, but
larger photosites.
It's not really a great quality to have clearly visible noise even
at base ISO, never mind higher ISO values.
Especially when it's not neccesary.
I find any discussion of the unfortunate out of control mega-MP
trend valuable, I just wish people would stay calm and not get so
emotionally over what is after all merely toys.

Click to expand...

Lin,

May I suggest that you should not dignify some of these
postings with your replies. We have been seeing a
blizzard of deprecating remarks about several new
and interesting products lately. A lot of the comments
are juvenile and show nothing but bias and poor judgement.

Too many people identify with the camera they own
to the extent they need to trash anything that they see
as a threat. I tend to treat them as juvenile responses
which are counterproductive to any real merit in the post.

I think the improvements in cameras for serious camera
enthusiasts are remarkable at this time and, if there was
ever a time to look at alternatives to a DSLR, it is now. The
DSLR has its place, but then so do cameras with smaller
sensors, when you want the DOF, or need a more compact
package.

Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html

The best, most exciting camera to come out in a while, and to you it's totally useles?. Your loss. Are Canon owners feeling threatened? Sure is downright silly to call a camera useless because it wasn't designed to your personal specs. Maybe next time Panasonic will listen to your personal agenda a bit more closely - but then you'd be the only buyer.

Don't get up, - those more suited for blue collar work will always find work if they try hard enough.

Many word, - most totally besides the point.

The issue is the quality of the choice Panasonics made when forcing 8MP on that tiny pinhead sensor.

That has nothing to do with any of the irrelevant things you for whatever reason chose to introduce into the debate.

A Jaguar with rectangular wheels would stilll have a splendid real wood dashboard and nice instrumentation, - not to mention real leather seats, but round wheels still is a much more intelligent choice.............

It's funny how any form of valid criticism appears to be heresy at this site, I would much prefer a less childish and less emotional approach, but hey, it's just toys and absolutely nothing important, so I guess I will survive.
Have a noisy weekend!

So many word, - most totally besides the point.
How predictable.

The issue is the quality of the choice Panasonics made when forcing 8MP on that tiny pinhead sensor.

That has nothing to do with any of the irrelevant things you for whatever reason chose to introduce into the debate.

A Jaguar with rectangular wheels would stilll have a splendid real wood dashboard and nice instrumentation, - not to mention real leather seats, but round wheels still is a much more intelligent choice.............

It's funny how any form of valid criticism appears to be heresy at this site, I would much prefer a less childish and less emotional approach, but hey, it's just toys and absolutely nothing important, so I guess I will survive.

Have a noisy weekend!

Lots of words, - and Again all TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Do you have a valid opinion on MP vs. noise or is ANY discussion of marketing driven design so politically incorrect that is approached heresy?

And Kennedy was killed by little green men from mars..........

Do you have a valid opinion on sensors size vs. noise vs. MP, - or are you just using you constitutional right to utter irrelevant remarks?

Laurens said:

rant

I blame the whole camera phone craze for making the public ignorant
of what a reasonable quality picture looks like. Even the days of
single-use Kodaks were better!

Click to expand...

They still sell single use Kodaks just for you

tko said:

The best, most exciting camera to come out in a while, and to you
it's totally useles?. Your loss. Are Canon owners feeling
threatened? Sure is downright silly to call a camera useless
because it wasn't designed to your personal specs. Maybe next time
Panasonic will listen to your personal agenda a bit more closely -
but then you'd be the only buyer.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. To the point and on topic.

I am a user that regularly uses 7mp on my current camera and look forward to the FZ30. I find ISO 200 and even 400 usable with my current 7mp camera.

The all round feature set fits MY needs perfectly.

I'm enjoying my weekend with my 7mp camera and will do the same with an FZ30 when they start selling them here

230k evf and LCD are just two of the feature set I'm looking forward to. Not features at all to me, real benefits

Bring it on Pannasonic.

..from your fz camera here? i'm interested to see how good is it as you claim. i've seen how extremely good the macros coming from the entry level DSLRs like XT, DS, e300, D70 and some from fuji prosumer cameras. but claiming it to rival or exceed your $8000 DLSR's macro is a bit of overstatement, unless you use a cheap non-marco lens in your $8000 DSLR.

Lin Evans said:

I can show you incredible macros made with FZ cameras which rival
or exceed anything I can do with my $8000 dSLR's.

Click to expand...

--
exp1orer
my gallery: http://www.pbase.com/explorer

No b* text, you d* mn forum software!!

...your next fz40/50/60 and so on will probably have the same ISO perfomance or might even be worse. this kind of post is welcomed, IMO. i'm glad roughtrade started this thread.

voices in afka_bob's head said:

Well, there's facts, but the application of said facts is
diminished by the hyperbolic conclusion of worthlessness.

Like you said, why should r-trade get so emotional about his
dislike of this particular camera?

Click to expand...

--
exp1orer
my gallery: http://www.pbase.com/explorer

This is exactly why manufacturers tend not to allow previews to include pre-production photo samples (or sometimes, just no previews at all).

roughtrade said:

What a shame, that what could have been a truly nice little camera
turned out to be a totally useless noisemachine among all the
others.

Click to expand...

Have you somehow not noticed Phil's rather heavy emphasis on the fact that this is a "preproduction" model he tested, and not a finished product? You know, the notice that Phil highlighted in a bright green, so that you'd notice it separately from the other text on his Samples page? In case you did, it read like so:

"Pre-production disclaimer: Note that all the images in the gallery below are from a pre-production Lumix DMC-FZ30, there may be differences in image quality from these samples to that of the final production cameras."

Not to mention the other four times he pointed out that the camera he had is not a finished product. The odds of this camera being released without polishing off the image processing (amongst other things) are zero.

roughtrade said:

When will a major manufacturer have the courage to swim against the
tide and realize that all those many millions of pixels, - that the
target audience have no use for anyway, - on a pinhead size sensor
is a very, very stupid idea.
Zero dynamic range combined with tons of noise is such a braindead

Click to expand...

What makes you think this camera has "zero dynamic range"? Considering some of the shots I saw with the extremely steep shadows, yet still appearing to have some detail within those shadows, I think this camera if anything is above average with respect to DR.

roughtrade said:

All the other changes are great, - but increasing the pixelcount is
completely moronic.

Click to expand...

Yes, attempting to improve on current technology makes no sense at all when it comes to electronic products.

When Panasonic releases a finished FZ30, and the photo samples still look just as noisy, feel free to repost your opinions about what horrid image quality the camera has. In the mean time, please quietly sit back and take a moment to consider the fact that you are the perfect example of why manufacturers are often unwilling to let out advance information about future products.

--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

...one might say, were it said, say, ifive seconds -- rather than five hours -- later.

OK.

Hmmmmm.... looking up "rampling" in Webster's.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=14345577

The need, it seems, is universal!

...your sage self:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14339917

"I can't recalll any other forum where people become so emotional over their toys.

Seems childish to me."

Quite.