Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Using Images Downsample to small 'NOT SO useless' as to IQ

Jon_T wrote:

ANAYV wrote:

Speaking of the FZ80....I'm now wondering if the lens isn't the weakest link in this feature rich, but I.Q. limited camera?

Here's two images taken more recently...the first yesterday , second from last month, both shooting RAW and using DXO PhotoLabs 2 with PRIME NR:


I think there's plenty of details in these perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera. ...

As usual a great captures, that you do very well at.

Good for display viewing but the small size limits print size to around
4.8" x 3.6" @ 300 DPI.

Fitting for intended viewing, I would think.

Who actually prints anymore?

Many  here will view on 2MP displays.. many also at 8MP (4K)

As to determining camera/ lens image quality not really, for two basic reasons:

True. But look at my second post, where I posted full sized images.

I also posted two images , to see if others can see the detailed difference.

I will post again:

Can you see difference?

I think you can.

I can.

1. Re-sampling:
When re-sampling image downsampled or upsampled (aka digital zoom), the image is a 'new version' of the camera image that's created by the re-sampling process used. Depending upon the re-sampling and JPG quality setting used, a downsampled image will usually 'look' better than the full size.

Following are excerpts from: Image Resampling1Written by Jonathan SachsCopyright © 2001 Digital Light & ColorImage Resampling (direct link to PDF HERE )

" ... Resampling is the mathematical technique used to create a new version of the image with a different width and/or height in pixels.

Increasing the size of an image is called upsampling; reducing its size is called downsampling.

When images are upsampled, the number of pixels increases, but, with reference to the original subject, new image detail cannot be created that was not already present in the original image. As a result, images normally become softer the more they are enlarged since the amount of information per pixel goes down.

When images are downsampled, information in the original image has to be dis-carded to make the image smaller. Thus if you downsample and then upsample an image, you will not get all the original image detail back.

Downsampling a soft image can make it appear sharper even though it contains less information than the original. ..."

There are many online articles on image re-sampling.

Several simple examples showing difference between FZ80 full size images downsized to 1440 x 1080; all the downsized images 'look' noticeably better as image noise, edge softness, color aberrations, etc. are also greatly reduced/ not visible.

True. Details look better and noise is less.

Also many folk are  viewing these on cellphones...tablets...some on TV/Monitors.

What's the resolution on these screens?

Well, if small screens, than maybe 2MP?

Certainly not 18MP screen resolution..nor 10MP....some at 8MP..many much less.

This is the intended viewer. Downsampled images are not an issue to those using/taking images posted (without permission), as full sized images can be.

Quicker to download and view, for some. Perhaps less these days, than a few years ago.

Thus the reason many of us post smaller sized images.

But full size will help some  , when talking /comparing I.Q. ...others not asking for full size, as they see results similar to the way they view other images, all over the internet.

All the lens resolution test items in the above DPR Studio Comparison Tool shot are useless in the small downsampled image.

Imaging Resource FZ80 Review 80 ISO; 1440 x 1080

This shot is lacking details, Jon. If I had these results, I would not still be using the FZ80

If you can fill the image area like your second image above, good lighting, and low ISO, yes you can capture fur/ hair fine details.

Is this not the reason for owning a 1200mm reach superzoom camera?

If subject is way too far away, then I probably would not take the photo.

For landscapes , then a different story.

But I have other cameras for that.

FZ80is used  for far away subjects (wildlife). If I am able to get closer, then less zoom is used.

But as the subject fills less of the image area, the fine details become softer.

Imaging Resource FZ80 Review 80 ISO PP RAW w/ DxO PhotoLab 3; Full Size

Even with my own shots there are times PP FZ80 RAW files do not improve IQ all that much.

Mmmm. I am finding much less noise, while retaining details ...using DXO PhotoLabs 2.0 .  Version 3.0 might be better. I keep ISO at base, and underexpose by up to -3.

PRIME takes care of the noise and I avoid higher ISO's. Details remain.

As with other 1/2.3" 18MP+ sensor cameras, FZ80 does not bode well in cloudy/ gloomy lighting conditions.


Cloudy/ Gloomy Day ISO 80, Full Size

Cloudy/ Gloomy Day ISO 80, 1440 x 1080

But  I don't shoot landscapes with Superzooms. I've had many over the years, and always used other camera's I felt were a bit better (some WAY better) for these type shots.

So for me , shots like these are N/A.

2. Target Size and Camera to Target Distance

1. Technically the only way to 'correctly' determine camera/ lens image quality is using the established procedures,

Or by experience...that is , taking many thousands of shots...different lighting...different subjects...trying out different settings, etc..and having other superzooms to compare.

This is what I have done.

My thoughts are more than thoughts....actual experience.

I feel this lens is a bit better than I thought, now shooting FZ80 with RAW exclusively.

Mainly because of the results DXO can give. No other reason, to be honest.

as to target size and distance from the target for focal length being used. Via some searches one can easily find numerous sites, tutorials, etc. that explain how test camera/ lens image quality; e.g., one HERE.

I'm not a tester...just posting my thoughts and more so, my experiences. Like you, I've been here a while and offer help. This thread is about that.

DPreview is about tests.

In addition to proper distance from target/ subject distance need to examine the FULL SIZE IMAGE (i.e., NOT RESAMPLED), preferably RAW.

Again, something DPreview and other sites can do

Not the average poster, like me

Sorry, but using subject distance and zoom to 'FILL' image area with subject is not a accurate representation of camera/ lens image quality.

It is, for me.. if compared to other superzooms.

I can compare noise, details, O.I.S. , AF speed, EVF quality, etc.

The 1200mm end of the FZ80 is what I care about.

No interest is not using the zoom reach on this camera. No use for the wide end. I wish someone would make a superzoom starting at 100mm or more, to be honest.

As you have shown many, many times, with 'many' different cameras just about any camera/ lens, in the right hands, can provide in good looking images with #1 above, and to 'FILL' image area with subject.

I have a different view of this. Not all superzooms are created equal. This thread is specifically about the lens sharpness, as I have experienced it...shooting jpegs and EZ zoom (9MP) full resolution RAW (18MP)

Yes under the right conditions the FZ80 'can' provide (as I noted in older post HERE). However in comparing the FZ80 within the 24-600mm EFL RAW images to FZ200 RAW images, 'overall' the FZ200 images were 'consistently' better;

Indeed...but not applicable , since we are talking about 1200mm reach

600mm is half the reach. I used the FZ200. Loved it. But  the FZ200 nor the FZ300 can give me the images I get with the FZ80..hence my previous post about the 'type ' of images I was able to take with said camera. The Egret, and other images I posted in response to that.

FZ200/300 can't do this.

Cropping from 12MP also cannot give same reach.

Neither can the FZ1000 I owned. So not sure why the FZ200/300 is mentioned along with the FZ80 ???

especially at 400+ ISO's which one will need in less than good daylight due to the small pixel size and small tele focal lengths max apertures.

different camera's for different subjects, IMHO.

Which no surprise to those who understand that the FZ80's pixel area size is 1.56µm2 vs. FZ200 pixel area size of 2.34µm2; each FZ200 pixel has a 49% larger pixel area, larger area more light (protons) per pixel; hence less image noise per pixel.

Why not compare the FZ1000, too ?

Because it's for different needs...that's why

Again images are great captures, good for display viewing, but not for determining camera/ lens IQ.


Here is the full sized image of the GBH:

Note the shutter speed. Only 1/60th at 1200mm, handheld.

Not really the best for I.Q.  but already have comments on the detail. Some on another forum thought the details were 'great' on this very image.

Perhaps they're eyes more tuned for smaller images.

One of these persons has way more experience than me, and also higher end gear.

So I know quite a few folk can see details, or lack of, even with small sized images, like the one's I always post.


Bottom line, I see a bit less noise and more details in my latest approach , thanks to DXO Labs.

Also thanks to you, Jon for  promoting RAW for some years now.

I'm a slow learner

Thanks for your detailed (pun intended comments.

You are knowledgeable and informative, as well as being helpful.



Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow