Reading mode: Light Dark

As usual: New camera - new "noise problems" (Z3)

Go to last post
D

daho58112

Well-known member
Messages
233
Reaction score
1
Location
AQ
Hopefully before this forum fills up too much with Z3 "noise problems" threads I'll post 3 pictures quickly taken with a brand new Z3.

I set ISO to 100, used P Mode and took 2 pictures at 69.5 mm (420mm equivalent in 35) and 1 at 5.9 mm (35mm equivalent). Time is not set correctly.

Before you ask for "try this and this pleeeeeease": I didn't buy the camera, I don't know how much it would have been (because they hadn't the price in the system yet, and even if I had a price, I wouldn't convert it to US$ for you...

I personally don't think the noise is excessive, but I must say I'm very impressed with the zoom.

But look for yourself. Pictures (original) in the next post (each about 1.8 MB)
 
The picture quality is surely not any good at all with ample amounts of noise and high amounts of CA and this is in broad daylight. Whats the use of all these features when the picture quality which is the most important thing in a camera gets worse and worse with these small sized CCD that is practically riddling the image with nasty ccd noise.

The pictures are not that sharp either.
Daryl P Maskell said:
daho said:






At full zoom there is some CA, especially in the corners...
Click to expand...
Nice pictures, same about the CA,s somewhat lets the camera down!

Regards

Daryl
Click to expand...
 
Where are you looking? The zoom pictures are "sharp" where the camera focused, more or less in the center.

On the BMW focus is around the front of the hood (the car was moving at around 40 to 50 km/h). In the other zoom picture focus is on the two girls in front of the bin, again I think "sharp" enough.

And printed on a Canon CP-300 they look perfectly "sharp"...

I'm not defending this camera, but I'm getting tired of people crying "noise", "out of focus" and more without knowing how the pictures were taken and even worse, looking at originals at 100% or more on a 72 dpi screen. It's just pointless.
 
Vad du är bitter....

Med leksakspriset förväntar jag mig inte att z3 ska slå proffskameror
.
Jag måste överbevisas personligen, inget jag sett har övertygat mig ännu.

Vad har du själv för kamera, och vad förväntar du dig av Z3?
F
fusion_400 said:
The picture quality is surely not any good at all with ample
amounts of noise and high amounts of CA and this is in broad
daylight. Whats the use of all these features when the picture
quality which is the most important thing in a camera gets worse
and worse with these small sized CCD that is practically riddling
the image with nasty ccd noise.
Click to expand...
 
I agree. Fusion is just plain bitter.

Perhaps because he can't afford one?

For this toy price I think it does amazing feats.
I am not convinced of its "cons" until I have it in my own hands.

If you make a side by side comparison with other cameras you'll see that other camers have similar problems.

The Z3 seem tro be a good stepping stone before the ulimate cameras arrive in 1-2 years.

Fredrik
daho said:
Where are you looking? The zoom pictures are "sharp" where the
camera focused, more or less in the center.
On the BMW focus is around the front of the hood (the car was
moving at around 40 to 50 km/h). In the other zoom picture focus is
on the two girls in front of the bin, again I think "sharp" enough.

And printed on a Canon CP-300 they look perfectly "sharp"...

I'm not defending this camera, but I'm getting tired of people
crying "noise", "out of focus" and more without knowing how the
pictures were taken and even worse, looking at originals at 100% or
more on a 72 dpi screen. It's just pointless.
Click to expand...
 
daho, the pics ,as opened, are Terrible.Cloudy, not sharp, Awful.However...open in photoshop..Terrific.Clean, sharp, in focus!!I am going back and forth etc..on z-3,Pan fz-3, And..Canon pro1. So far ,I think, Pro1 is the best picture..Thanks for your Good pics...Jim
daho said:
Where are you looking? The zoom pictures are "sharp" where the
camera focused, more or less in the center.
On the BMW focus is around the front of the hood (the car was
moving at around 40 to 50 km/h). In the other zoom picture focus is
on the two girls in front of the bin, again I think "sharp" enough.

And printed on a Canon CP-300 they look perfectly "sharp"...

I'm not defending this camera, but I'm getting tired of people
crying "noise", "out of focus" and more without knowing how the
pictures were taken and even worse, looking at originals at 100% or
more on a 72 dpi screen. It's just pointless.
Click to expand...
 
daho58112 said:
I'm not defending this camera, but I'm getting tired of people
crying "noise", "out of focus" and more without knowing how the
pictures were taken and even worse, looking at originals at 100% or
more on a 72 dpi screen. It's just pointless.
Click to expand...
I think it's normal that we compare cameras to find the best noise level. I still think the pics are a bit noisy compared to the FZ20 (or even my old 2MP Canon A40). Try running NeatImage on the BMW pic and check the side of the car after.

I agree that people usually look pictures in fit-to screen mode. However, the noise on the side of the BMW is clearly visible even then. High noise level is also a problem when cropping.

I see that you have 1.00 firmware, maybe that's a problem, too.
 
I'm surprized file size is not much different than those from my Z1. I looked at this one, ran it through Noiseware, and resized 50% (which is plenty big for 4x6 printing). Looks pretty good. But I am very concerned about quality of the original, original.



--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/photoman
 
daho said:
Hopefully before this forum fills up too much with Z3 "noise
problems" threads I'll post 3 pictures quickly taken with a brand
new Z3.
Click to expand...
Check these pics. No postprocessing.

Canon A40, don't know ISO, 8 seconds



Minolta Z2, ISO 100, 6 seconds



Compare them with the ISO 50 night pic of the second set on Chinese site (4 seconds)



Maybe I should consider keeping my A40...
 
Why do you judge them as being bitter, just because they think the pictures are noisy?

499 EURO is definitely not a "toy price" in my opinion... except maybe if I were Bill Gates or something :> I think it's perfectly justifiable to expect good image quality from such an expensive camera.
Microsaft_com said:
Med leksakspriset förväntar jag mig inte att z3 ska slå proffskameror
.
Jag måste överbevisas personligen, inget jag sett har övertygat mig
ännu.

Vad har du själv för kamera, och vad förväntar du dig av Z3?
F
fusion_400 said:
The picture quality is surely not any good at all with ample
amounts of noise and high amounts of CA and this is in broad
daylight. Whats the use of all these features when the picture
quality which is the most important thing in a camera gets worse
and worse with these small sized CCD that is practically riddling
the image with nasty ccd noise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
not a fair comparison.
James Bond 007 said:
daho said:
Hopefully before this forum fills up too much with Z3 "noise
problems" threads I'll post 3 pictures quickly taken with a brand
new Z3.
Click to expand...
Check these pics. No postprocessing.

Canon A40, don't know ISO, 8 seconds



Minolta Z2, ISO 100, 6 seconds



Compare them with the ISO 50 night pic of the second set on Chinese
site (4 seconds)



Maybe I should consider keeping my A40...
Click to expand...
 
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