Baloney, the Pro 815 has an excellent 15X Schneider lens, I guess you lend your "knowledge" to their designers.
Much more? I don't see a hotshoe enabling descent flash pics to start with.
Potential.... let's see what the IQ is like at ISOs > 100
I already know that. I'm guessing only a handful of S5 users will actually use an external flash. I have the 430EX but I'd rather use it with my 350D and use the S5 strictly as it is, as a travel compact - no added accessories.
Definitely not better or maybe slightly worse. But you shouldn't be able to notice in prints up to A4 and when resized to fit your desktop.
--
For once, we agree.
So you can't notice noise at higher ISOs when that noise is present throughout the WHOLE image when resized to A4 or wallpaper size, but one little hot pixel that shows up on one out a few hundred pictures, that you can see when resized to A4? LOL The hypocrisy...
LOL! I wouldn't rate noise as a defect - it's an inherent phenomenon. It's everywhere and in abundance and just makes a picture looks grainier at higher ISOs.
The following was taken from your link...
Read the article again: The perfect correction method doesn't exist as of this moment. What is normally done, is to deduce the 'bad' pixel, turn it off and use the surrounding pixel to interpolate. Now, this is called mapping.The following was taken from your link...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Solutions
To the best of my knowledge, at the time of writing, no other
software exists in the consumer market that corrects images in this
manner. With less expensive cameras, the solution is to ignore the
problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for agreeing with me once again!
You can have a look here also...
http://webpages.charter.net/bbiggers/DCExperiments/html/hot_pixel_facts.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact. Every camera will have hot pixels showing if you test long
enough exposures.
Fact. All cameras will develop more hot pixels over time. So don't
post a smug "well my camera is perfect" message to someone that has
hot pixels. Yours will come. It might take a month, it might take 2
years, but they will come. Cameras are shipped from the factory with
all hot pixels mapped out. As many as 1% of the sites on a CCD will
have some sort of problem over the CCD lifetime. Posting a "mine is
perfect" message just makes everyone think that that is the way
things should be. As your camera ages you will have more and brighter
hot pixels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
'Amp up and amplify! Defy! I'm a brother with a furious mind!'
Huh???
I don't care.
The S5 is perfecty fine -- I'm very happy with it.
I frankly, absolutely doubt that.
OK, it wins on that. But there's more to a camera than "zoom."
I doubt that. Or, at the least, any difference wouldn't even be perceptible by human beings like you and me.
Doesn't matter -- just means that the S5 doesn't feel like a "toy" camera.
Also a win here -- Panasonic has superior lenses. Too bad their in-camera processing makes mush of what their lenses can capture.
My S5 and its hot shoe and my 420EX beats that by a mile. (Well, not quite that far.)
Let me ask anyone who thinks "hot shoe" isn't important: Have you ever seen professonal photographers taking pictures in low-light conditions without external flashes? Think in terms of "celebrities" and the dozens of photographers clicking away at any given event, for instance. Nobody is trying to get by with the on-camera flash, are they? If you want to use flash, "get a real flash."
Listen up, Panasonic, Canon, and everyone else: I will not buy a "bridge" camera without a swivel LCD. I will not buy a "superzoom bridge" camera without a swivel LCD. I will not buy a "top of the line G-series" camera without a swivel LCD. I will not spend $500 for a camera without a swivel LCD. Get the picture?
Wrong. "Smearing artifacts at every ISO setting." Like I say, if you can truly get around Panasonic dog-awful in-camera processing by using RAW, well, that's certainly a reason why "you need RAW" in a camera like this.
Yep, S5 in comparison is one of the best in the still-camera business.
These don't bother me much. I tend to prefer them over a pocketful of double-A's. Though, the S5 on a good set of AA's can go for an astonishingly long period of time!
I'd rather have the S5's in-camera processing so I don't need RAW, get the wide-angle lens, and make use of the swivel LCD.
Not a single thing would make me want the Panasonic. I'm really, truly disappointed with the image quality from my Panny TZ3 -- not that it's so horribly bad that it's useless or anything anywhere near that, but it easly is "second rate" compared to anything any Canon camera can do.
I know what pixel mapping does. What I was trying to say (for the 100th time) is that it is anal-retentive to have a camera shipped to Canon for a tiny hot pixel that might only appear during 1 sec exposures at ISO 800 (or in other words, 1 out of 1000 images). It is better to wait till the end of the warranty when other problems might appear to have the camera checked out. If the hot pixel appears on normal everyday shots, that's a different story and it should be sorted out immediately; but not if it's only 1 in 1000. I know retouching every single shot is a pain, but 1 in 1000 is nothing, especially since that tiny hot pixel will probably not even be seen once the image is resized.
Practice what you preach! You're the one who thinks I don't know what pixel mapping does...Don't be too quick to pass on the judgement.....
Tom, Can you elaborate on how second rate the image is coming out from the TZ3?
Mainly, it's how any kind of "detail in the background" comes out as "mush." Even at the lowest ISO setting. Call it "watercolor smearing" or whatever, but it's not "detail," it's "mush" as I like to call it. Secondly, it's color that's either wrong in an undersaturated way, or wrong in an oversaturated way. The TZ3 also has really super-high contrast, so even rather typical, normal shots can blow out the highlights so much that virtually the entire rest of the picture will come out way too dark.
Take any TZ3 image -- especially one with some cloudy skies in the background -- and do some post-processing with a "shadow/highlights" tool. "Darken the highlights and brighten the shadows." You'll soon learn to recognize its rather "default output" and comprehend how often you'll have to "rescue" your pictures with some pretty massive post-processing.
I haven't tried it myself -- I'm not much of a movie person myself, though that can always change in any given situation. Mainly, having the ability to zoom in movie mode, ease of getting into it, and so on, would be S5 strengths from my perspective.
Wow -- while I haven't had any problems, I certainly see your right to complain about build quality! I've used a G5 a few times, so I'm familiar with that, I've owned an S1IS and put that through heavy use, and I used a Pro1 for many years, and I'll bet anyone that I might have put more shots through a Pro1 than anyone else ever has. Or, at least, I must be in the "top ten" on the planet. At any rate, I've had no problems at all with any swivel LCD on any of them.
No, that's something wrong, wrong, wrong. Heck, I put more than 800 shots on my S5IS the first day I owned it. I put something like 1200 shots through it during the "vintage races," from which I've posted a few images here. Like you, I'm mostly shooting through the EVF, occasionally popping out the LCD to take usually low-angle shots, then popping it right back in when I'm done with those shots. If there's anything I'm doing that might be "protective" of it, I certainly pop it out, use it, and then pop it right back in -- I'm generally never "carrying the camera around with the LCD twisted open.
I expect the FZ18 to have essentially the same image quality of the TZ3 -- but giving you quite a bit of control over that, so that you might be able to get much better "straight from the camera" output from it. On the other hand, if you truly like to use RAW, I suppose none of that even matters, does it?
I hear you. Again, if you're "into RAW," I'm generally talking about "in-camera processing," so we're barking up different trees. In the end, it's that sensor that really puts everything here in perspective -- I'm just relatively astonished that we can get anything even close to "decent" results from such a teensy little sensor. Compared to the Pro1, I expected far worse from the S5IS than it proved to be able to do.
Yes. It's like the TZ3 -- "if Canon made something like this, I'd buy it in a minute over this thing." Canon earns my business mainly through the quality of its output, and secondarily by its continued use of the swivel LCD.
All shot useing Panasonics dog awful in camera processing Jpegs...Frankly, given Panasonic's dog-awful in-camera processing, I can
understand a need for RAW with any Panasonic.
Hee hee! Have I tweaked the RAW Panasonic fans enough?
"Smearing artifacts at every ISO setting." Like I say, if
you can truly get around Panasonic dog-awful in-camera processing by
using RAW, well, that's certainly a reason why "you need RAW" in a
camera like this.
--
--
Lovely...
--
Sensor technology actually has improved - even some of the earlier cameras with lower pixel density sensor had not-so-great image quality. When I see posts from people claiming their 3 or 4 mp cameras take as good of pictures as a 6 or 8 or 10mp camera, well, I take it with a huge grain of salt. Not that the older cameras can't take very good pictures, but there is no substitute for resolution as long as the noise levels are manageable.
--
