Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
1

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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has  better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

thanks

ANAYV

Canon PowerShot SX70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Dak on cam
Dak on cam Senior Member • Posts: 5,223
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
5

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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

How is one supposed to judge image sharpness and detail with pictures reduced to perhaps 2MP?

 Dak on cam's gear list:Dak on cam's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P52 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Dak on cam 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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

How is one supposed to judge image sharpness and detail with pictures reduced to perhaps 2MP?

I seem to be , as others are.

Can you see difference in these two ?

But OK.

Here's the first image from OP,  full size:

ANAYV

sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 12,261
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
1

As I recall, the issue with the FZ80 related to a problem with the stabilization mechanism, not the lens

-- hide signature --
 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Nikon Coolpix P950
Kevin Coppalotti Veteran Member • Posts: 9,505
good results

these look good.

and yes i've noticed similar with fz150, fz200 series.

most of the pics are soft, and every  so often focus /stability works perfectly and the image is crystal clear sharp.

yes, soft light produces the best pics, and this often needs slow shutter speeds, so the IS is critical to avoid pushing the ISO too high.

-- hide signature --
Dak on cam
Dak on cam Senior Member • Posts: 5,223
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
2

ANAYV wrote:

Dak on cam 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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

How is one supposed to judge image sharpness and detail with pictures reduced to perhaps 2MP?

I seem to be , as others are.

Can you see difference in these two ?

But OK.

Here's the first image from OP, full size:

ANAYV

Thanks.  I find the results to a good degree inconclusive: according to the EXIF you exposed with -2.3EV, presumably because the light did not allow much more without reverting either to higher ISO or slower speed.  Personally, I'd rather raise the ISO instead: that tells the camera "I don't have enough light, do the best you can".  If you tell the camera "don't worry about the light" and then raise it in postprocessing, you are not letting it participate in making the best of a bad situation.

According to EXIF, the picture has been taken raw.  If after raw processing an 18MP image takes up 2.5MB, there is a severe lack of detail.  That can be from lens unsharpness, it can be from aggressive noise reduction.  You pushed a -2.3EV picture on a small sensor cam and there is very little apparent noise.  There are also watercolory splotches.

But all-in-all, I would not fault the camera here since it was used in light conditions that are problematic by principle for a small-sensor camera at F5.9 and at 1200mm EFL there just is not much leeway for larger apertures.  The camera was told at -2.3EV and ISO80 not to worry about lack of light and the unavoidable noise was then flattened along with detail.

It's a great photographic subject and nicely caught, but it would not work for larger prints.  And in this case, I'd not even blame the camera.  Next time I'd try cranking the ISO up instead of lowering EV.  You get the same kind of light to the sensor, but the camera tries harder to help with preserving detail.  Yes, this will add noise, but less noise than pushing underexposure will, so you can go somewhat lighter on the noise reduction in post-processing.

 Dak on cam's gear list:Dak on cam's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P52 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Rodger1943
Rodger1943 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,738
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

I agree that both images show excellent details, so maybe it is the sensor. To my mind Panasonic seem a bit behind in their technology with sensors. Probably limited a bit by Sony not giving them the latest available.

-- hide signature --

Panasonic FZ1000 FZ200 Sony RX10 iv

 Rodger1943's gear list:Rodger1943's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony RX10 IV +2 more
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

sherman_levine wrote:

As I recall, the issue with the FZ80 related to a problem with the stabilization mechanism, not the lens

I see.

That seems to be a problem I did not encounter too often.

Since dropping my FZ80 last year, it seems to have more an issue with the O.I.S. and more blurred shots, less sharp ones.

The GBH image could be sharper, as its taken at only 1/60th at 1200mm. Most came out blurry.

ANAYV

sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 12,261
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
1

ANAYV wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

As I recall, the issue with the FZ80 related to a problem with the stabilization mechanism, not the lens

I see.

That seems to be a problem I did not encounter too often.

Since dropping my FZ80 last year, it seems to have more an issue with the O.I.S. and more blurred shots, less sharp ones.

The GBH image could be sharper, as its taken at only 1/60th at 1200mm. Most came out blurry.

ANAYV

Just for fun, try shooting on a tripod with OIS off. Might make the cause of the problem clearer

-- hide signature --
 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Nikon Coolpix P950
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: good results

Kevin Coppalotti wrote:

these look good.

thanks.

and yes i've noticed similar with fz150, fz200 series.

most of the pics are soft, and every so often focus /stability works perfectly and the image is crystal clear sharp.

yes, soft light produces the best pics, and this often needs slow shutter speeds, so the IS is critical to avoid pushing the ISO too high.

Yep. 1/60th is really too slow handheld, even for the best O.I.S.

Most times too slow for the subject, but seems this GBH was still enough.

Burst mode, taking 3 to 5 shots helped to have a few keepers

ANAYV

Dak on cam
Dak on cam Senior Member • Posts: 5,223
Re: good results

ANAYV wrote:

Kevin Coppalotti wrote:

these look good.

thanks.

and yes i've noticed similar with fz150, fz200 series.

most of the pics are soft, and every so often focus /stability works perfectly and the image is crystal clear sharp.

yes, soft light produces the best pics, and this often needs slow shutter speeds, so the IS is critical to avoid pushing the ISO too high.

Yep. 1/60th is really too slow handheld, even for the best O.I.S.

Most times too slow for the subject, but seems this GBH was still enough.

Burst mode, taking 3 to 5 shots helped to have a few keepers

ANAYV

One has to really consider what one is asking of the camera.  Sensor is the same area as FZ300, but it has 18MP instead of 12MP, 50% more even discounting the separation between pixels.  So if we want the light per pixel we get on the FZ300, we need to expose for ISO66.  The lowest ISO on the FZ80 however is ISO80.  Then image stabilisation is already tricky at 600mm.  We take 1200mm.  The FZ300 has a max aperture of F2.8 in low light, the FZ80 has one of F5.9 at its long end.  With regard to the light it can work with, that's about 4.5 times less just by aperture alone.

So if you are going to look for the same amount of pixel noise per pixel at the long end at _equal_ exposure time (even though 1200mm would warrant shorter unless you are using a tripod or miraculously good image stabilisation), the equivalent to ISO80 on the FZ80 would on the FZ300 be about ISO530.

The FZ80 is no twilight camera.  It's not like the FZ300 is a twilight camera, but at least the FZ300 doesn't sacrifice light for zoom length.  And for a small sensor, light is kind of important.

 Dak on cam's gear list:Dak on cam's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P52 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Dak on cam wrote:

ANAYV wrote:

Dak on cam 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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

How is one supposed to judge image sharpness and detail with pictures reduced to perhaps 2MP?

I seem to be , as others are.

Can you see difference in these two ?

But OK.

Here's the first image from OP, full size:

ANAYV

Thanks. I find the results to a good degree inconclusive: according to the EXIF you exposed with -2.3EV, presumably because the light did not allow much more without reverting either to higher ISO or slower speed.

Correct.

Personally, I'd rather raise the ISO instead: that tells the camera "I don't have enough light, do the best you can". If you tell the camera "don't worry about the light" and then raise it in postprocessing, you are not letting it participate in making the best of a bad situation.

Well, until most  recently, the FZ80 has been a jpeg shooter.

There, I don't want the camera to decide what is good , as far as NR is concerned.

Even with custom photo style , set to

NR -5

Sharpness  -5

According to EXIF, the picture has been taken raw.

Yes.

If after raw processing an 18MP image takes up 2.5MB, there is a severe lack of detail.

Not the original RAW file here.

This is a  (90%) jpeg, from the TIFF, which was from the  RAW.

The image exported from DXO is 103MB.

Edited the TIFF with FastStone and somehow the saved TIFF is 51.6 MB.

Image posted is the jpeg from this TIFF.

That can be from lens unsharpness, it can be from aggressive noise reduction. You pushed a -2.3EV picture on a small sensor cam and there is very little apparent noise.

Used PRIME NR and it went through DXO , then FastStone.

There are also watercolory splotches.

But all-in-all, I would not fault the camera here since it was used in light conditions that are problematic by principle for a small-sensor camera at F5.9 and at 1200mm EFL there just is not much leeway for larger apertures.

Yep, but that is fine for intended use. Not printing these days

The camera was told at -2.3EV and ISO80 not to worry about lack of light and the unavoidable noise was then flattened along with detail.

Detail didn't see that compromised.

NR was controllable, since RAW.

Do you want the RAW file?

It's a great photographic subject and nicely caught, but it would not work for larger prints.

Not into printing anymore. More a hobby to get me out and about.

I figure why not share some here...so I do.

And in this case, I'd not even blame the camera. Next time I'd try cranking the ISO up instead of lowering EV.

I will try this.

You get the same kind of light to the sensor, but the camera tries harder to help with preserving detail.

I hope so. I know with jpegs it doesn't. Too much NR. It smooths them out too much for my taste, and still some noise is there.

Yes, this will add noise, but less noise than pushing underexposure will, so you can go somewhat lighter on the noise reduction in post-processing.

Thanks will try.

Many sensors today are ISO invariant.

These don't show any benefit in using higher ISO, and no  noise penalty by under exposing.

ANAYV

Dak on cam
Dak on cam Senior Member • Posts: 5,223
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
2

ANAYV wrote:

Dak on cam wrote:

The camera was told at -2.3EV and ISO80 not to worry about lack of light and the unavoidable noise was then flattened along with detail.

Detail didn't see that compromised.

Here is a crop from the sharpest part in the plumage.

NR was controllable, since RAW.

Sure, but you cannot kill noise independently from detail.  And the image has been processed in a manner where no apparent noise is visible in spite of being severely underexposed on a small-sensor cam.

Do you want the RAW file?

Not really.  For one thing, it is surprisingly hard to pass raw files through dpreview (basically, you have to agree on some upload service or exchange  Email addresses via private messages).  For another, I pretty much know that I would produce either a noisy or a smudged image from the given raw material.  The funny thing is that on something like fine-grained plumage, even random luminosity noise added to a smudged base creates a sharper, more detailed impression even though it's complete fake.

So whatever processing I'd add, it would not really prove a whole lot.  At any rate, I think that less noise reduction would likely work better for this image, but certainly not in the same manner than more light could have worked.

And in this case, I'd not even blame the camera. Next time I'd try cranking the ISO up instead of lowering EV.

I will try this.

You get the same kind of light to the sensor, but the camera tries harder to help with preserving detail.

I hope so. I know with jpegs it doesn't. Too much NR.

Ok, some JPEG processors might interpret the ISO level as a blanket noise reduction permission.  Then the -EV would be sort of a workaround for that.  With raw, it might not be needed.  When talking about raw, the principal advantage of -EV over raising ISO on sensors with a small dynamic range is that -EV is less prone to blown highlights.  Basically you keep more of the dynamic range for the high end while telling the camera not to bother with the low end.

It smooths them out too much for my taste, and still some noise is there.

In-camera JPEG processing tends to be fine when you are not struggling to make ends meet with regard to noise/light.  Then one can make do with what amounts to a fixed "sweet spot" of processing rather than finding the best one for each individual picture.

Yes, this will add noise, but less noise than pushing underexposure will, so you can go somewhat lighter on the noise reduction in post-processing.

Thanks will try.

Many sensors today are ISO invariant.

That tends to be more the case with larger sensors I think.

These don't show any benefit in using higher ISO, and no noise penalty by under exposing.

Underexposing always incurs a noise penalty.  ISO invariant cameras create the same raw noise levels (and images) for -EV as for +ISO.  However, in-camera JPEG processing (and more likely than not, the defaults from a typical raw processor as well unless you engage autoexposure mode) then keeps the image darker for -EV and scales it up again for +ISO.

Here is an image where I accidentally kept a year 2005 CMOS sensor camera (less sensitive than CCD at that time, and ISO400 tends to look rather noisy already on this cam) at ISO3200 and the flash was incapable of turning itself down that much, so it's at least +2EV (I think I used -2EV in the raw processing then).

ISO3200?!?

Even pixel-peeping, the noise you'd expect just isn't there.  That's the kind of reaction you expect from "ISO insensitive" (which that camera isn't actually): what the raw data before processing ends up does not depend on the ISO setting but on the light arriving on the sensor.  In that case, +EV was almost as good as -ISO.  But for a small sensor, leaving at least the lowest ISO ranges alone when the light is insufficient might make a difference.  It is mostly the low ISO range of small sensors where "ISO variance" is a thing.

 Dak on cam's gear list:Dak on cam's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P52 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Dak on cam wrote:

ANAYV wrote:

Dak on cam wrote:

The camera was told at -2.3EV and ISO80 not to worry about lack of light and the unavoidable noise was then flattened along with detail.

Detail didn't see that compromised.

Here is a crop from the sharpest part in the plumage.

NR was controllable, since RAW.

Sure, but you cannot kill noise independently from detail. And the image has been processed in a manner where no apparent noise is visible in spite of being severely underexposed on a small-sensor cam.

For a 1/60th shutter at 1200mm , handheld.

I see enough detail in this shot (perhaps more than most other shots from FZ80 with this subject...only now with much less noise!

My FZ80 just improved, lol.

I could try and use less PRIME NR and see if any more detail can be shown.

It's always a balance between the two.

I just dislike the in camera jpeg approach, which shows LESS details and MORE noise than what's possible with DXO.

I'm still a rookie using it...so hopefully the best is yet to come.

Do you want the RAW file?

Not really. For one thing, it is surprisingly hard to pass raw files through dpreview (basically, you have to agree on some upload service or exchange Email addresses via private messages). For another, I pretty much know that I would produce either a noisy or a smudged image from the given raw material. The funny thing is that on something like fine-grained plumage, even random luminosity noise added to a smudged base creates a sharper, more detailed impression even though it's complete fake.

True. Not for Chroma type noise ,  but yes for luminous type noise.

So whatever processing I'd add, it would not really prove a whole lot. At any rate, I think that less noise reduction would likely work better for this image, but certainly not in the same manner than more light could have worked.

No option for more light. I will try using higher ISO...but don't expect a huge difference.

But will try. Thanks for your input !

Also will try less NR.

And in this case, I'd not even blame the camera. Next time I'd try cranking the ISO up instead of lowering EV.

I will try this.

You get the same kind of light to the sensor, but the camera tries harder to help with preserving detail.

I hope so. I know with jpegs it doesn't. Too much NR.

Ok, some JPEG processors might interpret the ISO level as a blanket noise reduction permission. Then the -EV would be sort of a workaround for that. With raw, it might not be needed.

Yeah. RAW to the rescue here, me thinks.

When talking about raw, the principal advantage of -EV over raising ISO on sensors with a small dynamic range is that -EV is less prone to blown highlights. Basically you keep more of the dynamic range for the high end while telling the camera not to bother with the low end.

It smooths them out too much for my taste, and still some noise is there.

In-camera JPEG processing tends to be fine when you are not struggling to make ends meet with regard to noise/light. Then one can make do with what amounts to a fixed "sweet spot" of processing rather than finding the best one for each individual picture.

I don't mind processing individual images.

Yes, this will add noise, but less noise than pushing underexposure will, so you can go somewhat lighter on the noise reduction in post-processing.

Thanks will try.

Many sensors today are ISO invariant.

That tends to be more the case with larger sensors I think.

I think your right.

These don't show any benefit in using higher ISO, and no noise penalty by under exposing.

Underexposing always incurs a noise penalty. ISO invariant cameras create the same raw noise levels (and images) for -EV as for +ISO. However, in-camera JPEG processing (and more likely than not, the defaults from a typical raw processor as well unless you engage autoexposure mode) then keeps the image darker for -EV and scales it up again for +ISO.

Here is an image where I accidentally kept a year 2005 CMOS sensor camera (less sensitive than CCD at that time, and ISO400 tends to look rather noisy already on this cam) at ISO3200 and the flash was incapable of turning itself down that much, so it's at least +2EV (I think I used -2EV in the raw processing then).

ISO3200?!?

Even pixel-peeping, the noise you'd expect just isn't there. That's the kind of reaction you expect from "ISO insensitive" (which that camera isn't actually): what the raw data before processing ends up does not depend on the ISO setting but on the light arriving on the sensor. In that case, +EV was almost as good as -ISO. But for a small sensor, leaving at least the lowest ISO ranges alone when the light is insufficient might make a difference. It is mostly the low ISO range of small sensors where "ISO variance" is a thing.

I see.

Thanks for your knowledge and input.

ANAYV

Aleo Veuliah
Aleo Veuliah Forum Pro • Posts: 14,758
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??
1

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:

Notice the really slow for 1200mm shutter speed (1/60th). Most images came out blurry in the last hour of light.

It's also underexposed by quite a bit.

As always , handheld.

I think there's plenty of details in these images...so perhaps the sensor is really the main issue with this camera.

O.I.S. might also , at times give blurry images.

Then again , at 1200mm...nothing comes close in the Panasonic family to reach this range.

FZ200/300 , of course has better I.Q. but at only half the reach at the telephoto end (600mm vs. 1200mm) . So not a camera in the same league, zoom-wise.

The Canon SX70...Nikon P610/B700 are the real competitors..and now the P950 seems to be the super duper far away subjects zoom camera to get.

thought?

comments?

thanks

ANAYV

Hi

I am thinking on buy this camera. Great pictures and image quality.

Did not expect so much from a small sensor, lenses must be really good.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Nikon Coolpix P7100 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic ZS100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +12 more
OP ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

Aleo Veuliah wrote:

Hi

I am thinking on buy this camera. Great pictures and image quality.

Did not expect so much from a small sensor, lenses must be really good.

Well it's better than it should be...but not saying it's great.

Just that I am seeing more details in some shots since shooting RAW with this camera.

Mainly using DXO PhotoLab with PRIME NR.

That's why i think the lens is better than many of us thought.

My FZ80 has been dropped while shooting video, and has well over 100,000 images taken.

Still it keeps working, lol.

Here are two more images , 1st shot from RAW and edited with DXO:

Second shot full size from jpeg , edited with FastStone Image Viewer.

ANAYV

Photofreak7 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

I am curious with all the use your 80 has had are your rear button's lettering still in tact? ..especially the Menu button.

 Photofreak7's gear list:Photofreak7's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Aleo Veuliah
Aleo Veuliah Forum Pro • Posts: 14,758
Re: Perhaps the lens is sharper than we thought??

ANAYV wrote:

Aleo Veuliah wrote:

Hi

I am thinking on buy this camera. Great pictures and image quality.

Did not expect so much from a small sensor, lenses must be really good.

Well it's better than it should be...but not saying it's great.

Just that I am seeing more details in some shots since shooting RAW with this camera.

Mainly using DXO PhotoLab with PRIME NR.

That's why i think the lens is better than many of us thought.

My FZ80 has been dropped while shooting video, and has well over 100,000 images taken.

Still it keeps working, lol.

Here are two more images , 1st shot from RAW and edited with DXO:

Second shot full size from jpeg , edited with FastStone Image Viewer.

ANAYV

Thank you for reply. Now I am convinced.

Always Good Light.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Nikon Coolpix P7100 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic ZS100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +12 more
Photofreak7 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: good results

Dak on cam wrote:

ANAYV wrote:

Kevin Coppalotti wrote:

these look good.

thanks.

and yes i've noticed similar with fz150, fz200 series.

most of the pics are soft, and every so often focus /stability works perfectly and the image is crystal clear sharp.

yes, soft light produces the best pics, and this often needs slow shutter speeds, so the IS is critical to avoid pushing the ISO too high.

Yep. 1/60th is really too slow handheld, even for the best O.I.S.

Most times too slow for the subject, but seems this GBH was still enough.

Burst mode, taking 3 to 5 shots helped to have a few keepers

ANAYV

One has to really consider what one is asking of the camera. Sensor is the same area as FZ300, but it has 18MP instead of 12MP, 50% more even discounting the separation between pixels. So if we want the light per pixel we get on the FZ300, we need to expose for ISO66. The lowest ISO on the FZ80 however is ISO80. Then image stabilisation is already tricky at 600mm. We take 1200mm. The FZ300 has a max aperture of F2.8 in low light, the FZ80 has one of F5.9 at its long end. With regard to the light it can work with, that's about 4.5 times less just by aperture alone.

So if you are going to look for the same amount of pixel noise per pixel at the long end at _equal_ exposure time (even though 1200mm would warrant shorter unless you are using a tripod or miraculously good image stabilisation), the equivalent to ISO80 on the FZ80 would on the FZ300 be about ISO530.

The FZ80 is no twilight camera. It's not like the FZ300 is a twilight camera, but at least the FZ300 doesn't sacrifice light for zoom length. And for a small sensor, light is kind of important.

Absolutely.. the FZ300 is a much better camera in my experience.. and I own both. The only reason to consider the FZ80 is for the 20mm WA or 1200mm zoom ..but just stepping back a bit fixes the WA and the iZoom works well on the FZ300 until say 800 or 1000mm even getting to 1200mm with ok results.

 Photofreak7's gear list:Photofreak7's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Dak on cam
Dak on cam Senior Member • Posts: 5,223
Re: good results

Photofreak7 wrote:

Dak on cam wrote:

The FZ80 is no twilight camera. It's not like the FZ300 is a twilight camera, but at least the FZ300 doesn't sacrifice light for zoom length. And for a small sensor, light is kind of important.

Absolutely.. the FZ300 is a much better camera in my experience.. and I own both. The only reason to consider the FZ80 is for the 20mm WA or 1200mm zoom ..but just stepping back a bit fixes the WA and the iZoom works well on the FZ300 until say 800 or 1000mm even getting to 1200mm with ok results.

Regarding the long end of the zoom, the DMW-LT55 should beat i.Zoom.  And while neither length (1080mm equivalent) nor image quality are likely matching the FZ80, image brightness is better.  You can actually stay pretty close to F2.8 without much of a loss in quality on the FZ200 but then you want to use a tripod since image stabilisation needs to get informed of  tele/wide adapters in order not to under/overcompensate, respectively.  And once you tell the FZ200 about the tele adapter, it refuses to go faster than F4.  A pure nuisance in my book.

For the wide end, there is the Sony VCL-MHG07 0.7x adapter (there are variants like VCL-MHG07A but the difference are just stepup/stepdown rings in the box: the adapter itself has 52mm threads), directly on the filter threads.  Assuming that they are at the same location with the FZ300 as with the FZ200, the adapter shows rather little vignetting and corner distortion: often you can just ignore what occurs there.  One nuisance is that this adapter is not focus neutral but relies on macro wide mode to focus sensibly.  This brings the back lens of the adapter in focus and any dust or smudge on it.  Surprisingly annoying.

Sometimes it just has to be wide-angle.  0.7× 25mm EFL = 17.5mm EFL

Impressive lens size (not so impressively clean mirror)

Sony VCL-MHG07 back view on the 52mm filter threads

This is how it looks taken off.  The vignetting in the lower corners is visible in the first two pictures.  It is quite more apparent in the raw files, and the image quality right next to the corners is also unsharp and distorted.  But one can see that it's surprisingly workable (the lens was designed for cameras that did not go wide nearly as much) if you don't put important stuff like faces or lettering there, and those would take a beating from wide perspective anyway.

So at least on the wide end I have my thirst for experimentation taken care off.  Of course, having to fiddle with an adapter rather than just getting the results out-of-camera is a disadvantage.  But not one I'd buy another camera for.

 Dak on cam's gear list:Dak on cam's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P52 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads