Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Jon_T Veteran Member • Posts: 5,015
Re: Using Images Downsample to small 'NOT SO useless' as to IQ

ANAYV wrote:

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.

"Using Images Downsample to small 'NOT SO useless' as to IQ"

Sorry Anayv, but you're totally misunderstanding the 'points' in my post, as to using resampled images for determining a camera/ lens IQ.

When image is 'resampled' it's a 'new digitally created image', especially when greatly resampled down (or up) it's really no longer the FZ80's (or any other camera's) image. (in terms I think you're familiar with, digital 'resampling' of image is similar to theology of "Regeneration").

If you were to upsample the FZ80's full size image, by the same amount you're downszing image to the 1440 x 1080, the upsample image size would be 16646 x 12484.

Fitting for intended viewing, I would think. ...

Yes for those that only/ mainly want images that 'look' good as viewed on displays they do 'look' good. But that's totally different from the standard established camera/ lens testing procedures.

Please provide links to camera/ lens IQ testing and/ or review that uses images you post for "IQ" purposes.

Who actually prints anymore? ...

Think those that are truly interested in "Photography" do; have you been in any art/ photography galleries? What about those that participate in various Printers & Printing and/or Film Photography forums?

Yes I'm a photog relic. When getting serious to learning about Photography back in late 60's/ early 70's my mentors were Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and others in the "Group f/64" . I've read/ studied Ansel Adams "The Negative", "The Print", and "The Camera" books.

Had my own darkroom for 10 years.

I was PP digital images before digital cameras were widely available; PP digitally scanned prints, negatives, and slides.

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

Again, has nothing to do with "how" camera/ lens image quality properly determined. Only on how one uses the images.

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. ...


Yes I read all your (and others) posts in this topic prior to posting my reply, and hence why I took the time to post the full size and resampled 1440 x 1080 images for comparison.

Did you you at the link I provided to my older FZ80 post (HERE)? Yes I can get equally good/ sharp "looking" images too as noted.

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. ..

Still missing the point that just about 'ANY' camera (in the right hands) can provide good/ sharp 'looking' images when resampled to small resolution sizes.

Hence as aforementioned above resample image is a completely new digital created image and no longer the camera's 'digital image'.

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

The POINT of the image was to show a 'example' as to how FZ80's image quality deteriorates when subject does not 'fill' the image area, and even at 80 ISO the image noise deteriorating fine details.

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? ....

You yes, others not so much.

You need to put aside on how 'YOU' use the FZ80 (mainly @ full tele/ wildlife) and take in consideration how others would use the FZ80 as their 'only' camera for ALL type of shots.

Think of typical novices that are interested in the FZ80 because of it's 20-1200mm EFL and inexpensive price for their main camera, and then expect their FZ80 OOC JPG's to look like your posted small downsampled images.

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.

IMO not really. Not going get even a image dwonsampled to 12MP sharpesss to look close to the downsampled 1440 x 1080 image.

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....

Missing the point as the image a EXAMPLE as the amount as to the amount of image noise at 80 ISO.

Not about how you mainly use the FZ80, but about the "FZ80's" overall IQ.


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...

But highly inaccurate when using images resampled to small sizes for reasons already noted, and as you can read about yourself.

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. ...

Yes I know, and for me not that much of an issue with the FZ200 as I have the 1.7 TC if only needing the longer focal lendth.

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

Very simple, FZ200, FZ300, and FZ80 all have the same size sensor.

My comparions been with 'my' own actual experiences between the FZ200 and FZ80. And my experiences for the most part parralles the comments in the reviews I noted in my older post HERE one would use the FZ80 or FZ200 for general photograhy, not just full tele wildlife shooting.

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 ? ...

Useless and OFF SUBJECT. My point is difference between cameras with 1/2.3" sensor.

As to 1"-Type sensor from the limited shots taken with the RX10 IV's ClearImage at 1200mm EFL, look better than the FZ80's 1200mm EFL optical.

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.


You're welcome.

Always enjoy viewing your images; have a great eye for composition of images, and constanlty envy the park, zoo, etc. locations you seem to be close to.

Unlike yourself I got the FZ80 to use in lieu of FZ200 a smaller/ lighter longer zoom option. I was hoping that with RAW and downsizing the FZ80 images to the 12MP resolution it would provide similar IQ to the FZ200, but "my" FZ80 does not.

At first I thought I just got a bad FZ80 sample; but from the reviews I've noted appears "my' FZ80 on par with the reviews.


 Jon_T's gear list:Jon_T's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Canon PowerShot G15 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon PowerShot S110 Panasonic FZ1000 +15 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow