Reading mode: Light Dark

An fz100 pro gallery bird shootout

Go to last post
R

rinkos

Senior Member
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
12
Location
IL
Great site, really shows how much a camera being in the right hands can make a huge difference. The FZ100 is a great camera and this pro really knows how to make it shine.
 
Very nice bird shots. In the small sizes posted I can't find a fault with any of them.

One thing is apparent from the settings chosen. Stick with f/5 to f/5.6 and don't move the ISO off of 100. I am just guessing, but I imagine raw was probably used, but they do not say.

If the shots look good at large sizes it would almost sell me on one if i were in the market.

One other thing that helps greatly with any camera is being close to your subject, this cannot be emphasized enough. I would imagine he was very close or Panasonic would have listed the focal length used.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
 
kernow said:
Very nice bird shots. In the small sizes posted I can't find a fault with any of them.

One thing is apparent from the settings chosen. Stick with f/5 to f/5.6 and don't move the ISO off of 100. I am just guessing, but I imagine raw was probably used, but they do not say.

If the shots look good at large sizes it would almost sell me on one if i were in the market.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are nice shots. Of course, larger size would have been great to see. As they say, having the right light, and of course a photographer that knows what they're doing, makes all the difference.

My experience with the FZ100 has been that the more experienced you are, and the more time you spend with it, the better the results. It really takes some getting used to - distinct differences with performance from a MOS sensor, as compared to my old FZ28. Need to sometimes overexpose if going up in ISO, and it doesn't seems as forgiving with shadow recovery if underexposing for very really bright parts of scenes.

Really a compromise camera, both better and worse than my old FZ28 (still enjoying the FZ100, but still "hoping" for a firmware update for better JPEG quality -- until then, my verdict is that the FZ100 is not for everyone, but is for those that can appreciate what it can still do).
A few bird shots with my typical 15 sec PP for levels and sharpening.
-M1







 
Both acceptable shots. The first one doesn't have camera shake at 1/20 but you can see that there is motion blur, so that means the bird must have been moving very slightly.

Second one is nice too even at ISO400, unfortunate the bird wouldn't give you a profile.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
 
mackey1001 said:
kernow said:
Very nice bird shots. In the small sizes posted I can't find a fault with any of them.

One thing is apparent from the settings chosen. Stick with f/5 to f/5.6 and don't move the ISO off of 100. I am just guessing, but I imagine raw was probably used, but they do not say.

If the shots look good at large sizes it would almost sell me on one if i were in the market.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are nice shots. Of course, larger size would have been great to see. As they say, having the right light, and of course a photographer that knows what they're doing, makes all the difference.

My experience with the FZ100 has been that the more experienced you are, and the more time you spend with it, the better the results. It really takes some getting used to - distinct differences with performance from a MOS sensor, as compared to my old FZ28. Need to sometimes overexpose if going up in ISO, and it doesn't seems as forgiving with shadow recovery if underexposing for very really bright parts of scenes.

Really a compromise camera, both better and worse than my old FZ28 (still enjoying the FZ100, but still "hoping" for a firmware update for better JPEG quality -- until then, my verdict is that the FZ100 is not for everyone, but is for those that can appreciate what it can still do).
A few bird shots with my typical 15 sec PP for levels and sharpening.
-M1
Click to expand...
very nice photos...quick question...i know jpeg can be 5fps and 11fps

but how much raw and jpeg + raw can you burst shoot??? cause i just read the entire manual and didn't find it.

also couple of photo tips...

YOU JITTER!!!..unless using a tripod than you will want to use the EVF for shooting something in other than daylight cause when pressing the camera to you you add atleast another half a second of jitter free shot...

for example ..with fz28 i could make stable shots at up to 1/8 of a sec shutter speed max b4 i saw blurring...
putting the evf and breathing got me up to 1/2 , 1 and even 2 secs sometimes...

LESS JITTER = LESS NOISE ...
 
kernow said:
Very nice bird shots. In the small sizes posted I can't find a fault with any of them .
Click to expand...
.

That's the key and the inability to fiind fault with them is absolutely to be expected, as I'll explain.

This camera produces 14 million pixel files but the images at the site are a mere 450,000 pixels, i.e., they are reduced 31 times. A reduction by a factor of 31 means that any artifacts, faults, blemishes or whatever (such as chromatic aberration, for instance) as large as 30 pixels in area (quite a "fat dot") or 5 pixels linear (Chromatic Aberration, say) would just disappear altogether after the reduction.

In other words, any and all blemishes and artifacts are made to disappear by the reduction in size per se , let alone if PP was also used as it's probably the case. In short, any camera would be able to produce fine-looking pictures at so small a size.
.
kernow said:
If the shots look good at large sizes it would almost sell me on one if i were in the market.
Click to expand...
.

A very big "if" and I wonder why Panasonic didn't include the possibility of downloading the full-size files and only made them available at 0.4 Mpixel so that their actual image quality could be examined.
.
kernow said:
One other thing that helps greatly with any camera is being close to your subject, this cannot be emphasized enough. I would imagine he was very close or Panasonic would have listed the focal length used.
Click to expand...
.

He certainly was very close to the bird in a number of shots though the tight framing and out-of-focus background serve to give the impression that it was a long tele shot when it actually was a very close , short-focal shot.

Take for instance the picture with a bird's face with some mosquitoes busy on the upper part of its beck (row 4, pic 1). If you look at the reflection in the eye, you'll see the reflection of the photograher himself, which was very , very close to the bird indeed.

In short, they may be nice pictures or not but at that truly small size they at best show the artistic merits of the photographer, not the technical merits of the camera.

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

 
Hi Mackey..

nice trying with fz100, but when you use fz28,
first sample can shots with f/4.0

second sample FZ28+TC .. shots 14x zoom with maximum aperture f/3.7 (560-650mm depend on TC) .. it makes different, puls better pixel ratio performace that make the result different (especially large size)
its not possible by FZ100, as it has different ratio: focal lenght vs aperture

rai
 
I have downloaded sample no 9,10,11 in original size, when the camera launch first time. Pic sample no 9 can found in this forum for about two months ago. Its horrible in large size, especially as the picture was taken ( i guess) less than 10 meters..

pic no 1-6 its video still, can found in youtube. Already optimal size i guess, yess FZ100 has great Full HD video feature.
 
Looks like kind o dirty game. What a pity.
--
Best regards, swnw.
 
Trensamiro said:
kernow said:
Very nice bird shots. In the small sizes posted I can't find a fault with any of them .
Click to expand...
.

That's the key and the inability to fiind fault with them is absolutely to be expected, as I'll explain.

This camera produces 14 million pixel files but the images at the site are a mere 450,000 pixels, i.e., they are reduced 31 times. A reduction by a factor of 31 means that any artifacts, faults, blemishes or whatever (such as chromatic aberration, for instance) as large as 30 pixels in area (quite a "fat dot") or 5 pixels linear (Chromatic Aberration, say) would just disappear altogether after the reduction.

In other words, any and all blemishes and artifacts are made to disappear by the reduction in size per se , let alone if PP was also used as it's probably the case. In short, any camera would be able to produce fine-looking pictures at so small a size.
.
Click to expand...
Trensamiro said:
Trensamiro said:
If the shots look good at large sizes it would almost sell me on one if i were in the market.
Click to expand...
.

A very big "if" and I wonder why Panasonic didn't include the possibility of downloading the full-size files and only made them available at 0.4 Mpixel so that their actual image quality could be examined.
.
Trensamiro said:
One other thing that helps greatly with any camera is being close to your subject, this cannot be emphasized enough. I would imagine he was very close or Panasonic would have listed the focal length used.
Click to expand...
.

He certainly was very close to the bird in a number of shots though the tight framing and out-of-focus background serve to give the impression that it was a long tele shot when it actually was a very close , short-focal shot.

Take for instance the picture with a bird's face with some mosquitoes busy on the upper part of its beck (row 4, pic 1). If you look at the reflection in the eye, you'll see the reflection of the photograher himself, which was very , very close to the bird indeed.

In short, they may be nice pictures or not but at that truly small size they at best show the artistic merits of the photographer, not the technical merits of the camera.

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

Click to expand...
then again the question rises..how big of a print do you want from a bird shot to be...

i'll bet anyway that since it is daylight shots there should have been no problem even for a lower class compact to get clear shot ( given the zoom the fz100 has )

about the tcon...yea..i have it..it does CA though..its not that elegant solution you know...its only good for wildlife...cause objects and landscape or the moon get CA from it..and her clarity is lower to the lens of the camera...besides...the fz100 can go a lot higher zoom wise than fz28 so with the same tcon it can go even higher..
 
Humm... downsized or not, the FZ100 is doing good sometimes. What we don't know is the percentage of keepers. In my case it is very low when I use the zoom that is the problem.

An example of a good photo is Mackey1001's duck photo. When I zoom it in my browser, it shows up as a 13"x10" photo on my monitor - perfectly sharp and noiseless. This means that I should be able to print it at least at that that size. Not bad for a super zoom P&S.
--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com
 
JulesGo said:
Humm... downsized or not, the FZ100 is doing good sometimes. What we don't know is the percentage of keepers. In my case it is very low when I use the zoom that is the problem.

An example of a good photo is Mackey1001's duck photo. When I zoom it in my browser, it shows up as a 13"x10" photo on my monitor - perfectly sharp and noiseless. This means that I should be able to print it at least at that that size. Not bad for a super zoom P&S.
--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com
Click to expand...
do you know how many shots pro bird shooters do to get a keeper?? if u get 5 out of 50 then its a very good day.....we can't control how the bird will look exactly in the lighting .for that matter a human being..u shoot a but load of shots and get some good ones...

this is actually an advantage of the fz100 compare to other since u can burst shoot...

5fps 11fps..and the 40fps at 5mp which is superb for birding when its in your frame...

but needless to say most shots will need PP ...i don't see it as a bad thing cause i love doing PP .and ofcourse i would have wanted a bigger sensor..atleast the 4/3 inside it if not aps-c one...but this is what we have.

also ..f4 compare to f5 is a very non significant issue...not like 2.8 to 1.8 for example .

i wish the pana would have put autohdr and pano and twilight modes and nr mode like the sony has..that would be so good instead of bracketing all the time and PP it into a single shot.

the perfect cam is always around the corner....no use just waiting it out no?
 
Yes... I know how many shots are needed... Have a look at my Web site in my signature... I won't tell you how many shots have been needed to post these pics. My percentage of keepers is much less than yours - if your % is 10%, either you are an extremely good technician or your standards are not very high.

Unfortunately, the FZ100 is not a good performer regarding keepers, at least for me. I like to think I know how to handle a camera but this one is still a mystery to me ! Usually good for landscapes and macro, bad for telephoto - good under good light, bad under low light - but unfortunately, it is unreliable at best. Yes it has good burst and video but this is not enough to make it a good performer.

I have tried the telephoto with IS turned on (both modes) and off, on a tripod, with the self-timer, manual and auto focus, RAW and JPG, various speed-ISO-aperture combinasons. Most photos turn out very soft and a few are quite good - for unknown reasons.

I bought this camera mainly for trekking and occasions where I don't want to carry a DLSR and lenses. I understand it will not replace my DSLR but so far it has not delivered. I'll give it a last chance with the new firmware update and will get rid of it if it is not better using telephoto.

Regards
Jules
rinkos said:
JulesGo said:
Humm... downsized or not, the FZ100 is doing good sometimes. What we don't know is the percentage of keepers. In my case it is very low when I use the zoom that is the problem.

An example of a good photo is Mackey1001's duck photo. When I zoom it in my browser, it shows up as a 13"x10" photo on my monitor - perfectly sharp and noiseless. This means that I should be able to print it at least at that that size. Not bad for a super zoom P&S.
--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com
Click to expand...
do you know how many shots pro bird shooters do to get a keeper?? if u get 5 out of 50 then its a very good day.....we can't control how the bird will look exactly in the lighting .for that matter a human being..u shoot a but load of shots and get some good ones...

this is actually an advantage of the fz100 compare to other since u can burst shoot...

5fps 11fps..and the 40fps at 5mp which is superb for birding when its in your frame...

but needless to say most shots will need PP ...i don't see it as a bad thing cause i love doing PP .and ofcourse i would have wanted a bigger sensor..atleast the 4/3 inside it if not aps-c one...but this is what we have.

also ..f4 compare to f5 is a very non significant issue...not like 2.8 to 1.8 for example .

i wish the pana would have put autohdr and pano and twilight modes and nr mode like the sony has..that would be so good instead of bracketing all the time and PP it into a single shot.

the perfect cam is always around the corner....no use just waiting it out no?
Click to expand...
--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com
 
JulesGo said:
Yes... I know how many shots are needed... Have a look at my Web site in my signature... I won't tell you how many shots have been needed to post these pics. My percentage of keepers is much less than yours - if your % is 10%, either you are an extremely good technician or your standards are not very high.
Click to expand...
rofl..made me laugh really hard...i liked that hidden sarcasm..good one.

anyway in macro i get a lot less success ratio than 10% more like 0.x something... so don't be hard on yourself...

now proper disclosure..i had fz28 not fz100..i was vying for the fz100 but then i saw the test shots and got really angry at the small sensor and much lesser quality ...

but later on a french dude made a terrific review here ..the best i ever saw...i looked at it ..downloaded photos ..tried myself to PP them b4 deciding myself..

apparently pana defaut settings suck very much ...
drop nr to 0 if not -2
sharpness to +2 very important
intelligent iso - yes. very important

sat and cont 0---if not -2 ( if u preffer doing PP u better do -2 cause its easy to add values but not remove them without causing noise )

also according to this french guy don't let the camera take above 6 apparture maximum
even 5 for better sharpness ) .

with these settings the photos got a whole lot better...infact i would say that now its only slightly less than fz28 and only on low light iso800 and iso1600..( basically 800 and 1600 are not usable even with fz28 but i use photoshop plugin called noiseware which does a great job together with normal sharpening in removing noise and bring back details) .

try those settings first...

anyway don't be mistaken - up till last 2 years even DSLR's had trouble making low light shot with no noise even on lower iso's...

also today pana released a new firmware 1.1version to deal with noise and the strange shadow effect

anyway try those settings first... and tell me how it goes .
JulesGo said:
Unfortunately, the FZ100 is not a good performer regarding keepers, at least for me. I like to think I know how to handle a camera but this one is still a mystery to me ! Usually good for landscapes and macro, bad for telephoto - good under good light, bad under low light - but unfortunately, it is unreliable at best. Yes it has good burst and video but this is not enough to make it a good performer.

I have tried the telephoto with IS turned on (both modes) and off, on a tripod, with the self-timer, manual and auto focus, RAW and JPG, various speed-ISO-aperture combinasons. Most photos turn out very soft and a few are quite good - for unknown reasons.

I bought this camera mainly for trekking and occasions where I don't want to carry a DLSR and lenses. I understand it will not replace my DSLR but so far it has not delivered. I'll give it a last chance with the new firmware update and will get rid of it if it is not better using telephoto.

Regards
Jules
Click to expand...
 
I have read that post about the settings and I figured it didn't matter since I was using RAW most if not all the time. These settings can be corrected easily in PP. But I'll try it anyway, just in case... who knows !

I also know that ISO should be kept as low as possible and I can live with that. Normal and expected for a P&S
...
rinkos said:
but later on a french dude made a terrific review here ..the best i ever saw...i looked at it ..downloaded photos ..tried myself to PP them b4 deciding myself..

apparently pana defaut settings suck very much ...
drop nr to 0 if not -2
sharpness to +2 very important
intelligent iso - yes. very important

sat and cont 0---if not -2 ( if u preffer doing PP u better do -2 cause its easy to add values but not remove them without causing noise )

also according to this french guy don't let the camera take above 6 apparture maximum
even 5 for better sharpness ) .

with these settings the photos got a whole lot better...infact i would say that now its only slightly less than fz28 and only on low light iso800 and iso1600..( basically 800 and 1600 are not usable even with fz28 but i use photoshop plugin called noiseware which does a great job together with normal sharpening in removing noise and bring back details) .

try those settings first...
Click to expand...
...
rinkos said:
anyway try those settings first... and tell me how it goes .
Click to expand...
--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com
 
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