Reading mode: Light Dark

Will the FZ100 EVER get a IQ quality/ ISO noise upgrade??

Go to last post
I think that there is a tendency by some photographers to introduce a sense of equipment snobbery. Personally as long as I am happy with my pictures I really don't care about opinions, having said that I do welcome "constructive" criticism, and appreciation. I took the picture below, and I quite like it. Surely isn't that all that matters
at the end of the day.

Steve



 
Juri D said:
Midwest said:
Well, I see problems with both images. The second poster's image, the white fur looks very smeared in the image.
Click to expand...
For me that would be a huge problem: the smearing is very visible even in a microscopic size - 900x720. That's why Imaging-Resource gave the camera this verdict (last para in http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ100/FZ100A.HTM ): "We'd like to reiterate that using the Panasonic FZ100 is a whole lot of fun, and if you're only producing small images, you're probably going to be happy, but for the rest of the enthusiasts who love the FZ series, image quality is low enough that unless you're only uploading images to the Web or shooting at 4x6, you're going to be disappointed. This may be the first Panasonic long zoom to not earn a Dave's Pick."
Click to expand...
Tell me just what do you use a picture from a Bridge Camera for that "smearing is a huge problem?"
Surely you are not trying to pass your photos off as of a professional standard?

These are at best "Fun" cameras and will never turn out professional quality images, which is why the whole package of functions needs to be considered not just IQ.

Cllearly you will never be satisfied with any bridge camera, and I suspect even a DSLR will give some cause for criticism, too if you want to look for it.

So Dave didn't like it? that's his problem!
 
IMHO, that any newer camera has worse image quality than it's predecessor. Why? Because of MP. But that's irony. Why to have more MP if the large pictures becomes like Picasso paintings anyway?

If this camera had 6 or 8 MP, I suppose the IQ would be like FZ35 or better? Then I'd love it.
But I know, put 8 MP sticker on it and your sales will drop. Really really sad.

I'm not saying that you can't be happy with this camera, but you can hardly deny reality.
--
Pictures from Japan: http://www.pbase.com/tomas_cermak
http://picasaweb.google.com/cermaktomas

 
... to stop a purposeful conversation than sending a photo of a silly squirrel that has little or nothing to do with the topic. Well done -- if that's what you intended.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix
 
Tomas Cermak said:
IMHO, that any newer camera has worse image quality than it's predecessor. Why? Because of MP. But that's irony. Why to have more MP if the large pictures becomes like Picasso paintings anyway?

If this camera had 6 or 8 MP, I suppose the IQ would be like FZ35 or better? Then I'd love it.
But I know, put 8 MP sticker on it and your sales will drop. Really really sad.

I'm not saying that you can't be happy with this camera, but you can hardly deny reality.
--
Pictures from Japan: http://www.pbase.com/tomas_cermak
http://picasaweb.google.com/cermaktomas

Click to expand...
If you read ny posts carefully, you will see I haven't denied this so called reality at all, merely said that the lack of quality you seem to lament doesn't matter compared to the extra speed and facilities for the average buyer, me included.
 
morepix said:
... to stop a purposeful conversation than sending a photo of a silly squirrel that has little or nothing to do with the topic. Well done -- if that's what you intended.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix
Click to expand...
So actual images from the camera have nothing to do with the topic, but second hand opinions do?
This comes under the old saying
"Don't bother me with facts,
I've made my mind up!"

What I intended was to illustrate the point of the level of the performance of the camera. Sorry if that was considered impolite.
 
Purely from an amateur perspective, the FZ100 is a great little camera. If the actual owners like it. Where is the problem? As I said previously, have the naysayers handled the camera, or do they own one. And what do they expect knowing the cameras capability?

Steve
 
I'm still on the fence about the IQ from my newly acquired FZ100 but I am having a lot of fun with it. The startup, interface, and focusing are very fast and it's just a fun camera to use. It's feature-packed also. As stated above, this class of camera will never be all about IQ - none of the choices from any manufacturer makes me go "wow!" over the IQ but I am going "wow!" over how fast this thing focuses for thsi class of camera.
 
Second Posters photo was from an FZ35...smearing? FZ35?....No wayyy that couldn't possibly happen! We'll have a Helpline up shortly folks with a 1-800 number....
Juri D said:
Midwest said:
Well, I see problems with both images. The second poster's image, the white fur looks very smeared in the image.
Click to expand...
For me that would be a huge problem: the smearing is very visible even in a microscopic size - 900x720. That's why Imaging-Resource gave the camera this verdict (last para in http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ100/FZ100A.HTM ): "We'd like to reiterate that using the Panasonic FZ100 is a whole lot of fun, and if you're only producing small images, you're probably going to be happy, but for the rest of the enthusiasts who love the FZ series, image quality is low enough that unless you're only uploading images to the Web or shooting at 4x6, you're going to be disappointed. This may be the first Panasonic long zoom to not earn a Dave's Pick."
Click to expand...
 
These are excellent shots posted in assistance by OG...if you don't like these shots there is something wrong with YOU not the camera...thanks oldgroaner I would rather wade through photo's anyday than BS...the photos smell better...lol...
oldgroaner said:
Well now, I own an FZ38 and also an FZ100, neither of which if judged by the standards of my Nikon DSLR and lenses could be said to produce "Quality" images.

How strange that unless I am doing something that really needs extra "Quality" I use the FZ100 and neither of the others.
Why should this be?

Because it is the most versatile camera of the three,It has a superb articulating screen and the zoom is good enough to capture images that need little or no enlargement to make high class prints, and it does this at slow shutter speeds too

Great for taking shots like this in the local park

Neither of the other two cameras make it so easy to get shots like these so it is my camera of preference

These are consumer products that should be judged on the balance of more than just the single factor of image quality, which will not, in any case trouble the likely buyer of the camera, who isn't going to want to view them at 100% anyway.

Looked at as a total package the FZ100 is far superior in all but one respect (which hardly matters)to it's predecessor the FZ38, and I won't be going back to it.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sad about IQ because it could be much better (at higher ISO) if the camera had only 8 or 10 MP, because that would be enough even for large prints. No need for 14MP if details at higher ISO are smeared away anyway. Apart of this I agree with you that performance is superior. But because I need also ISO 800, I prefer lover noise of FZ38. That's why I don't like megapixel race.........
--
Pictures from Japan: http://www.pbase.com/tomas_cermak
http://picasaweb.google.com/cermaktomas

 
Hi Jury:
This is my second post about your opinions about FZ100.

I was asking myself why you always refer to the bad reviews and never mention Luminous Landscape, Photoblog, Steves Digicam and others witch give good marks to FZ100? And you only mention the worst reviewers on the planet, Imaging Resource? This is what I consider a biased opinion, as I never saw on this forum. Yes! You try to influence negatively, with very strong words the ones that consider the FZ100 as a possibility. Why? What gives you the right to proceed like this, like if you own the through? Who have asked your opinion, by the way? You even don't own such camera...
If, at least you started with "IMHO?..."

You will do a great favour to a lot of us if you shut up on this matter, since you are unable of a fair and based comment.

Best regards and I hope the New Year will bring you more fairness and better judgements.
 
Urbanito said:
I was asking myself why you always refer to the bad reviews and never mention Luminous Landscape, Photoblog, Steves Digicam and others witch give good marks to FZ100?
Click to expand...
The trouble is that most reviews are negative. And a few that are positive, do note that the IQ of that camera is poor. It's not like that they 've got better cameras :) If you look at the sample images at Steves' you'll see the same poor quality pictures as in Imaging-resource or elsewhere!
 
Well put oldgroaner. That was very well demonstrated. Its a shame that some people are jumping on the back of bad press. It will always come back to using your camera within its limitations. I have had my camera 2 weeks now, and I am as pleased as punch with it.
 
oldgroaner said:
I posted these images on another thread to show just how the quality varies between the two camera models, shooting at 400 ASA best quality setting jpeg, no sharpening or PP, aperture f5.6
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37351566
Judge for yourself whether the difference is important
Click to expand...
I believe that those and other microscopic-sized images [14-> 1.9MP] have been already discussed. If you downsize enough, even a cellphone image will look good.
 
Juri D said:
oldgroaner said:
I posted these images on another thread to show just how the quality varies between the two camera models, shooting at 400 ASA best quality setting jpeg, no sharpening or PP, aperture f5.6
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37351566
Judge for yourself whether the difference is important
Click to expand...
I believe that those and other microscopic-sized images [14-> 1.9MP] have been already discussed. If you downsize enough, even a cellphone image will look good.
Click to expand...
Talk about not wanting to see the truth, these were saved to my Gallery full sized

The display size of the Forum and Gallery are limited, but it hasn't stopped the nay sayers using them in evidence in the past, has it?

I grow weary of people who are not bothered by real evidence.

There is a slight loss of quality between the FZ38 and FZ100, if you see this as a big problem, that's your prerogative.

did you actually look at the images before posting? they were not downsized.

Sorry to bother you when you have already made your mind up
 
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