Venus 4 promise fulfilled. Bring on the LX3 and FZ60!

Prognathous · Apr 23, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
As it stands, I dont agree with his review on that camera

Forget the review. Comment about the samples. Where is the magnificent high ISO that the Samsung is supposed to produce?

Member said:
High ISO its doing a better job than most for its sensor size...

You call that "better"? The A720 image quality is far better in every parameter.

Member said:
and have been man enough to provide full sized samples for
anyone to view as the please.

Your samples are useless without alternative samples shot with other cameras shot under the same conditions.

Member said:
So in short, we have to agree to disagree..and the same goes for the
IR, if you bother to look around, yoiu will see a number of reviews
for the L700, ephotozine, whilst I dont like their site..called it
"one of the best we have tested" and have full sized samples to show.
Megapixel also rated it pretty well for that dept.

Feel free to post alternative crops or to link to specific images that demonstrate the greatness of the L700 high ISO.

Member said:
Fact remains, whilst the TZ-5 is not too bad at ISO 400, and yes its
an improvement on the prior model, it does indeed get a bit of a
smack about with a cheap samsung.

You've provided zero evidence to demonstrate this, where as I have provided plenty of evidence (all shot using proper test methodology) that proves that the TZ5 high-ISO is better than the competition. In short, dream on

Prog.

Prognathous · Apr 23, 2008

CSPronken said:
You mean the greater loss of low contrast detail in the watch at ISO
400 or the lovely red shine around the Martini text at ISO 800? The
only thing you have demonstrated is your opinion, which I only partly
agree with.

It's not perfect (what 1/2.5 camera is?), but overall I find it better than the A720. granted, it's not a knock out as with some other cameras.

CSPronken said:
Let me just summarize before this drags on and on:

Panasonic made a significant improvement in processing, with better

retaining of detail and color saturation at higher ISO.

You consider it now best of the 1/2.5' competition, with better

color saturation and a cleaner look throughout the ISO range and
welcome low sharpening.

I consider it close and also appreciate the low sharpening and good

color saturation, but personally would wish for a bit less luminance
NR with better low contrast detail (like the A720), but can
understand Pannys decision considering the target group for this
camera. (there is some color glow at ISO 800 but don't really care
since I don't expect to be able to get good ISO 800 with a 1/2.5'
sensor).

Hope you can live with this summary since I don't see the use of
discussing stuff with people I 80% agree with.

Agreed, except for one thing - I would prefer an option to disable luminance NR altogether.

Prog.

CSPronken · Apr 23, 2008

Entropius said:
If you're going to make a camera with a big sensor, it makes no sense
to make the lens not interchangeable with other lenses designed for a
big sensor...

It does when you want the camera to be able to fit in a trouser pocket. An interchangeable 3x zoom lens is not like to allow that I reckon.

Entropius said:
Now, in this era of CCD's and live view and EVF's we can do without
the whole reflex system. But it makes no sense to make a camera with
a 4/3 sensor and then weld a lens to it when Olympus makes a whole
list of them.

Why not, Sigma makes quite a list of them as well, but luckily they decided not to allow the DP1 to mount them all.

Entropius said:
What do they call these? EVIL, I think -- electronic viewfinder,
interchangeable lens? Surprised nobody's made one. I imagine Olympus
could make an even smaller, cheaper Four-Thirds camera by just
cutting out the mirror box and OVF.

I'm sure they could. Would it be small enough to fit in a trouser pocket, not so sure and it wouldn't have IS which Panasonic would have in the lens.

Entropius said:
Then everyone would have their wish, as the people who demand
high-ISO quality could get a $300 EVIL body and slap whatever
standard lens they want on it, and the people who shoot in good light
and want versatility could get a $400 FZ50, and the people who shoot
in bad light and want versatility can get a bag full of lenses and
some aspirin like they've always done, but without the goofy
mirror-slap noise.

Yeah, would be fun to see someone do it. I just think that one needs to recognize that a lot of people would like the IQ from a large sensor in something that is pocketable and if the ability to change lenses would compromise pocketibility and IS they would prefer to have a fixed lens.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/56983515@N00/
Current cam: TZ1
Wish cams: LX2 or GX100 with Fuji F30 sensor and Pentax K100D super or K20D.
Wish lens: Pentax or Tamron 18-250mm.

Barry Fitzgerald · Apr 23, 2008

Prognathous said:
Forget the review. Comment about the samples. Where is the
magnificent high ISO that the Samsung is supposed to produce?

Now how can I take the IR seriously, when they say the camera has a mode that is just does not! I know that, because its here right in front of me. Also the flash times are off..nowhere near as bad as indicated.

So maybe they got a lemon..maybe samsung changed sensor supplies..who can say. Much as IR can only test what they have, I can only with what I have in front of me.

You can have a look here...

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Samsung-L700-vs-Pentax-Optio-M30-1

...

Prognathous said:
You call that "better"? The A720 image quality is far better in every
parameter.

Well you can have your view, but I will keep mine..until you can throw a teddy or watch up..I guess I at least put something there for all to see.

Prognathous said:
Your samples are useless without alternative samples shot with other
cameras shot under the same conditions.

Useless but pretty good for that sized sensor, most people agree, you wont put any full sized ISO 1600 TZ ones up, because its not going to do very well at all.

Prognathous said:
Feel free to post alternative crops or to link to specific images
that demonstrate the greatness of the L700 high ISO.

I just did above...

Prognathous said:
You've provided zero evidence to demonstrate this, where as I have
provided plenty of evidence (all shot using proper test methodology)
that proves that the TZ5 high-ISO is better than the competition. In
short, dream on

Some see what they want to, others try to get the whole picture. What this is about is NR processing, and its still IMHO too strong on the pannie.

I have uploaded more shots, with some sharpening done..you are free to do NR if you wish, as the luminance NR on that camera is, IMO light. This is a key area I disagree with IR on..

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/barryfitzgerald.net/SamsungTestShots

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Prognathous · Apr 23, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
So maybe they got a lemon..maybe samsung changed sensor supplies..who
can say. Much as IR can only test what they have, I can only with
what I have in front of me.

That's right. The L700 that IR used had a different sensor than yours. How could I not think about that?

Member said:
You can have a look here...

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Samsung-L700-vs-Pentax-Optio-M30-1

Since when is the Pentax M30 any benchmark for image quality on small-sensor cameras?

Member said:
Well you can have your view, but I will keep mine..until you can
throw a teddy or watch up..I guess I at least put something there for
all to see.

What you posted is meaningless on its own.

Member said:
Useless but pretty good for that sized sensor

Impossible to tell without shots from other cameras taken under the exact same conditions (settings, distance, lighting etc...).

Member said:
most people agree, you
wont put any full sized ISO 1600 TZ ones up, because its not going to
do very well at all.

No 1/2.5 camera is going to do well at this ISO. And if you had any doubt, your Samsung image isn't in any way a demonstration of good image quality.

Member said:
Member said:

Feel free to post alternative crops or to link to specific images
that demonstrate the greatness of the L700 high ISO.

Click to expand...

I just did above...

I don't see any greatness. I see one camera that's mediocre at best, and another that's terrible. Where is a comparison of the L700 with a more serious contender? If you don't have one, link to original files will do (as long as they're all of the same subject and under the same conditions).

Member said:
Member said:

You've provided zero evidence to demonstrate this, where as I have
provided plenty of evidence (all shot using proper test methodology)
that proves that the TZ5 high-ISO is better than the competition. In
short, dream on

Click to expand...

Some see what they want to, others try to get the whole picture. What
this is about is NR processing, and its still IMHO too strong on the
pannie.

The Samsung is the other way around. It starts with an outdated sensor and a relatively poor lens, and then keeps all the chroma-noise in. The result is not usable without further processing, and even then I have my doubts. The TZ5, on the other hand, offers high-ISO that is more usable than all of its direct competition.

Prog.

packy · Apr 23, 2008

Member said:
Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
I dont call 1/17th sec f3.7 ISO 1600 "lights on sunny day" but there
you go, thats just me I guess!

Didn't check the exif so apologies. But now was it taken in real world conditions...ie: was it handheld or tripod?

Member said:
I didnt hide anything, sharpness is set to soft in camera, I made
that point. So sharpen it up, sure its got noise! Course it has, but
its got something the TZ-5 hasnt, "details" ! ;-)

Really? according to the review on the link below not so.....and I quote "At 800 ISO the noise has wiped out quite a lot of fine detail." And another quote and more to the point of the IQ overall "Picture quality is, unfortunately, one area where the L700 is rather below average." So sorry Barry. You get what you pay for....thats £99 for below average image quality.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2007/04/21/Samsung-L700/p5

Anyway.....the detail that you think your camera possesses (if it does), won't be seen against the users of the TZ5 camera because they won't be printing large. And you won't see them on the monitor either. But you don't get that part, do you?

Member said:
And you proved naff all if you take into consideration (which

Member said:

you can't seem to fathom) the size prints and the customer base that
this camera is aimed at. It a travel camera and most prints will be
6x4 & 7x5s and all your NR and noise **** & bull is irrelevant at
those sizes.

Click to expand...

I know, asking for decent NR processing isnt on you top list, I dont
mind it myself ;-)

Well...I do have the 5d which probably would smoke any of you digital gear in NR processing, so yes NR processing is on the top of my list. But not on a P&S for snapshots.

Member said:
And I could post some nice shots taken on film, that you couldnt
match, or some from my DSLR, does this prove much?

Yes it does prove something. It proves you're sour. It's fine for you to say to me "your cam can't do this at ISO1600" , but you cry like a baby when I present to you the same thing to you in saying "your cam can't do this at 280mm"....charming.

Member said:
You are avoiding
the issue here, because I called you out, and its a dead cert that
the king TZ high ISO noise champ, is little more than a false
pretender.

eh? who ever said the TZ5 was the high ISO noise champ? Your losing the plot Barry....get a grip...you're becoming a drama queen! I notice in your ramblings everything you say have to be divided by 20, such is your exaggerations. So re-read my post again. All I said that it wasn't too far behind the F31 and G9 at ISO400* . So you now call ISO400, high ISOs?

I also said that it would be close to any other CURRENT cameras and that it was an improvement over the TZ3.....ALL FACT and photos to go with it. So how am I making the TZ5 out to be the noise king in those statements?. I never even once mentioned ISO1600 or high ISOs in my post, let alone say it was the king. I only mentioned and showed it's performance up to ISO400 and never commented that it could do or go better at higher speeds than ISO400. So who is really missing and avoiding the issue?

You see Barry...it's you're the one thats avoiding the issue....which is no one is buying the TZ5 for high ISO noise, so wake up. Everyone are intelligent enough around here to know it's limitations and that it is not great at that. Did I say it was great at ISO800....NO. Did I say it was great at ISO1600?....NO. Shoot to ISO400 and you'll be fine was my message, so don't twist it. And we don't need you on your high horse to talk down to us and tell us that its all bad news after that. Hello!.....we know!!

All the users so far have commented honestly that it is better than the TZ3 and only about as good as the current cameras (if at all) to ISO400....but all users have agreed on one thing....that they are happy with that.

Member said:
Do you have a 500mm mirror lens on your TZ? Or a super WA zoom, or a
17-35mm for you film camera?

In a nutshell what your saying is NO. Stop wimpering and just admit that your Samsung can't do certain shots like reaching stained glass in a church or any other objects from a far for that matter.

Member said:
Maybe I bought it not for the super zoom
range, cos it aint got one..but because I wanted an inexpensive
camera for snaps and videos.

...but most definitely most of the current TZ5 users didn't buy the TZ5 for high ISO noise which makes your ranting ridicolous. We bought the TZ5 for snapshots too for what it was designed for which was for travel/holidays in which mostly entails shooting outdoors, but yet can get you nice indoors church/museams shots as well with an excellent OIS and a (now) half-decent ISO400.

Member said:
Member said:

Was amazes me more is that you obviously don't like the Panny cameras
and their sensors.....you must have told us 10,000 times already. We
heard you, so why don't you move onto the Samsung forum and be happy.

Click to expand...

Um you started this TZ is great at high ISO, lets finish it!

How can we finish something that you just made up in your head. See above about re-reading my post. I never mentioned high ISO or commented beyond ISO400....unless you now call that high ISO.

Member said:
put up shots that show just how not great the TZ is at high ISO ,
yeah you are right its got OIS, nice one..but I paid £99 for that
camera, this one is £250!

big swinging mickey....I paid the extra to get shots that I want.....at 280mm and at 28mm. So have all the current users and most are happy from the posts. But you can't get that into your skull and just want to rain on their party anyway you can..

*****************************************
Packy

Marty4650 · Apr 23, 2008

Robiro said:
The most important thing about Venus 4 is that it makes ISO 400 usable.
The real smearing begins at ISO 800.
The previous engine started real smearing at ISO 400.
This is good. Now we need an FZ60!

Robiro, I completely agree.

No small sensored camera is going to be a high ISO champ, but the good news here is we gained another stop. I never use my LX2 about ISO 200, so the prospect of ISO 400 shooting is very tempting.

I really think Venus III was a step backwards, and Venus IV is the correction. I'm looking forward to an LX3, becasue this improved processing, coupled with a larger sensor, just might yield a usable ISO 800. And that would be great!

Speaking of ISO settings, I am old enough to remember when ISO 200 was considered "high speed film" for my Minolta XD11. I just read the Nikon D3 review report, and the ISO 6400 images don't look too bad.

We really have come a long way.... I bet the folks at Metz and Sunpak are worried sick about the future for DSLR flash sales....
--
Marty
http://flickr.com/photos/7735239@N02/
Panasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30, LX2

steve owen · Apr 23, 2008

I have been looking at the results of the TZ3 - TZ5. Not really looking to buy any of them, I still like my TZ1 above all.

But the TZ3 being a disaster, the TZ5 has recovered somewhat. But unfortunately with some distinct disadvantages. Lower ISO's are now noisier than my TZ1, while higher ISO's are better, my need for that is very limited. And up to ISO 400 the TZ1 does not smear, it is more grainy (but all in all has better fine detail).

You also cannot judge any small sensor camera by a few test shots, all of them fail at some point. The type of light, and contrast has much to do with the outcome of the images. And all small sensor cameras suck!, when it comes to dealing with all but the most pristine of conditions.

The high ISO's while looking better, look like they have been through some pretty stiff applications of Noise Ninja, or Neat Image, ie smooth and slick. Lacking in texture.

As far as it goes, the camera I never have to worry about the outcome of, is my old Fuji A-205. You cant crop much with it, you cant take pictures in the dark with it. But you never have to worry about highlight, and shadow problems, or noise.

A couple of years ago my son and I went to the coast had is new FZ7, he took 400 + shots which 40% of were usable. I had my old A-205, and took about 100 shots, which 99.9% of were usable. And the one that was not! was pretty well expected not to be.

So maybe a few more years of this playing around, and the camera companies will get back to some serious business, and make some reliable cameras again. But that remains to be seen.

Steve Owen.
http://steveslandscapes.50webs.com
http://s3.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=5546

Three old outdated cameras, Two Fujis, and a TZ-1.

Prognathous · Apr 23, 2008

steve owen said:
But the TZ3 being a disaster, the TZ5 has recovered somewhat. But
unfortunately with some distinct disadvantages. Lower ISO's are now
noisier than my TZ1

Are they?

TZ1

TZ5 downsized to match the pixel-count of the TZ1

TZ1

TZ5 downsized to match the pixel-count of the TZ1

I think it's obvious that the low-ISO of the TZ5 is better than that of the TZ1, without the ugly chroma-noise, the NR blurring and the oversharpend look of the older model.

Prog.

Barry Fitzgerald · Apr 23, 2008

packy said:
Really? according to the review on the link below not so.....and I
quote "At 800 ISO the noise has wiped out quite a lot of fine
detail." And another quote and more to the point of the IQ overall
"Picture quality is, unfortunately, one area where the L700 is rather
below average." So sorry Barry. You get what you pay for....thats £99
for below average image quality.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2007/04/21/Samsung-L700/p5

Cmon its trusted reviews, with their reviewer..who due to some guilt trip said he gets free cameras sent to him! lol..

Give me a break please! He called the fuji S9600, camera of the year..ok its not a bad camera..but cough..

Anyway, 2 poor reviews for the samsung, and 2 good ones. Take your pic.

packy said:
Well...I do have the 5d which probably would smoke any of you digital
gear in NR processing, so yes NR processing is on the top of my list.
But not on a P&S for snapshots.

Oh dear you always protest when people say DSLR..now you mention it!

packy said:
eh? who ever said the TZ5 was the high ISO noise champ? Your losing
the plot Barry....get a grip...you're becoming a drama queen! I
notice in your ramblings everything you say have to be divided by 20,
such is your exaggerations. So re-read my post again. All I said that
it wasn't too far behind the F31 and G9 at ISO400* . So
you now call ISO400, high ISOs?

Well I put up my samples, they are there for all to see, I think its not bad at all for such a small sensor...

packy said:
In a nutshell what your saying is NO. Stop wimpering and just admit
that your Samsung can't do certain shots like reaching stained glass
in a church or any other objects from a far for that matter.

Let me see, well...stained glass..not too hard to do, esp as the light isnt so bad..

Anyway good to see such an objective viewpoint from you!

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald · Apr 23, 2008

Prognathous said:
The Samsung is the other way around. It starts with an outdated
sensor and a relatively poor lens, and then keeps all the
chroma-noise in. The result is not usable without further processing,
and even then I have my doubts. The TZ5, on the other hand, offers
high-ISO that is more usable than all of its direct competition.

I am finding this kinda funny!

I have no idea what sensor the samsung uses, its not too bad IMHO, probably better than pannies similar one same sized..but then everything is.

As I have the camera, sure you could pick it apart..moan the AF isnt so great low light..etc etc, but as it happens, its got a pretty decent lens on there, sharp from corner to corner..not bad for £99 I might say.

and now you moan that you have a processing choice, because the samsung is a light touch on NR processing! You cannot win. ;-)

Lets see these great TZ shots then..

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Koosla · Apr 23, 2008

Frankly, I've come to believe that the new processor doesn't bring that much significance. The HD video, yes (if that's part of the VE task, which I don't know), but the NR is not better IMO... different, yes; better, no. What's arguably better is the color bleeding.

Anyway, and at least for me, the new processor would be of little importance if I was interested in the (supposedly) incoming LX3 and FZ60/70. These cameras shoot RAW, and at that, the image processor is off the equation.

Robiro · Apr 23, 2008

Koosla said:
These cameras shoot RAW, and at that, the image processor is
off the equation.

Wrong. RAW files are touched (to a degree) by Venus engines.

steve owen · Apr 23, 2008

You have bad TZ1 bud, mine is nowhere as noisy as that.
--
Steve Owen.
http://steveslandscapes.50webs.com
http://s3.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=5546

Three old outdated cameras, Two Fujis, and a TZ-1.

steve owen · Apr 23, 2008

I also never said I love my TZ1, I just said I prefer it. As far as I am concerned! Panasonic hasn't learned how to make any kind of camera. They need to go to somebody that can, and beg for help!.
--
Steve Owen.
http://steveslandscapes.50webs.com
http://s3.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=5546

Three old outdated cameras, Two Fujis, and a TZ-1.

Entropius · Apr 23, 2008

I'm not sure you could fit a non-interchangeable 3x zoom lens designed to feed a Four-Thirds sensor in a trouser pocket either.

Koosla · Apr 23, 2008

Robiro said:
Koosla said:

These cameras shoot RAW, and at that, the image processor is
off the equation.

Click to expand...

Wrong. RAW files are touched (to a degree) by Venus engines.

Ouch. I thought the Panasonics were done with that nasty trick

Marty4650 · Apr 23, 2008

CSPronken said:
It does when you want the camera to be able to fit in a trouser
pocket. An interchangeable 3x zoom lens is not like to allow that I
reckon.

CSP... if you really want a 3X zoom camera, then contact Barry.

He can hook you up with a nice Samsung.
I hear they make about 60 different 3X zooms, all starting around 35mm.
And each and every one of them will nicely fit in your pants pocket!
Plus, he tells us the IQ is great. Vitually no noise!

I bet Barry can find you one for £99 !
--
Marty
http://flickr.com/photos/7735239@N02/
Panasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30, LX2

Prognathous · Apr 23, 2008

steve owen said:
You have bad TZ1 bud, mine is nowhere as noisy as that.

The crops are from dpreview.com reviews of these cameras. Do you actually think they used a bad TZ1?

Prog.

CSPronken · Apr 23, 2008

Entropius said:
I'm not sure you could fit a non-interchangeable 3x zoom lens
designed to feed a Four-Thirds sensor in a trouser pocket either.

Yes, that is indeed doubtful. It would require a pretty slow aperture partly undoing the large sensor advantage. You could also consider reducing the zoom factor, but below 3x you'd quickly end up with a prime.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/56983515@N00/
Current cam: TZ1
Wish cams: LX2 or GX100 with Fuji F30 sensor and Pentax K100D super or K20D.
Wish lens: Pentax or Tamron 18-250mm.

Venus 4 promise fulfilled. Bring on the LX3 and FZ60!

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts