About Panasonic and Fuji noise levels

[Alvaro Cavalli Gastal]

After saw some posts here, i decided to make a comparative degree with those photos of ISO test that has in the DPReview: the F-10 (6mp) and Panasonic FZ-5 (5mp, that it has noise).

What I see ?

Aplying a NR (Noise Ninja) in the photo in ISO 400 of the FZ-5 it is a little worse that the photo in ISO-400 of the F-10, but it is better than the photo in ISO-800 of the F-10, as much in clearness how much details).

The conclusion that I arrived is that the sensor of the F-10 is exactly a little better in ISOs high (and moreover really it applies a strong NR by hardware), but it enough not to gain 2 stops of light, as whe can believe (ISO 1600 maximum in the F-10 400 versus ISO maximum in the FZ-5).

I would say, after this research that I made, that the sufficient to gain 1/2 stop, more or less. If this to remain in these levels in the S9000 versus FZ-30, this half stop will not be the sufficient, at least in my point of view, to compensate the IS 3 or 4 points nor that the biggest aperture of its lens in tele.

 

[John_Reed]

Alvaro, I think I agree with your conclusions on the Telephoto end, but I think the big advantage of the high-ISO capability will show up at the Normal to Wideangle end of the focal length spectrum. Indoor shots without flash, from what examples I've seen of the Fuji F10, are where the high ISO (up to 1600) seems to "shine." Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at the indoor examples to see that details were softened by hardware NR?
--
Just let a smile be your umbrella!

John Reed

Panasonic: EffZeeOneVeeTwo, EffZeeFifteen; Nikon: CPFortyFiveHundred

 

[Alvaro Cavalli Gastal]

Yes John, in my opinion the NR in the F-10 very is weighed, and harms the quality of the photos, even so the sensor is exactly a little better in high ISO.

Although I have been a little disappointed with noise levels in samples of the FZ-30, a thing that I taste in line FZ is the fact not to apply NR weighed, therefore would ruin the quality of the image.

Also one of the features most nice of the FZ-30 is RAW mode, that allows that we have total control of the after-processing of the images.

[]s Alvaro

 

[David314]

But is Fuji ISO 400 really 400? Look at the DPREVIEW of the F10 and the comparison against a Canon camera and the shutter speeds used at the same 400 ISO.

David

 

[Alvaro Cavalli Gastal]

You are right, David.

In that comparisson, at ISO 400 canon is at 1/636 sec, F4, but F10 is at1/345 sec, F4.3. F10 seems about 1/2 stop less seinsible !

And, the chart at ISO 400 in the review of FZ-5, is taken at 1/640 e F/5. More sensible than Canon !

Nor the 2 stops announced by the marketing of Fuji, not even half stop that I had imagined, exist. The performance in ISO 400 is similar!

 

[straylightrun]

IS won't do anything to freeze the subject, only hand shake movement. I sold my FZ20 in anticipation of the FZ30, but with news of the S9000, I am actually leaning towards getting that due to the higher ISO's and wide angle. I'll wait for more samples of both cameras, since they are both impressive cameras, and if I had the money, I would get both. Here is a shot of the S9000 at ISO800.

 

[BigWaveDave]

Simon Joinson commented about the sensitivity differences between the F10 and the SD500. He concluded that the metering of the F10 was accurate, and the SD500 was a little conservative in its ISO rating:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=13418895

The F10 ISO 400 image is 2/3 of a stop slower than the SD500 ISO 400 image. But notice the F10 ISO 800 image is 2/3 of a stop faster than the SD500 ISO 400 image. In theory there should have been exactly one stop difference in the F10's ISO 400 and 800 images, not the 1-1/3 difference in the test shots. Makes you wonder which image is the more accurately metered ...

One thing I'd like to add about the F10: it's not just that high ISO images are less noisy. They also have more fine detail. Compare the ISO 400 images from the F10 and the FZ5 and you'll see what I mean. For example, look closely at the world globe and you'll see that you can easily make out letters in the F10 image when the FZ5 reproduces a fuzzy blob.

F10 ISO 400:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF10Zoom/samples/comparedto/FUJI_F10_ISO400.JPG

FZ5 ISO 400:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ5/samples/comparedto/PanasonicFZ5_ISO400.JPG

One could even argue the F10 at ISO 800 has more detail:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF10Zoom/samples/comparedto/FUJI_F10_ISO800.JPG
--
BigWaveDave

 

[hamx15]

S9000 at ISO800..........Really ..? This is really pretty good.I refer to the

sample shot,of the young lady with the drink.Obviously no flash,I consider this very good.I'd like to know where you gained this sample shot from a S9000.

This is the first sample shot I've seen with the S9000,and to say the least I'am surprised.Would really like to see more High ISO samples with this camera.I also was waiting for reviews of the FZ-30.I already didnt like the news of the transfer rate being USB 1 with the FZ-30.It's terribly design sloppy.A load of 50 or so 8mb pics would take forever.I feel any dig over 5mp without USB 2,is not gonna make it with me without being exceptional elsewhere.This is really

a good shot.............come on S9000.Now if the Anti Blur (supporting camera shake) just turns out to be functional.

 

[No Panicas]

One thing I'd like to add about the F10: it's not just that high
ISO images are less noisy. They also have more fine detail.
Compare the ISO 400 images from the F10 and the FZ5 and you'll see
what I mean. For example, look closely at the world globe and
you'll see that you can easily make out letters in the F10 image
when the FZ5 reproduces a fuzzy blob.

F10 ISO 400:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF10Zoom/samples/comparedto/FUJI_F10_ISO400.JPG

FZ5 ISO 400:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ5/samples/comparedto/PanasonicFZ5_ISO400.JPG

I disagree with you Dave if you don't mind. I think the FZ5 image shows more sharp details. Look at white text "KODAK Gray Scale" and text or characters at the sheet at the botom. It looks to me that the Fuji image is softer and has less noise compared to the Pana image. If the noise in the Pana shot bothers, one could consider a little noise cleaning or alter the settings of the camera to low sharpness and or maybe soft contrast.

Hans

 

[Dayd3]

Simon Joinson commented about the sensitivity differences between
the F10 and the SD500. He concluded that the metering of the F10
was accurate, and the SD500 was a little conservative in its ISO
rating:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=13418895

The F10 ISO 400 image is 2/3 of a stop slower than the SD500 ISO
400 image. But notice the F10 ISO 800 image is 2/3 of a stop
faster than the SD500 ISO 400 image. In theory there should have
been exactly one stop difference in the F10's ISO 400 and 800
images, not the 1-1/3 difference in the test shots. Makes you
wonder which image is the more accurately metered ...

One thing I'd like to add about the F10: it's not just that high
ISO images are less noisy. They also have more fine detail.
Compare the ISO 400 images from the F10 and the FZ5 and you'll see
what I mean. For example, look closely at the world globe and
you'll see that you can easily make out letters in the F10 image
when the FZ5 reproduces a fuzzy blob.

You can't compare FZ5 (5MP) and F10 (6MP) cameras at same ISO settings. Why?

1) F10 doesn't have image stabilization (so you can compare FZ5's ISO 80 or 100 with F10's ISO 400).

2) It's completely logical that 6MP camera shows more details than 5MP camera at same ISO settings (reason - bigger picture)

 

[dslrenvy]

The ISO 800 image is not a full resolution sample. It's been downsized (for whatever reasons)

The "anti-blur" is nothing more than bumping the ISO up to max ISO 800.

There are questions as to the usefullness of ISO 1600 since the "anti-blur" doesn't use that, according to the brochure.

I was hoping for a "prosumer" that would really truly have useful high ISO performance.

Maybe if Fuji had kept the mega pixels to 6 (with this same size new sensor) and maybe stopped at 200mm at the long end keeping it at F2.8 or faster, then we would have something that would've been usefull for indoor photography without using the flash or having to go with a DSLR.

I don't need 400mm+ zoom, or IS/OS/AS cause neither will help with indoor/low light photography of moving subjects (my kids!).

So, unless the reviews for the S9000 turn out to be great, I'll be waiting to see Sony's new "prosumer" effort, if they make one. Or I'll have to bite the bullet and get a DSLR, which I really can't afford with anything other than a cheap lense.

 

[BigWaveDave]

Heck no, Hans, I don't mind if you disagree. But I was talking about fine detail in the images.

You can look throughout the two images and easily see the difference. For example, the text at the top of the Martini & Rossi bottle; the black text at the bottom of the Baileys bottle; the text on the world globe (compare the "SOUTH" in "SOUTH WEST AFRICA"; the detail in the watch in the lower right hand corner; the Japanese writing on the batteries in the lower left hand corner, etc.

People have said that the F10 images have been excessively smoothed by Noise Reduction and that fine detail is lost. The point I wanted to make was that fine detail is still there in the ISO 400 images. In fact, there's more fine detail than in the FZ5 images.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[dslrenvy]

You can't compare FZ5 (5MP) and F10 (6MP) cameras at same ISO
settings. Why?

1) F10 doesn't have image stabilization (so you can compare FZ5's
ISO 80 or 100 with F10's ISO 400).

IS is only usefull in lowlight IF the subject is not MOVING. I agree that IS/OS is great for static objects and long zooms, but it does nothing to alleviate subject movement in lowlight conditions.

Which is why I'd rather have high ISO performance/usability over IS/OS any day because I do a lot more indoor shots (kids) then I do long zoom or low light scenery.

 

[BigWaveDave]

Downsample the F10 image to 2560x1920. You'll find there's still more detail in the F10 image.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[Dayd3]

IS won't do anything to freeze the subject, only hand shake
movement. I sold my FZ20 in anticipation of the FZ30, but with news
of the S9000, I am actually leaning towards getting that due to the
higher ISO's and wide angle. I'll wait for more samples of both
cameras, since they are both impressive cameras, and if I had the
money, I would get both. Here is a shot of the S9000 at ISO800.

This is only 2MP shot. I would like to see Fuji's 9MP shot. Noises and softness are visible even at this 2MP size so I'm very sceptical about 9MP quality. It seems to me that F10 is much better in higher ISO's. And even F10 with higher ISO can't completely compensate Pana's O.I.S.

 

[Dayd3]

People have said that the F10 images have been excessively smoothed
by Noise Reduction and that fine detail is lost. The point I
wanted to make was that fine detail is still there in the ISO 400
images. In fact, there's more fine detail than in the FZ5 images.

It's true if you compare images with same ISO ratings. I already mentioned that it's also due to F10's 1MP resolution difference.

But it's not true if you compare FZ5's ISO 80 or 100 with F10's ISO 400. Although Fuji has resolution advantage in such a comparison has less details than FZ5. And this comparison is fair because of Pana's OIS.

 

[Dayd3]

Downsample the F10 image to 2560x1920. You'll find there's still
more detail in the F10 image.

--
BigWaveDave

Everybody knows that you always get better picture by downsampling higher resolution image. 99% of 5MP cameras are delivering more details in images downsampled to 4MP than any 4MP image shot with 4MP cameras.

 

[BigWaveDave]

As I said, downsample the F10 image to the size of the FZ5 and you'll see the F10 still has more detail with less noise ...

Regarding image stabilization, I think you make a good point. Panasonic really popularized IS in non-DSLR cameras and forced its competitors to react (except Fuji, of course). Now Fuji has made image quality at high ISO values a hot topic. Let's hope companies will react to this. The consumers will all benefit from this competition.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[BigWaveDave]

Sorry, not true. The F10 has already got higher resolution than the Canon SD500's 7mp without any kind of resampling. Read the F10 review.

--
BigWaveDave

 

[Erik37]

You're right that there are more than 1 % exceptions, camera
and lens qualities differ, but Dayd3 is right that downsampling
always favours the larger res. camera.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden
F Z 5, now with up to 16x zoom ;-)