Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ30 & FZ50 compairson shots

Go to last post
B

biloxi

Well-known member
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA, US
On a perfect San Diego mid-morning day. Temp 70 Humidity 70

My old FZ30 and my new FZ50

Both Cameras set for 10 second delay. Placed on a towel on a concrete seawall so there should be no camera shake. ALL setting were exactly the same including picture adjustment that was set to standard in both cameras.

except for resizing and compressing there was NO POST PROCESSING

Resized to 1024x768 with microsoft office picture manager

FZ30 1000 4.0 100



FZ50 1000 4.0 100



FZ30 160 10.00 100



FZ50 160 10.00 100



Compressed to 1024x768 with microsoft office picture manager

FZ30 500 6.3 100



FZ50 500 6.3 100



Fz30 1000 6.3 100



FZ50 1000 6.3 100

 
Just as I feared, that $600 I have laying around is getting closer to being on the 'endangered' list. 8^)

Thanks for the effort in taking and posting these. There appears to be a significant difference in sky noise, which is one of my least-liked "features" of the '30, and I certainly don't see any loss in detail at this resolution.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
I don't have an FZ30, but browsed this forum for weeks checking out which prosumer camera to buy having discounted DSLR's on the basis of bulk (cost was simply not an issue at any price!). I read about the noise on the FZ30 and decided to wait for the promised improvements in the FZ50 which I pre-ordered and received by post the day after ukdigital.co.uk had them in stock here in the UK.

From every other post I've seen there didn't seem enough improvement over the 30 to justify an existing 30 user upgrading, but seeing your pictures above, I'd say that conclusion is wrong.

Just looking at the first two pictures, the FZ50 clearly shows more detail AND less noise. RAW shooting and Neat Image would have yielded an even better result had the situation required it.

I don't need anyone to convince me I bought the right camera. I KNOW I did from the pictures I've taken already, and the BRILLIANT shots that Anne G posts!

The other comparison in another thread sounded awfully like the 'pumpers and dumpers' posts that abound on the Yahoo shares boards.

At last, a CONTROLLED test, unlike the joke in the other thread.

--
Colin
 
Where did you see more detail in the FZ50 shots? I did not see much noise in any of the pics. I saw very little difference in the shots at all. I think you are trying to justify your purchase. Yes, in low light High ISO pics, you will notice less noise in the FZ50 but you will definetly see the loss of detail as compared to the FZ30. The Venus III engine really does a number on those types of pics. I will take the noise, much easier to deal with than soft smeared pics.
 
Bear 740 said:
Where did you see more detail in the FZ50 shots? I did not see
much noise in any of the pics. I saw very little difference in the
shots at all. I think you are trying to justify your purchase.
Yes, in low light High ISO pics, you will notice less noise in the
FZ50 but you will definetly see the loss of detail as compared to
the FZ30. The Venus III engine really does a number on those types
of pics. I will take the noise, much easier to deal with than soft
smeared pics.
Click to expand...
Oh Bear, you make me laugh... knda...

Are you looking at the same pictures as us? We're looking at the pictures at the top of this thread.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Panasonic Lumix FZ50
http://joesiv.smugmug.com
 
I am trying to work out what happened with the first FZ30 pics... Why is the seaweed out of focus and blurred...wether the FZ30 has a venus 2 or 3 the blurred seaweed is not down to the engine...
--

If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize, print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
LX1
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

 
Seems to me that the FZ50 pictures are slightly crisper/sharper with somewhat less noise. This is simply ME looking at what was provided in the OP.

BUT, there is definitely something wrong with the first FZ30 shot. Look at the pier railing. Kind of "fuzzy" wouldn't you say? If I put my FZ30 on a fixed surface at ISO 100, there is no way it would look like that. Moreover, compare the first FZ30 shot to the ISO 160 FZ30 shot -- where the railing is slightly more distinct than at ISO 100. Maybe the lens is happier at f/10 than at f/4, -- but I doubt it. And my understanding is that the FZ30 and FZ50 have the same lens, so that's not it. Something must have "happened" in the process of taking picture #1.

In any event, for all the worry warts out there... it seems that the FZ50 does indeed offer a slight improvement in IQ (IMO), but not a quantum leap. FZ30 folks should still be satisfied with their camera (assuming they already are) and FZ50 owners should be happy with theirs. For those with $600 burning a hole in their pocket, they should do whatever makes them happy. The magnifying-glass issues are simply that -- minutia.

Although I appreciate this post, can we now move beyond the layman's lab-testing phase and get on with some "photography" instead?

--
JF
 
I've got to stop looking at these FZ30 vs FZ50 comparisons. I have an FZ30 that - until this post - I have been very content with. Now I am having to face the evidence (shown very well by biloxo) that the FZ50 takes significantly sharper photos than the FZ30 - even in broad daylight (to say nothing about the FZ50's obvious advantage in low light).

Please, someone reveal that biloxi's FZ30 had a dirty lens or that its focus was not working or.........

Wish I had a spare $600. :-(

--
Frumious



http://frumious.smugmug.com/
 
JG789 said:
To my old eye's, many of the FZ30 shots are simply not focused.

Jerry
Click to expand...
Just a few points.

The questions I would ask are: what metering and what method of focusing was used to take the images? The first ones - mostly the highlights are blown ( look at the wave-crests!)! Others, particularly the last two, are well under-exposed! So it would be neccessary to expose using maybe a Kodak Grey Card to be accurate enough for tests. What were the metering methods applied?

Was manual focus employed or was it auto-focus? If the latter, where was the focus point? It shouldn't be on the waves as they are mobile and can mislead the camera! The focus would have to be on a fixed point, preferably with single point focus - in which case where was this point?

Looking at the first pics, were the individual camera's shutter release pressing simulatneously as there seems to be an extraordinary amount repeat detail in both the FZ30 and FZ50 images?

It's not really possible, even with this set of images to draw any reasonable conclusions of which camera is best ( if any).

They are certainly not precise enough and will only lead to more confusion and I'm affraid wrong conclusions! But there again, people will always see what they want to see!
Regards...
Tony

--



http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/monochrometests.htm
 
FZ30 and FZ50, especially in the sky between the lamp posts in the last 2 pics. Amazingly bad.

And I am a pana fan!

Regards

Trevor Ginaus

http://trevorg.smugmug.com
biloxi said:
On a perfect San Diego mid-morning day. Temp 70 Humidity 70

My old FZ30 and my new FZ50

Both Cameras set for 10 second delay. Placed on a towel on a
concrete seawall so there should be no camera shake. ALL setting
were exactly the same including picture adjustment that was set to
standard in both cameras.

except for resizing and compressing there was NO POST PROCESSING
Click to expand...
 
The images from the FZ-50 look ever so slightly sharper in some areas of the image, (and I mean slightly) but not worth making me get rid of my FZ-30 and buy an FZ-50. I would like to see side by side tests like this but with the availability of the RAW files.

I'll stick with the devil I know. ;)
 
tonymp said:
JG789 said:
To my old eye's, many of the FZ30 shots are simply not focused.

Jerry
Click to expand...
Just a few points.
The questions I would ask are: what metering and what method of
focusing was used to take the images? The first ones - mostly the
highlights are blown ( look at the wave-crests!)! Others,
particularly the last two, are well under-exposed! So it would be
neccessary to expose using maybe a Kodak Grey Card to be accurate
enough for tests. What were the metering methods applied?
Was manual focus employed or was it auto-focus? If the latter,
where was the focus point? It shouldn't be on the waves as they are
mobile and can mislead the camera! The focus would have to be on a
fixed point, preferably with single point focus - in which case
where was this point?
Looking at the first pics, were the individual camera's shutter
release pressing simulatneously as there seems to be an
extraordinary amount repeat detail in both the FZ30 and FZ50 images?
It's not really possible, even with this set of images to draw any
reasonable conclusions of which camera is best ( if any).
They are certainly not precise enough and will only lead to more
confusion and I'm affraid wrong conclusions! But there again,
people will always see what they want to see!
Regards...
Tony

--



http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/monochrometests.htm
Click to expand...
Focus looks out on the FZ-30...as you say this sort of shot is of no use to anyone. If people want to do comparison shots..please do them properly and in a varying lighting conditions...with identical setting, focus, exposure etc...

--

 
Bear,

If you can't see more detail in the first FZ50 pic compared to the 1st FZ30 pic then you should give up photography because you're BLIND!

--
Colin
 
I just don't do well shooting the bar codes on Coke cans.

Well since the FZ30 is going to my 13 year old one could say I'm not getting rid of it. But now back to the photos. I live a block from the ocean and one of my favorite subjects in the OB Pier. Just over 1/2 mile long and a great place to walk and take photos. Most "classic" shots framed and for sale around town feature the pier. So I guess all of my shots are of some value. I have won Photo awards with the 20 and the 30 so I know I have the eye.

The "Panna Challange" was for all settings the same on both cameras, auto focus on 3 area high speed, multiple metering mode and the shutter delay set at 10 seconds. The cameras were sitting on a concrete wall and I lined up the shots on the LCD screen. I then pressed both shutter buttons at about the same time and walked away. What happened at the end of 10 seconds is what I posted. I agree the 30 seems slightly out of focus. But that's what I got. I'm sure you looked at all my posts from yesterday with drastically different lighting. Some shots like the sail boat in the sun looked like it came from a Canon D20 but the FZ30 blew the shot completely.

I'm now convinced the 50 takes better shots but before yesterday I was on the fence because I have shot about 25,000 photos with the FZ30 and I believe in my camera. Not better as in little differences in sharpness but better at capturing what I see without having to spend an hour trying to recreate it in front of my computer.

There is nothing scientific about walking around with a camera on your neck, it's all about seeing the shot and actually getting what you saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top