Thank you. You appear to be a pixel peeping nerd observing images at the far end of a fart. I on the other hand am a realist with a simple yet valid opinion. I've concluded, after a lot of photographs, that in my personal, opinion, to which I am entitled, the TZ70 produces better images, on balance ,than the TZ60, from the perspective of the average user.
It's not really worth writing any more words to you than that is it? We are on seperate planets. I am on earth and you? I no not where -probably an asteroid belt in deep space.
Dave, Cheshire, England. Vision fading fast but aided by lenses!
P.S. Please carry on with your 'controlled' testing - my opinion is derived, as I stated prior to your nerdy repsonse, with use in the field over a protracted period.
P.P.S. I really don't get the sample variation malarkey. It's essentially nonsense - These things are produced under incredibly controlled conditions, whether is in Japan or a Chinese factory. Do you really think a global producer such as Panasonic (or Canon, or Nikon et al) would allow quality variation such as you suggest? I don't think so, the legal potential of that could bring Apple to their knees and they have more cash surplus than the good old U.S. of A.!
Blimey, I nearly responded to your reply to my article, but changed my mind thinking I was being a bit harsh on you, but I see now that my response would have been somewhat mild compared to this stuff. Indeed, I see now that it wasn't even worthy of a response from me.
However, I'll bite a little
A lot of what we see with our own eyes *
can* be subjective. And, arguing that one camera is better than another is not as valid as when providing hard evidence over a simple comment.
Now, who would any sane person believe here, an anecdotal comment, or visible evidence in the form of image files under reasonably controlled conditions?
Besides, I believe we have enough wasted goods in the world, if someone is happy using an out of date product, that otherwise performs satisfactorily for *
them*, what's the problem there? Just because their equipment doesn't meet someone else's exacting standards, it doesn't mean it has to be discarded.
I've also got a lot of comparison photos here, around 45,000 images over 15 years of shooting with digital, partly with compacts, and partly with DSLR, and not forgetting another 20 years before that using 35mm SLRs. All I can really say here is that very often the technical specifications of the equipment is not necessarily what matters. I have images stored taken with my first digital (an Olympus C960z), at 1.3MP, which are still enjoyable to view, still present a good image, and some of which I printed at A4 size, which looked pretty darned good.
With regards to copy variation, that is indeed a very valid point. It's something that applies to even more expensive equipment than we are talking about here too. Most products are built to tolerances, and those tolerances are adjusted to be able to come down to a given price level for a given product. I have certainly seem it talked about a lot with regards to DSLR lenses in particular, and have seen it myself with some of the products I've owned.
And finally, over the years I have all too often seen arguments about equipment, but all too often the need for better equipment is usually argued by those who have the least knowledge of how to use it properly.
)
