FZ100 from bad to worse, comments please

[Trensamiro]

Looks that taking photo with this camera isn't so easy .

.

Taking good photos with any decent camera should be easy . Taking superb fotos, on the other hand, requires using proper technique , which isn't that easy at all. That's what distinguishes good photographers from toy-hungry, self-glorified button pushers.

Just for instance, if you want to get good pics of foliage in dim lighting it's essential that you hold the camera absolutely still , and I mean absolutely as the slightest movement or jerking will mean a blurred image at the sensor level which the current "intelligent" (sic) noise-reduction algorithms will turn into smearing galore.

On the other hand, a perfectly still camera means a sharp image at the sensor level, with plenty of detail, which the new "intelligent" algorithms will tend to smear less and the former, sane algorithms (such as the ones in ZS3 's firmwares v1.1 and 1.0) will leave mostly alone, keeping all the fine detail.

What's the proper technique to achieve perfect stillness ? A mini-tripod. Some other suitable support, such as resting the camera against some chair, table, pylon, a trunk tree. Learning to grab the camera rock-solid. Using Stabilization Mode 2. Using the 2-second self-timer to avoid pressing the shutter. Etc, etc, etc. The result ? A much, much better picture.
.

Thanks for the foliage review . I feel better because I Have ZS3 too . It looks that we should wait for FZ 10x to achieve similar results.

.

You're welcome . I neither own nor have tested the FZ100 but I've read a lot about it and seen many, many images, and can thus make an educated guess , namely that the FZ100 is an awesomely specified camera, with plenty of advanced functionality, an engineer's dream, that was utterly marred and maimed by Marketing's decision to fit in "more pixels" as per Pixel Wars usual retarded strategy.

This being so, Marketing overruled Engineering, as it's always the case, and forced the inclusion of a small-size 1/2.33" Type MOS sensor with 15.1 million pixels total, plus the current generation of "intelligent resolution" noise-reduction-by-smearing algorithms, which combination did nothing but badly ruin what would have been one of the most awesome cameras out there if fitted with a decent 10 million pixel sensor and sane, detail-friendly algorithms.

The camera will still sell well because most people can't (or won't) recognize image quality if it hit them in the face and will be happy with the crappy results or at the very least will do their most to convince themselves that hey the results aren't that bad anyway and I really want this thing, so Marketing will feel vindicated in their approach. Further, Marketing also avoids getting reduced sales of other models, which would hit the dust if this camera performed as it should.

But many an engineer at Panasonic will be feeling utterly desperate and frustrated when seeing what Marketing did to their baby, which was intended to be a beautiful swan but was maimed from the start into an ugly duckling.

Remember, just a guess.

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

 

[_vlad]

Well IMHO Panasonic is shooting its feet with this model. There are tons of images like yours around on the web. And frankly I do feel that Panasonic is denying its roots:

excellent IQ, crisp, predictable and sharp (at least at 80-400 ISO) in lightweight package, fun to use with no extra knowledge&adjustment.

Venus engines are always making confusion - I remember FZ30 users raging when FZ50 came out about what new Venus did. The same happens here. Venus is making decisions what is detail and what is noise. And does it such a way that shots look like digital art instead of real photography. It smears suddenly details when decides "this is noise" and unacceptably sharpens edges (they are jerky) when it decides "this should be crisp". Sharpening heavily fights against noise reduction and this the result. Not that this was not the problem with previous generations - but more pixels you crank on the chip more obviously you will see it. I am afraid that "decision making" is hardwired on the chip and cannot be easily fixed by new firmware - but maybe I am wrong. Obviously you can go via RAW route or manually set everything, but IMO this not the reason why these cameras were invented.

Sorry to say this - but you have to make a decision whether to keep it or choose the previous generations (FZ 28/38) where IQ is proven.
--
Vlad

 

[Midwest]

You will never get anything but mush when you photograph foliage in shady or cloudy lighting conditions, especially with a small sensor camera .

.
Oh reallly ?

That's a blanket statement unsupported by evidence.

Yes, 'Oh really'. The lighting conditions of the photos you posted were better than the OP's and the foliage you shot was much closer. His shots were mostly at a distance and/or in gloomy or back-lit circumstances. Your comparison was not valid. Why don't you wait til late afternoon on a cloudy day, put a cloudy-bright sky in the background, and then take photos of dense foliage in the shade at a distance, and you'll get the same mush.

Your posted shots were fine and I'm not saying a small sensor camera can't take decent foliage. (I still consider my FZ50 a small sensor camera and it can do foliage quite nicely indeed.)

UNDER THE RIGHT LIGHTING. Really.

 

[Midwest]

Venus engines are always making confusion - I remember FZ30 users raging when FZ50 came out about what new Venus did. The same happens here. Venus is making decisions what is detail and what is noise. And does it such a way that shots look like digital art instead of real photography. It smears suddenly details when decides "this is noise" and unacceptably sharpens edges (they are jerky) when it decides "this should be crisp". Sharpening heavily fights against noise reduction and this the result.

You have a very valid point. And it goes well with my other comment that when the lighting is poor it is all the harder for a small sensor camera (any digital camera, I suppose) to be able to ascertain the boundaries between individual leaves and bits in the foliage, and it has to try and create a photo as best it can.

The lack of decent light makes the job near impossible, and that's that.[/U]

 

[Midwest]

These were challenging photos to attempt - dark, highly detailed main subject in most cases against a brighter background, with a small hi-pixel sensor.

Go back on a day when there is some actual light in the sky (i.e. sun overhead or behind you) and move in on whatever it is you want to photo so it will be the main influence on what your camera sets itself for. Frankly even if those photos had better-looking foliage, they wouldn't have been all that much to write home about.

 

[Trensamiro]

You will never get anything but mush when you photograph foliage in shady or cloudy lighting conditions, especially with a small sensor camera .

.
Oh reallly ?

That's a blanket statement unsupported by evidence.

Yes, 'Oh really'. The lighting conditions of the photos you posted were better than the OP's and the foliage you shot was much closer.

.

Wrong . For example, these OP's pictures were taken under light levels with these EV:

667
f-stop,Shutter speed, ISO, EV compensation = 3.9,1/80,200,0 -> EV= 9.24

669
f-stop,Shutter speed, ISO, EV compensation = 2.8,1/60,160,0 -> EV= 8.19

.
while the similar two I posted were taken under light levels with these EV:
.

forest:
f-stop,Shutter speed, ISO, EV compensation = 3.4,1/25,80,0 -> EV= 8.49

river:
f-stop,Shutter speed, ISO, EV compensation = 3.9,1/40,125,0 -> EV= 8.92

.

this is, essentially the same light levels . The lighting conditions of the photos I posted were not better than the ones the OP posted, they were very similar, period.

As for "you shot was much closer" (sic), as I said these two pictures I posted were a quick post, i.e., the very first two I had at hand, not picked in any way.

If you want to see pictures I took under essentially the same light conditions (similar EV) and farther away like the OP's, here you are, see if you find them "mushy" at all:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/4669369543/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/4569191165/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/4607919694/sizes/o/

If these aren't enough for you, there are plenty more in this set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/sets/72157623822188827/

and many other sets as well but no need, my point is more than made: quality small-sensor cameras can deliver excellent foliage pictures with no mushing in sight, under low light levels and at a distance, and issuing high-horse, blanket statements as you did is plain nonsense and contradicts reality, as the evidence provided convincingly shows.

.

[...] I'm not saying a small sensor camera can't take decent foliage [...] UNDER THE RIGHT LIGHTING. Really

.
Yeah, whatever. Next ...

-
See my Lumix ZS3 (TZ7) pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirepapa/

 

[ABN666]

Go back on a day when there is some actual light in the sky (i.e. sun overhead or behind you) and move in on whatever it is you want to photo so it will be the main influence on what your camera sets itself for. Frankly even if those photos had better-looking foliage, they wouldn't have been all that much to write home about.

A photo to me is more about a memory rather than producing a piece of art. Snapshots in time to recall in later life. You can’t go back when the light is just right as that moment and reason for taking the picture is gone. OK that won’t produce the best “quality” of picture that ideal lighting would produce but they should still be of acceptable quality, especially from a camera of this price.

In the fifth picture posted, even at this size (clicked twice to 1200) you can clearly see that it has turned some of the leaves blue. This blue foliage is even more prominent in some other photos.

@Trensamiro Thanks for posting those pictures, you sure know how to kick a person when they are down They show the level of detail and sharpness that I had hope for but are sadly lacking in the FZ100.

When I first started looking for a digital camera that was the series/type that I was seriously considering. Unfortunately both my wife and I suffer with long-sightedness and as such can’t readily use the LCD screen but need a viewfinder. This was really the main reason to move towards the bridge camera. Also find that using the view finder helps one concentrate on the shot rather than what is going on around.

Also holding the compact type cameras at arms length and waving it around looking at the LCD made it FEEL more like a toy than a serious camera. I know it’s not a toy but the years of using a SLR viewfinder made it feel that way.

 

[Midwest]

and many other sets as well but no need, my point is more than made: quality small-sensor cameras can deliver excellent foliage pictures with no mushing in sight, under low light levels and at a distance, and issuing high-horse, blanket statements as you did is plain nonsense and contradicts reality, as the evidence provided convincingly shows.

.

[...] I'm not saying a small sensor camera can't take decent foliage [...] UNDER THE RIGHT LIGHTING. Really

.
Yeah, whatever. Next ...

Yeah, whatever indeed. I still didn't see any photos of yours that directly compared with the dismal lighting conditions of the OP.

I've owned and enjoyed an FZ50 for a few years now, I'm not a Panny basher nor a small-sensor basher, but I know that low light and fine detail do not favor getting a good sharp image of foliage. Your suggested examples are very nice - I will say that either the OP has his camera settings screwed up, or he is somehow fooling the camera into making bad settings choices, or else the dismal lighting conditions are causing the problem - entirely within the realm of possibility. Or is there a guarantee that his camera can take stunning foliage shots in crap lighting conditions?

 

[Midwest]

A photo to me is more about a memory rather than producing a piece of art. Snapshots in time to recall in later life. You can’t go back when the light is just right as that moment and reason for taking the picture is gone. OK that won’t produce the best “quality” of picture that ideal lighting would produce but they should still be of acceptable quality, especially from a camera of this price.

I have plenty of photos taken over the years (as the family "last stop" for all the slides and photos left by deceased relatives) and many are irreplaceable because of the memories they hold, and not their technical perfection. If the FZ100 can't take the photos you want under the lighting conditions you want to use it, then by all means, find something else. I still say those conditions weren't optimal but possibly another camera would provide results much more to your liking.

@Trensamiro Thanks for posting those pictures, you sure know how to kick a person when they are down They show the level of detail and sharpness that I had hope for but are sadly lacking in the FZ100.

It's funny but when the FZ100 first came out the results people posted from the very start were all over the map - some seemed great and others seemed awful.

Gosh only knows what accounts for that but there is certainly some significant variation - some users love their FZ100 and some such as you have had bad luck.

 

[2stepbay]

I agree with comments from an earlier poster. Holding the camera absolutely still is essential to producing a very good image. I've been using the Slik 630 tripod. It seems ideal for the FZ100 and only $30 USD. Lightweight, sturdy and easy to change height etc.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002BX1VPC/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1Y8FNE68TTKRST2MRKNX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

 

[Midwest]

I agree with comments from an earlier poster. Holding the camera absolutely still is essential to producing a very good image. I've been using the Slik 630 tripod. It seems ideal for the FZ100 and only $30 USD. Lightweight, sturdy and easy to change height etc

Holding the camera still IS important but the image stabilization on Panny's ought to prevent the vast majority of shake-induced blur which is not what I see in this user's photos anyhow. I've been able to hand-hold a photo in dim light with my FZ50 at about 3/4 of a second - with zero blur.

If using a tripod then the image stabilization needs to be turned off of course.