FZ80 experiences pt.4

... so my neighbor says to me " I don't know if you're interested... but there are these big yellow butterflies over at the bush, haven't seen so many..." (... no, no interest at all) I was already gone - yelling over my shoulder THANK YOU!

018ea38d62e341bba8cb8a31ea849182.jpg
I think this is a female ...



6f50de3cab2d4365b4df3c82cea231c4.jpg





better than a beautiful - two? neah - three!

05c399a8ea7849c59356fa4ee98a8825.jpg

438ff4aecd1643b9be71a125d76b9f24.jpg

This is also a swallowtail...

447241860bef47539759d96f5eb5f575.jpg

06278ef504fc4f63ab63b18190a63b6c.jpg

60d9bfb5efcc4c31bcb581cbdd2b9884.jpg

--
Vincent
http://flickr.com/UnknownVincent/albums
https://youtube.com/user/vtVincent
https://goo.gl/q91ZNw
http://unknownvincent.shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.shutterfly.com
 

Attachments

  • 8b178120267a43bebf66c81531f79580.jpg
    8b178120267a43bebf66c81531f79580.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
... at about 11:30pm it started to pour heavily with lightning and thunder... yes, thumbnail shows lightning....
Video? Crikey, I'm not on that page yet! 😲
p.151 (adv manual). Set FZ80/82 into iA+ mode and press that RED button (next to the shutter button) - it is that simple (just teasing you..)

But p.153 (adv manual) set up the video (quality) it's probably safer to choose MP4 format as that is more common and compatible. I use 1080 @ 30 fps - since you're in the UK the equivalent is 1080 @ 25fps. However I note PerAE had a preference for the higher frame rate - so 50fps (UK) - but beware this needs better light as the "shutter speed" is correspondingly higher, and it may not be as compatible as 25fps (UK).

Practice when not under any pressure to post anything, and see which gives you the results you want.

Then post on YouTube (or Vimeo) get the "share" link, then come post it here - it's the button to the right of the upload photo - looks like a Play button.

Videos for you would be easy - as it is a continuous framing composition....

Looking forward to Fran's videos?
 
7b457ad328a64e699cd55616dc70c927.jpg



cbae89d30ddb48d9ba8bde180bcde4de.jpg



b31fee13076649bcaf1b9a3fe2d9b79e.jpg

then it started to rain - cover FZ80 with shirt and ran indoors....

Got into processing photos, as above - about half way through just when I getting into a nice groove, from the corner of my eye, noticed the sun was out..... should I go out again? or just stay in and finish processing?

bc2434037fc54fddb2fcd032796d9b20.jpg

4682a316d3b04debab121bd1a3a37b65.jpg



867006c6b9aa4ed5a44a30fa78a46daf.jpg



c1d8538e56114611864cea698daf7159.jpg



f2bfcbf08a2e463eaafa02a8edb0ba98.jpg

think I made the right decision?

--
Vincent
 
... From all the posts made up to now, visitors can see that the FZ80 takes fair quality pictures from wide angle to middle zoom range in good light. But at full zoom it struggles to reproduce clear detail bar the odd fluke. ..
You did not provide any JK Imaging/ Kodak camera review links or images in your post, nor do you have any images in your DPR Galleries for viewing.

I agree with most of what you say about the FZ80's IQ, however FZ80 suffers from the same anomaly of other Panasonic compact cameras; in-camera JPG noise reduction deterioration/ smearing fine details, which is worst in the FZ80 due to the 1/2.3" 18MP sensor noise.

One can get better results with some simple techniques and using RAW images, as I posted HERE.

Agree personally would not bought the FZ80 if only a JPG shooter—I mainly shoot RAW with all my cameras.

IMO the FZ80 could have had better overall IQ if Panasonic would have improved the FZ70's 16MP sensor and firmware; e.g., Nikon CoolPix 16MP long zoom cameras.

I have not been impressed with the IQ of any of the 18+ MP 1/2.3" sensors.

In couple of the FZ80 reviews they seem to think that the poor IQ at the 215mm/ 1200mm ELF was possibly due more to the OIS than the lens; oen noted better consistent IQ with OIS off/ tripod,

Despite the FZ80's/ FZ80's shortcomings, it has received some good (i.e., not great) reviews: PhotographyBlog, CameraLabs, Imaging Resource, etc.; and overall good users reviews at B&H Photo, Amazon, etc.

FZ80/ FZ82 definitely not for anal 100% pixel peepers.
... Cheap price of a cam should not mean compromise in picture quality. ...
Imagine you're aware that the cost of a camera dependent upon local manufacturing facility's location as to labor/ material costs, manufacturing facility's operational costs; i.e., what would be the cost of the 'same' JK Imaging/ Kodak camera manufactured in Myanmar, if manufactured in the USA?

Buying a JK Imaging/ Kodak camera would not be my first choice simply due to the lack of online reviews by the most common online review sites. I always read at least three full reviews that have full size JPG+RAW images to download to make my own comparisons.

Prior to considering purchasing any JK Imaging/ Kodak camera, I would want to see some legitimate proof that the reason for JK Imaging/ Kodak cameras lower prices are not due to taking advantage (directly/ indirectly) of the reported forced labor conditions in Myanmar.

JK Imaging currently being sued by DigiMedia Tech for patent infringement camera-related zoom and focus patents. Wonder about the impact on JK Imaging if they should loose the suit.

What I've seen of the Kodak cameras at local Walmart, the low price indicative to the build quality.

Reminds me of when comparing the build quality of SX40 HS to the FZ150's.

As always: each to his/ her own preferences.

Cheers,
Jon
 
Last edited:
it's raining



and I was so impressed with PerAE's macro photo of the wasp - thought I'd better at least get acquainted with the macro ...

Test "target"

2f64c71829c6445ebe783aa23cc704ec.jpg

set macro AF, and see how close I can get

10082accc48f49d7a168bd49a0b3c598.jpg

pretty darned close - BUT pic shows the camera casts shadow on the subject because of the closeness.

Mitigate with a flashlight/torch from the (right) side ...

37f3bf4c924241c8bfb187006a8613b3.jpg

pretty good modelling - exaggerated perspective ("curvature"?), but lots of "speckles" (maybe due to dust on my UV filter? - it looks clean/dust free)

e8e0d291b6484622b2aac225593574e2.jpg

Lens (bezel) is actually touching the surface - good lighting - but obviously not straight/square on as originally intended...

oh, maybe it's stopped raining?

--
Vincent
http://flickr.com/UnknownVincent/albums
https://youtube.com/user/vtVincent
https://goo.gl/q91ZNw
http://unknownvincent.shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.shutterfly.com
 
Last edited:
it's raining
and I was so impressed with PerAE's macro photo of the wasp - thought I'd better at least get acquainted with the macro ...

Test "target"

2f64c71829c6445ebe783aa23cc704ec.jpg

set macro AF, and see how close I can get

10082accc48f49d7a168bd49a0b3c598.jpg

pretty darned close - BUT pic shows the camera casts shadow on the subject because of the closeness.

Mitigate with a flashlight/torch from the (right) side ...

37f3bf4c924241c8bfb187006a8613b3.jpg

pretty good modelling - exaggerated perspective ("curvature"?), but lots of "speckles" (maybe due to dust on my UV filter? - it looks clean/dust free)

e8e0d291b6484622b2aac225593574e2.jpg

Lens (bezel) is actually touching the surface - good lighting - but obviously not straight/square on as originally intended...

oh, maybe it's stopped raining?

The lens bezel touching the object and/or casting shadows is a real challenge, I remember struggling with that as well.



I took the wasp-picture with the 4K post focus mode. The cropping in that mode makes the magnification even larger (but, of course, more than halves the resolution).



I ordered a Raynox 150 macro add on a couple of weeks ago and hopefully get it sometime in the coming week. It’ll be interesting to see what that can do when I figure out how to use it
 
Not sure why these FZ80 threads are carrying on and on for so few participants. With just 3 or 4 beginners plus the OP constantly bumping the thread up the listings with flowers and occasional poor quality animal shots, what is the objective?
A new thread for all FZ camera owners of all experience might be better. Viewers could compare the image quality of different models to the FZ80
But they would have to keep zoom reach to 400/600mm. Since others can't zoom out to 1200mm.....no reason to compare 1/4 or 1/2 zoom reach camera's (with less MP or larger sensors) to the FZ80 1200mm reach. FZ80 stands alone, since it's zoom reach at least doubles other FZ's.
and widen the whole debate of what makes a good photograph. The beginners might benefit from seeing what can be achieved with other FZ cameras and appreciate why they struggle with the FZ80.

From all the posts made up to now, visitors can see that the FZ80 takes fair quality pictures from wide angle to middle zoom range in good light.
I thought it took pretty good (not great) images at full zoom and handheld at lowish shutter speeds.

Here's a few when I used the FZ80:

1699mm
1699mm

1033mm
1033mm

1699mm
1699mm

Quite good enough for internet viewing (I'd bet 90% of folk view photo's this way, these days)
But at full zoom it struggles to reproduce clear detail bar the odd fluke.
The camera...or the shooter?

Most folk will not be able to handhold at 1200mm , unless light allows for fast enough shutter speeds.

With some time and effort, one can get better.

I read a lot where folk compare 600mm reach to 1200mm reach. Illogical.

The lens can capture enough details, but unless shutter speeds are fast enough, chances for a blurred image is increased a lot, over camera's that reach to 400mm/600mm.This lens is also slower ( at the telephoto end) than most every other FZ camera made.

Atmospheric conditions also can sometimes become a problem at 1200mm reach, where they might not at 400/600mm reach.
That will not change.
You sound like an authority on this...but I doubt you even ever shot with this camera. I could be wrong.

Seems your initial thoughts might not change...or will they?

One cannot just grab a 1200mm reach camera, and shoot sharp images. One needs to get adjusted to the camera, and it's O.I.S. system. Took me a few weeks to get decent with the FZ80. Took longer to get pretty good at it.
It is only a suggestion. But please consider changing the theme for the any part 5 or 6, or 7. Thanks.
Or feel free to make an new thread with your camera, and I'm sure others will chime in , adding there images, as well

Stay healthy

ANAYV
 
Last edited:
... so my neighbor says to me " I don't know if you're interested... but there are these big yellow butterflies over at the bush, haven't seen so many..." (... no, no interest at all) I was already gone - yelling over my shoulder THANK YOU!


Haha!
018ea38d62e341bba8cb8a31ea849182.jpg

so what's better than a beautiful butterfly?

two?

5fa7b7ac3ecb4c609fa86ade0e3fe5fd.jpg

0d270f1956b84557a905f982633dd288.jpg

6782f4fe407149dea811ef080f7124c6.jpg

no problems with its wing-tips (shoes).... :-P
no problems with its wing-tips (shoes).... :-P

886ff16729f64b21a6895655d47376c5.jpg

d1f5b938575d406bbad81e9eb05727c2.jpg
Really nice set, VT!

First one is really good!!



Stay healthy



ANAYV
 
Beautiful butterflies and flowers Vincent. Nothing much doing here. This just about sums up the weekend ....

4cfb129503ac4796b1167af3a1e56953.jpg
 
Not sure why these FZ80 threads are carrying on and on for so few participants. With just 3 or 4 beginners plus the OP constantly bumping the thread up the listings with flowers and occasional poor quali seety animal shots, what is the objective?

A new thread for all FZ camera owners of all experience might be better. Viewers could compare the image quality of different models to the FZ80
But they would have to keep zoom reach to 400/600mm. Since others can't zoom out to 1200mm.....no reason to compare 1/4 or 1/2 zoom reach camera's (with less MP or larger sensors) to the FZ80 1200mm reach. FZ80 stands alone, since it's zoom reach at least doubles other FZ's.
and widen the whole debate of what makes a good photograph. The beginners might benefit from seeing what can be achieved with other FZ cameras and appreciate why they struggle with the FZ80.

From all the posts made up to now, visitors can see that the FZ80 takes fair quality pictures from wide angle to middle zoom range in good light.
I thought it took pretty good (not great) images at full zoom and handheld at lowish shutter speeds.

Here's a few when I used the FZ80:

1699mm
1699mm

1033mm
1033mm

1699mm
1699mm

Quite good enough for internet viewing (I'd bet 90% of folk view photo's this way, these days)
But at full zoom it struggles to reproduce clear detail bar the odd fluke.
The camera...or the shooter?

Most folk will not be able to handhold at 1200mm , unless light allows for fast enough shutter speeds.

With some time and effort, one can get better.

I read a lot where folk compare 600mm reach to 1200mm reach. Illogical.

The lens can capture enough details, but unless shutter speeds are fast enough, chances for a blurred image is increased a lot, over camera's that reach to 400mm/600mm.This lens is also slower ( at the telephoto end) than most every other FZ camera made.

Atmospheric conditions also can sometimes become a problem at 1200mm reach, where they might not at 400/600mm reach.
That will not change.
You sound like an authority on this...but I doubt you even ever shot with this camera. I could be wrong.

Seems your initial thoughts might not change...or will they?

One cannot just grab a 1200mm reach camera, and shoot sharp images. One needs to get adjusted to the camera, and it's O.I.S. system. Took me a few weeks to get decent with the FZ80. Took longer to get pretty good at it.
It is only a suggestion. But please consider changing the theme for the any part 5 or 6, or 7. Thanks.
Or feel free to make an new thread with your camera, and I'm sure others will chime in , adding there images, as well

Stay healthy

ANAYV


Fabulous photos Anayv. Definitely something to aspire to.
 
I took the wasp-picture with the 4K post focus mode.
Great! thanks - did you find it relatively easy to use 4K post focus, and produce the final result? eg: was it all in camera?
The cropping in that mode makes the magnification even larger (but, of course, more than halves the resolution).
Ah! might not agree with this - but there used to be an old adage which said if a handheld print could pass very close scrutiny, then that image can be printed to any size (any, including wall sized murals) at the the correct viewing distances - that means at 1.5x diagonal of the image/print.

For me handheld print was not clear - many take it to be 6"x4" - diagonal of 7.2" correct viewing distance is supposed to be 1.5x diagonal = about 11"

I've always used a 10"x8" print - diagonal of 12.8" - 12" it is the closest viewing distance the eye normally can focus on, so this probably the most stringent/demanding viewing....

To get a good 10x8 print the current recommendation is 300ppi = 3000x2400 pixels - this is 7.2Mp - 4K frame exceeds that.

ref: http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php

much longer version: https://martinbaileyphotography.com...g-distances-and-print-resolution-podcast-532/

You probably know all this, since you already know about screen sizes and viewing distances?

So... don't worry, be happy! :-)
I ordered a Raynox 150 macro add on a couple of weeks ago and hopefully get it sometime in the coming week. It’ll be interesting to see what that can do when I figure out how to use it
Please tell more about the Raynox 150 - how does it differ from a close-up lens? I read it's for use at max tele/zoom... so for 1200mm?

Looking forward to your reply.
 
Beautiful pictures! The last one is extremely nice!
Thanks Per - might want to know your wasp pic inspired me to do that - I was using macro AF - not at the closest distance as the camera would cast a shadow - so backed off until no shadow...

--
Vincent
 
I took the wasp-picture with the 4K post focus mode.
Great! thanks - did you find it relatively easy to use 4K post focus, and produce the final result? eg: was it all in camera?
Yes, post focus was easy to use, everything in camera. I tried using focus stacking as well, but that did not work on this photo because the wasp was moving . Not much, but enough that it got blurry and filled with artifacts when stacking
The cropping in that mode makes the magnification even larger (but, of course, more than halves the resolution).
Ah! might not agree with this - but there used to be an old adage which said if a handheld print could pass very close scrutiny, then that image can be printed to any size (any, including wall sized murals) at the the correct viewing distances - that means at 1.5x diagonal of the image/print.

For me handheld print was not clear - many take it to be 6"x4" - diagonal of 7.2" correct viewing distance is supposed to be 1.5x diagonal = about 11"

I've always used a 10"x8" print - diagonal of 12.8" - 12" it is the closest viewing distance the eye normally can focus on, so this probably the most stringent/demanding viewing....

To get a good 10x8 print the current recommendation is 300ppi = 3000x2400 pixels - this is 7.2Mp - 4K frame exceeds that.

ref: http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php

much longer version: https://martinbaileyphotography.com...g-distances-and-print-resolution-podcast-532/

You probably know all this, since you already know about screen sizes and viewing distances?
I don’t know anything about printing, I’ve haven’t printed anything since I had an analog point and shoot, but that sounds good! It’s a bit over my head, but does that mean that if a picture looks good at full screen at a 1080p 24 inch screen I could print it pretty large?
So... don't worry, be happy! :-)
I ordered a Raynox 150 macro add on a couple of weeks ago and hopefully get it sometime in the coming week. It’ll be interesting to see what that can do when I figure out how to use it
Please tell more about the Raynox 150 - how does it differ from a close-up lens? I read it's for use at max tele/zoom... so for 1200mm?

Looking forward to your reply.
I think the Raynox can be used from about 100mm to 1200mm and that the magnification varies with the zoom. The more zoom, the more magnification. I think 1:1 reproduction is at about 200mm or something like that (but depending on the original reproduction rate of the lens. This is a bit over my head also so I’m not sure).

Edit: I may be way off about the magic, I think that depends on what lens it’s used on. Italy be very interesting to see how it behaves on the FZ82
 
Last edited:
I thought it took pretty good (not great) images at full zoom and handheld at lowish shutter speeds.

Here's a few when I used the FZ80:

1033mm
1033mm
Thanks always for your great FZ80 photos - I know you've moved on to the Nikon P950 - but your FZ80 shots are still excellent and always a pleasure.
But at full zoom it struggles to reproduce clear detail bar the odd fluke.
The camera...or the shooter?
Quite - I own the FZ80 and I cannot shoot as well as ANAYV at long focal lengths - and I know it's not the camera!

Basic logic 101 - even if a camera only ever took one good photo - it proves ipso facto it is capable of good photographs - as a poor camera cannot even take a single good photo.

Ironic isn't it, that one post generated so many posts here, thus bumping to the top - exact opposite to its intention.

--
Vincent
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top