FZ30 vs FZ50 ISO400 RAW

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

Was feeling bored. So, I thought I would entertain myself with some FZ30/FZ50 ISO comparison. Manual mode. Tripod and shutter release cable. Indoor at night. 100 watt bulb light source. Full zoom, f/4. 1/5 sec for FZ30 and 1/4 sec for FZ50, set according to each cameras meter. ISO 400. Converted to JPEG with ACR 3.5. Same ACR settings for both cameras with NR and sharpening set to zero. Three shots taken with each camera with similar results.
FZ30 resized, not cropped

FZ50 resized, not cropped

Now 100% crops, not esized.
FZ30, centre

FZ50, centre

FZ30 left upper corner

FZ50 left upper corner

FZ30 right upper corner

FZ50 right upper corner

FZ30 right lower corner

FZ50 right lower corner

FZ30 left lower corner

FZ50 left lower corner

Why the corner images from FZ30 so fuzzy? Is it 10 mp Vs 8 mp? Or something else? Both cameras are pretty noisy at 100%, although can be cleaned up reasonably well with PP. In smaller sizes, they are not that bad.
aftab
PS. These images are for entertainment only.

IdeaChaser · Sep 23, 2006

I don't have a digital camera, but what is the purpose of showing the crops? I would never print those kinds of pics. Also, where is the FZ50 non cropped pic? Thanks.

IdeaChaser · Sep 23, 2006

Never mind about the FZ50 full pic; obviously I missed it.

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

IdeaChaser said:
I don't have a digital camera, but what is the purpose of showing
the crops? I would never print those kinds of pics. Also, where is
the FZ50 non cropped pic? Thanks.

Sorry, if you are not entertained.
BTW, are you thinking of buying a digital camera yet?
aftab

IdeaChaser · Sep 23, 2006

It has nothing to do with being entertained; just really trying to understand reasons for crops...if you have a reason that would help me understand, that would be nice, thanks anyway. Trying to learn!!!

Gerd Gldenast · Sep 23, 2006

Dear IdeaChaser,

the reason of 100% crops is, that if you want to see really fine nuances in the image quality of todays cameras you have to do these crops to see the differences and judge about the technical quality.

If they are of any practical value for everyday photography is to be doubted.

@aftab

I really appreciaty your kind of pixel peeping. You do it with the right attitude. Without the urge to prove anything wrong or right. Thank you a lot for these very nice test shots. I would really be interested in having the raw-files. Would it be possible to send them to me?

Gerd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Let your own reasoning be your guide, not other people's opinions.

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

IdeaChaser said:
It has nothing to do with being entertained; just really trying to
understand reasons for crops...if you have a reason that would help
me understand, that would be nice, thanks anyway. Trying to learn!!!

Crops tell us whats happening at the pixel level, how the sensor and image processing engine behaving etc. If I didn't look at the crops I wouldn't have noticed the difference between the corner images from two cameras. It is useful when comparing cameras. In real life though, crops have little value unless of course you want to print large or you regularly crop your images(eg, when shooting wildlife).
aftab
PS. Didn't you read the last line of my first post?

ejmartin · Sep 23, 2006

Focal plane looks slightly different between the two shots; the FZ30 shot
looks sharper in the center (or should I say centre) but softer in the corners,
while the FZ50 shot is the other way around. Did you take several shots,
refocussing between each, in order to minimize issues with autofocus
accuracy?
--
emil
--

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

MightyMike · Sep 23, 2006

It looks liike the middle of the FZ50 shot is softer but the edges are much crisper... with the edges being crisper either they tweaked the lens design or this has something to do with focus (back or front), i'm leaning more towards a lens tweak... as for the center though that seems like a slight focus differece... what is interesting is that sometimes one looks like it has more noise and then other times it has less noise... so i see no conclusion on the noise issue in these pictures.... thanks for the test... I enjoyed comparing them
--
Mike from Canada

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=31&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

I would be quite happy to send you the RAW files. I need your address though. If you don't want to mention it here, please click my profile and send me a mail. When you have done so, please let me know here, beacause I don't open that account often. Is there any other way of doing this?
aftab

photosmarty · Sep 23, 2006

yeah...nice comparison Aftab, I already have the FZ50 and am reaping the benefits......I was certainly entertained!

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

ejmartin said:
Focal plane looks slightly different between the two shots; the
FZ30 shot
looks sharper in the center (or should I say centre) but softer in
the corners,
while the FZ50 shot is the other way around. Did you take several
shots,
refocussing between each, in order to minimize issues with autofocus
accuracy?
--
emil
--

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

--

Yes, I took three shots with each camera refocussing between each. Couple of weeks ago(before ACR3.5) I took similar JPEG shots of this globe with both cameras and noticed the same thing. At that time i thought it probably had to do with VE2 vs VE3. Now, I am not sure.
aftab

Kurt Horsley · Sep 23, 2006

--To my eye, the noise levels look exactly the same. I hope this proves that adding more pixels does not necessarliy cause more noise. I always have, and still do, suspect that fz30 and 50 have the exact same size pixel sites.

And, there may indeed have been a lens tweak. I've noticed my fz50 is slightly more prone to lens flare than the fz30 was. Might just be an optical coating change or perhaps an actual lens tweak, but I definitely see more lens flare in direct sun light. This is just a personal observation...I do not have any firm evidence that there was a lens modification. But, it would explain the slightly lower weight of the fz50.
-Kurt Horsley

sansin · Sep 23, 2006

IdeaChaser said:
I don't have a digital camera, but what is the purpose of showing
the crops? I would never print those kinds of pics. Also, where is
the FZ50 non cropped pic? Thanks.

IdeaChaser,

such posts will NOT seem of any importance to you once you get your digital camera. Until you get yours, let us learn from such posts. Such posts are very important to us.

sansin · Sep 23, 2006

sansin said:
IdeaChaser said:

I don't have a digital camera, but what is the purpose of showing
the crops? I would never print those kinds of pics. Also, where is
the FZ50 non cropped pic? Thanks.

Click to expand...

IdeaChaser,
such posts will NOT seem of any importance to you once you get your
digital camera. Until you get yours, let us learn from such posts.
Such posts are very important to us.

sorry I meant "such posts will NOT seem of importance to you UNTIL you get your digital camera..."

aftab · Sep 23, 2006

aftab said:
ejmartin said:

Focal plane looks slightly different between the two shots; the
FZ30 shot
looks sharper in the center (or should I say centre) but softer in
the corners,
while the FZ50 shot is the other way around. Did you take several
shots,
refocussing between each, in order to minimize issues with autofocus
accuracy?
--
emil
--

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

Click to expand...

--

Yes, I took three shots with each camera refocussing between each.
Couple of weeks ago(before ACR3.5) I took similar JPEG shots of
this globe with both cameras and noticed the same thing. At that
time i thought it probably had to do with VE2 vs VE3. Now, I am not
sure.
aftab

--

Sorry emil, I take back what I said. Here is another FZ50 center crop. It does look sharper than the one I posted. Is it possible that FZ50 has more DOF comapred to FZ30?

tko · Sep 23, 2006

Ijnteresting. I did think the FZ50 had less noise (shock, where's Barrry to commment). It also had better corner sharpness. I remember when I went from a FZ10 to a FZ30 there was a big improvement is sharpness edge to edge (not even counting the MP increase). Panasonic may have tweated the lens slightly, making it better, or maybe it's just sample to sample variation.

At any rate, it would hard to anyone to say the FZ50 is a step down, but neither is it a big step upward.

Joesiv · Sep 23, 2006

tko said:
Ijnteresting. I did think the FZ50 had less noise (shock, where's
Barrry to commment). It also had better corner sharpness. I
remember when I went from a FZ10 to a FZ30 there was a big
improvement is sharpness edge to edge (not even counting the MP
increase). Panasonic may have tweated the lens slightly, making it
better, or maybe it's just sample to sample variation.

At any rate, it would hard to anyone to say the FZ50 is a step
down, but neither is it a big step upward.

I think the FZ does a pretty good job, especially in the "Right Upper" where it's much less noisy in the shadows.

I agree though, the center focus/sharpness seems to be just a smidge off compared to the FZ30.

Good test though, thanks aftab!
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Panasonic Lumix FZ50
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

MightyMike · Sep 23, 2006

Sorry Kurt... the math doesn't support your idea that the pixel sites are the same... the FZ30 has a 2.2 micron pixel with a 150mV max value for the photon counter, the FZ50 has a 2.0 micron pixel and a 170mV max value for the photon counter... the sites on the FZ50 are smaller but they have been slightly redesigned to be more effective.

Kurt Horsley said:
--To my eye, the noise levels look exactly the same. I hope this
proves that adding more pixels does not necessarliy cause more
noise. I always have, and still do, suspect that fz30 and 50 have
the exact same size pixel sites.
And, there may indeed have been a lens tweak. I've noticed my fz50
is slightly more prone to lens flare than the fz30 was. Might just
be an optical coating change or perhaps an actual lens tweak, but I
definitely see more lens flare in direct sun light. This is just a
personal observation...I do not have any firm evidence that there
was a lens modification. But, it would explain the slightly lower
weight of the fz50.
-Kurt Horsley

--
Mike from Canada

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=31&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Kurt Horsley · Sep 23, 2006

--Mike,

Yours is the first definitive statement about pixel size that I've seen despite inquiring for several weeks. I'm curious, where did you find the info. I thought that the fz30 had 2 micron pixel sites, but I was unsure about the fz50.
Are you 100% positive, and where did you get the information? Thanks,
-Kurt Horsley

FZ30 vs FZ50 ISO400 RAW

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts