Reading mode: Light Dark

Panasonic ZS3 - love the video but not all that happy with stills

Go to last post
S

socaldrummer

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Orange County, AK, US
Hello all,

This forum is great - I've always had Canons so I've never posted before, so if I'm doing something stupid, please gently correct me...

Read the forum a lot in making purchase decision, and went with ZS3, mainly for the form factor and video. Main still camera is a Canon Powershot G9, which I like and know pretty well.

Anyway, I'm really, really happy with the HD video. Took video of the Ducks in NHL playoffs from way up high in the arena, and it was spectacular!

On the stills, I'm getting a lot of noise, especially inside in lower-light conditions. Please see these comparisons in the referenced album.

http://picasaweb.google.com/socaldrummer.mbaxter/CanonG9VsPanasonicZS3?feat=directlink

Think this is just due to the smaller sensor on the ZS3? Are there some settings that I can effect? As is, I notice that the Canon is typically shooting at ISO 200 indoors, whereas the Pano goes to ISO 640 in the same lighting. If I force the Pano to 200, then it's too dark.

Thanks for any help! This forum is a great resource to us all.
 
I wasn't able to find any exif data in your Picassa photos, but I didn't see much noise,
and the indoor shots seemed to have been taken with flash.

The G9 has a bigger sensor, higher MP count, and a lower pixel density.

That is likely why in the last indoor shots the G9 resolves the sofa fabric detail, and
the ZS3 just provides "beige".

That said, the ZS3 should be considered as a "day time" camera.
(I have a TZ5, but use a Fuji F30 for low light shooting)
 
The ZS3's metering is definitely using a lower exposure than the G9. IMO the ZS3 is doing a better job of metering in the outdoor shot, the G9 seems to have some overexposed highlights (not sure if the images were taken in the exact same conditions). White balances are completely different though... you could potentially make a better comparison if you adjust the WB for both images.

As for the indoor shots, the ZS3 is using a smaller aperture (f/3.4) while the G9 was using its full f/2.8. Perhaps you were zoomed in a bit with the ZS3, so 3.4 was the largest available? If not, then the Auto mode is screwing up. It should have used a larger aperture so that it could use a lower ISO rating. If you were zoomed in, try a more wide-angle shot.

Better yet, shoot in a mode where you can cap the ISO at 200. Your shots were taken at 1/60s, and with IS you should be easily able to go down to 1/20 or 1/15.

All said and done, higher per-pixel noise from the ZS3's sensor wouldn't be surprising, there's a non-trivial difference in pixel density.
 
Thanks alot - this is good feedback and really happy. I'll try the 200 ISO trick. FYI, I did have the min shutter set to 1/60, and also I was zoomed, trying to reflect the more "35mm" lense field of view of the G9 (whereas the Pano has a much, much wider FOV).

Now I'm starting to see why forum members are saying that the LX3 and the ZS3 are ideal companions!
 
trbader said:
The G9 has a bigger sensor, higher MP count, and a lower pixel density.
Click to expand...
There is a debate, I take it, whether when buying a high-end DSLR one should maximize pixel count, all-else equal. The argument in favor goes like this: If you shoot RAW and employ the right post-processing software, you can always average the noise from the higher pixel count and get essentially what you would have with a lower pixel density and the same sensor; given that option, the story, goes better to get the resolution advantages of the higher pixel count because if you have the same sensor with a lower pixel count, you have no option in the other direction.

This story may be true (but I wonder whether noise averaging can possible fix the lower dynamic range associated with small pixels). Even if it is, though, for point-and-shoot digicams taking JPEGs, to my eye at least, there is no other factor more important to the quality of an image than pixel density--the smaller the better (at least unless printing posters). Take a look, for example, at the new Canons stuffed with a ridiculous number of needless pixels--the images look to me more like camera-phone shots than the rich and beautiful pictures my wife takes on fully automatic simply by pointing and pressing the shutter of her four-year-old 5 mp Canon Elph; I keep my fingers crossed that this camera will not break down because there is no reasonably-priced little camera sold new now near it's equal, because (sadly) no one will sell a camera anymore with as few as 5mp. Hope Panasonic stays on the moderate side of the megapixel war, particularly now that it looks like Fuji has thrown in the towel (though Fuji's new technology may mitigate the density problem).
 
Lobalobo,

This is classic, as we just had the same exact discussion in our house. My wife's Canon Powershot S45 (4mp) died, and we wound up finding a really clean one on eBay. It takes such bright, sharp pictures. And its 4MP sensor has roughly the same area as the G9's 12MP sensor. No wonder it does so well at low light!

I'd love a really small, really bright 6MP camera with all the bells and whistles (like HD video) that today's cameras have.

Mitch
(socaldrummer)
 
socaldrummer said:
Lobalobo,

This is classic, as we just had the same exact discussion in our
house. My wife's Canon Powershot S45 (4mp) died, and we wound up
finding a really clean one on eBay. It takes such bright, sharp
pictures. And its 4MP sensor has roughly the same area as the G9's
12MP sensor. No wonder it does so well at low light!

I'd love a really small, really bright 6MP camera with all the bells
and whistles (like HD video) that today's cameras have.

Mitch
(socaldrummer)
--
Click to expand...
Agreed. I teach economics (well, economic analysis of law, anyway) and I often use the example of market demand for megapixels in point-and-shoot cameras as an illustration of market failure. A strange process, but there's hope. An earlier example was the octane level in gas--high octane actually reduces the performance and gas mileage of engines not designed for it. Still for years lots of people (myself included) stupidly paid extra to get less. My impression is that this does not happen much anymore because eventually people wised up. Maybe the same thing will happen with megapixels.
 
These may not be good samples compared to one is shot with ISO 200 Canon and the other is shot with ISO 640 ZS3.
What you mean by shooting ZS3 with ISO 200 gives darker pics because the
flash on the ZS3 is much weaker than the G9 and that's the reason why

ZS3 chose ISO640 and looks noiser than G9. If you try to shoot both cameras with ISO400 without flash and it should give similar results in terms of noise.

Willing
socaldrummer said:
Thanks alot - this is good feedback and really happy. I'll try the
200 ISO trick. FYI, I did have the min shutter set to 1/60, and also
I was zoomed, trying to reflect the more "35mm" lense field of view
of the G9 (whereas the Pano has a much, much wider FOV).

Now I'm starting to see why forum members are saying that the LX3 and
the ZS3 are ideal companions!
--
Click to expand...
 
Willing said:
These may not be good samples compared to one is shot with ISO 200
Canon and the other is shot with ISO 640 ZS3.
What you mean by shooting ZS3 with ISO 200 gives darker pics because the
flash on the ZS3 is much weaker than the G9 and that's the reason why
ZS3 chose ISO640 and looks noiser than G9. If you try to shoot both
cameras with ISO400 without flash and it should give similar results
in terms of noise.

Willing
Click to expand...
 
Willing said:
These may not be good samples compared to one is shot with ISO 200
Canon and the other is shot with ISO 640 ZS3.
What you mean by shooting ZS3 with ISO 200 gives darker pics because the
flash on the ZS3 is much weaker than the G9 and that's the reason why
ZS3 chose ISO640 and looks noiser than G9. If you try to shoot both
cameras with ISO400 without flash and it should give similar results
in terms of noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks Willing I think you're right and that's a major factor. I'm learning how the settings on the ZS3 work - in some ways, when they put all these auto modes on a camera, it's actually more complicated for those old dogs of us who used to have three wheels on a camera: ISO/Shutter/Aperture. And a meter if we were lucky.
 
socaldrummer said:
Willing said:
These may not be good samples compared to one is shot with ISO 200
Canon and the other is shot with ISO 640 ZS3.
What you mean by shooting ZS3 with ISO 200 gives darker pics because the
flash on the ZS3 is much weaker than the G9 and that's the reason why
ZS3 chose ISO640 and looks noiser than G9. If you try to shoot both
cameras with ISO400 without flash and it should give similar results
in terms of noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks Willing I think you're right and that's a major factor. I'm
learning how the settings on the ZS3 work - in some ways, when they
put all these auto modes on a camera, it's actually more complicated
for those old dogs of us who used to have three wheels on a camera:
ISO/Shutter/Aperture. And a meter if we were lucky.
Click to expand...
 
These pictures don't tell the truth. I compared my Ixus 960 IS (which has the same sensor and processor as the G9) with my TZ7 which arrived today. I just made a quick comparison of indoor shots without flash at base ISOs. Yes, the TZ7 seems a little bit more noisy at pixel level (by not much), but it also has a lot more detail. After some mild noise reduction with Noise Ninja the TZ7 pic looked just as smooth as the Canon's with still more detail! I'll do more tests though in the weekend probably and might write here again.

But if that's Panasonic's strategy, to leave the base ISO alone without noise reduction (or very little of it), then I'm quite happy with that as I can do it myself if i want to, whereas with the Canon detail is lost and i cannot retrieve it. Well i guess in the G9 case as it has RAW.

Also it looks to me that the TZ7 lens as full wide is quite outstanding, sharp and detailed across all the frame...
 
I noticed the same thing going from my little A530 to the FZ28. There is more noise period if you pixel peep. Still I am very happy with what this camera can do.

--
Glenn -FZ28
 
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