Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ30 vs FZ50 ISO400 RAW

Go to last post
No two lenses are manufactured identically, even if the same design. It is possible that the sharpness differences could be due to sample variation in manufacturing. Possibly also due to the curvature of the globe and slight differences in the point of focus. Nice test.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
 
Unless you have just upgraded from the FZ10...Ha! I really like the 10, but the 50 just offers so much more in features to get the 'shot'!
tko said:
At any rate, it would hard to anyone to say the FZ50 is a step
down, but neither is it a big step upward.
Click to expand...
--



Regards,
Kirwin
http://timebandit.smugmug.com
 
In the glossary there is a section on sensor sizes... 1/1.8 = 7.176mm by 5.319mm

on the FZ30 you have 3264 active pixels along the horizontal and a few that aren't used but the difference in the calculation is negledgable...

7.176/3264 = 0.002198 (2.198 micron or more easily said to be 2.2 micron)

the FZ50 has 3648 active pixels along the horizontal and like the FZ30 it also has a few inactive pixels that won't alter the result enough to worry about...

7.176/3648 = 0.001967 (1.967 micron or more easily said to be 2.0 micron)

the FZ1 uses 2.8 micron pixels
the FZ2 uses 2.8 micron pixels
the FZ10 uses 2.5 micron pixels
the FZ20 uses 2.2 micron pixels
the FZ3 uses 2.25 micron pixels
the FZ4 uses 2.5 micron pixels
the FZ5 uses 2.2 micron pixels
the FZ30 uses 2.2 micron pixels
the FZ7 uses 2.0 micron pixels
the FZ50 uses 2.0 micron pixels

the Sony H5 uses 1.875 micron pixels

as for the 150mV vs 170mV numbers well they were in an article on dpreview a few months back.
--
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=
 
Is the space between the 'pixels' not an unknown factor in calculations based on chip-size/MP?

From my layman's research: The more space between, the less chance of overflow from one cell to another and thus less blooming. However, the less space between, the larger the receptor and thus better noise and DR performance.
I guess you can't win either way on small chips with today's technology.
David
 
--Mike,

I had a feeling you were using that example, and as you say "the math" would support your assumption. But I don't think pixel pitch is a reliable way to determine the actual pixel size. There are just too many factors that can make a difference. There is no consideration for how much of the actual area (of the chip) is used, or for how much area exists between pixels. I'd guess that every manufacturer would have different specs depending on design.

You may be exactly right, but until I see hard data from the manufacturer, I wouldn't consider it etched in stone. Manufacturing techniques change constantly, so I don't believe there are any constants that would make "the math" the same for different chip designs. In fact, I'd be very surprised if any of them were the same. I don't have any way to tell for sure though.
-Kurt Horsley
 
Hey Kurt... yes the actual detecting area is smaller and other features of the sensor determine other parts of the IQ equation... those 2.8 micron pixels were actually quite a bit noisier but if they were made today they be even better as the technology is getting better... but it is safe to say that with current technology a larger pixel cell should have better picture quality then a smaller one of the same technology
--
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=
 
MightyMike said:
Hey Kurt... yes the actual detecting area is smaller and other
features of the sensor determine other parts of the IQ equation...
those 2.8 micron pixels were actually quite a bit noisier but if
they were made today they be even better as the technology is
getting better... but it is safe to say that with current
technology a larger pixel cell should have better picture quality
then a smaller one of the same technology
--
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=
Click to expand...
--Agreed.

I wish the manufacturers would just print the information in the back of the manual. But, even then, things like the size of the microlens could make a big difference in image quality. So could a dozen other things. Just look at the radical differences between CCD and CMOS design. With technology moving forward so quickly, there's really no way to tell about noise or image quality simply by judging pixel size. In the past, it was a good place to start, but things may be different in the future.

Back to the original question...I wish they would just print the information with the camera specs. I suspect they don't want people making image quality judgments based only on chip design. It's much easier to just say "more is better" and try to sell it to the consumer.
-Kurt Horsley
 
More space will lead to less blooming as i understand it but it will also lead to poorer resolving power... the closer they are the better the resolving power and we'll assume that they are also slightly larger therefore able to detect and read more photons for better noise ratios and possibley more DR although the DR has more to do with the sensitivity of the photon counter and that sensitivity can come in different formats... more sensitive in the dark or in the bright or whatever... thats how some cameras can have more highlight clipping or shadow clipping etc.
David McA said:
Is the space between the 'pixels' not an unknown factor in
calculations based on chip-size/MP?
From my layman's research: The more space between, the less chance
of overflow from one cell to another and thus less blooming.
However, the less space between, the larger the receptor and thus
better noise and DR performance.
I guess you can't win either way on small chips with today's
technology.
David
Click to expand...
--
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=
 
Thanks aftab
Great work!

And also thanks for the sharper fz50 center crop, I´m more and more convinced of upgrading my fz20 to 50. I´m In no hurry cause I´m more of a summer fotographer.
If you want to, take a look at some of my pictures
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82361439@N00/
 
Hi aftab,

just sent you my FTP-account adress via email. Maybe you can upload it there?

Thanks a lot,
Gerd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Let your own reasoning be your guide, not other people's opinions.
 
DStan said:
No two lenses are manufactured identically, even if the same
design. It is possible that the sharpness differences could be due
to sample variation in manufacturing. Possibly also due to the
curvature of the globe and slight differences in the point of
focus. Nice test.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less
complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stan. Yes, there may be slight vriation in the focus point, although I tried to focus on the exact point, eg. where equator is crossed by a certain line. In any case, results were interesting. I will try to repeat it with iso 100.

Now I remember an earlier Japanese review(forgot which one) of FZ50 did mention something about increased DOF in FZ50 compared tp FZ30.
aftab
 
secretworld said:
Thanks aftab
Great work!
And also thanks for the sharper fz50 center crop, I´m more and more
convinced of upgrading my fz20 to 50. I´m In no hurry cause I´m
more of a summer fotographer.
If you want to, take a look at some of my pictures
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82361439@N00/
Click to expand...
Thanks. I had a look at your gallery - beautiful images. I can see why you call yourself a summer photographer.
aftab
 
Kirwin said:
tko said:
At any rate, it would hard to anyone to say the FZ50 is a step
down, but neither is it a big step upward.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It was huge upgrade for me from 10 to 30. I sold my 10 to one of my friends. He is very happy with it though. No doubt it takes great pics.
aftab
 
aftab wrote:
:
aftab said:
Now I remember an earlier Japanese review(forgot which one) of FZ50
did mention something about increased DOF in FZ50 compared tp FZ30.
aftab
Click to expand...
If the focal length and fstop are the same then the DOF should be the same :) I also thought that it was pretty much the same lens.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
I buy the Viltrox 35mm f/1.8
Replies
1
Views
9
DVF Photography
DVF Photography
Paul Pasco
TT Artisans 10mm f/2 DX lens
Replies
3
Views
85
Paul Pasco
Paul Pasco
A
Mavic 4 - Huge Pano
Replies
13
Views
91
jakelindsay
J
yogi4fitness
Hassie vs Fuji shadow noise
2 3
Replies
51
Views
207
Mads Bjerke
M
I
Opinions Requested on 2 Lenses Focus Blind Test
2
Replies
29
Views
311
IDontSpeakMonkey
I

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