FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 12,611
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

jlina wrote:

Hi John! I'm always wondered about the weather sealing...how much does it matter when Stevie literally told me to take photos only on sunny days to avoid disappointment?

as you see in the original picture on this thread cloudy gloomy day is really affect the photos from the 300....

So unless you're taking the camera canoeing how is it a big benefit if you don't have the light?

Hope you're having a great day!

Hi , I’ve used fz330 in foggy damp and even rainy conditions and even after dark handheld.

The rain came after fog

The fog , Misty damp ..

-- hide signature --

Back to bridge cameras......

Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

I tried using it just before sunset, i think it was maybe 5 minutes before, forest was dark and i was heading back home, then i saw wood pidgeon (i assume) siting on a branch and last sun rays hit him (well, head was in a shade unfortunately). Not a great picture by any means (look at the branches sticking from its head), and could be cropped and pp it to look bit better i think (maybe i will) or shot in raw for even better quality (maybe). But even in near dark conditions i was able to use ISO 100 (somehow.. if it was cloudy day and not this last sun light, camera would propose like 1600 ISO), and get a detailed picture. OOC not cropped.

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Those are great Porot! And exactly what I would expect at sunset. My camera however would have made it look dark not still light. and since it was questioned recently about my abilities yes I was able to choose my time zone on it!

This is actually an hour or so before sunset, the dog did not focus and I literally had the box to focus it on his nose.

I have always thought that I got a bad camera. B&H actually asked me to send it back after viewing the photos. Hope you're enjoying your small Forest!

-- hide signature --

jlina

jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

First off I did not realize as you spoke that this was in the context "any camera you use." And in your much-cited review you claim that the camera takes dull photos with its native settings out of the box. However that is not my experience either.

For whatever reason as I said my camera photographed dark and dim; even if it was an hour before sunset it would look like it was actually sunset and almost dark in the photos.

I still think I got a bad camera, and and think we should leave it at that. Whether or not it took dim and dull pictures does not negate the fact that it did not focus well.

We both get to have an opinion here, although it does not seem that way every time I mention this camera. Frankly I hesitate to even discuss it because I know this rebuke is coming.

Best of luck to you as well Stevie.

-- hide signature --

jlina

Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Hi, your camera with is fz2500 or fz 1000 II, I can't recall, bit tipsy, can do even better, you just need to find right metering mode and situation! In such conditions fz300 is doing worse usually, this was my happy exception. It always depend on specific situation. Sometimes, even stronger light gives worse results, I'm sure there is a science behind it, im just walking around snapping whatever seems interesting!

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

LOL Paul! Yes that level of expertise is what I would expect of you. Can you post any of those shots with a 1-in sensor for comparison? They are great but not as great as your 1-in sensor would be.

-- hide signature --

jlina

jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Tipsy is a great time to photograph small birds!  Haha, just kidding!

Stay well my friend!

-- hide signature --

jlina

Mikedigi
Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: Flower
1

jlina - Re:

"Sorry Mike but I have no idea what you're talking about with depth of field here it doesn't have a good depth of field? because my camera goes to f11 and if you would take a shot and show me what you're talking about I'm sure I could replicate it. it was probably after I returned the camera that people start talking about depth of field on small sensors."

All other things being equal - target, f-stop, distance and focal length - smaller sensor means deeper depth of focus.

I meant that the FZ1000-ii had handled depth of focus well on your flower - a DSLR with larger sensor would have given a shallower depth of focus. All other things being equal.

The FZ330 would have given a deeper depth of focus. All other things being equal.

Which is "better" is a daft question - it depends on what depth of focus you want.

I was not attacking the FZ1000-ii, as you appear to have taken it, I said:

"This pic shows a big advantage that our compact cameras have over large-sensor DSLRs - relatively deep depth of focus."

"Compact cameras" referred to your FZ1000-ii.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 12,611
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)

jlina wrote:

LOL Paul! Yes that level of expertise is what I would expect of you. Can you post any of those shots with a 1-in sensor for comparison? They are great but not as great as your 1-in sensor would be.

I’ve only got a few shots to hand as I’m on my iPad at the moment.

how about handheld telephoto @ iso3200 on a foggy night..lol.

This one is iso 6400

And here’s a frame taken using 4 k photo mode on a wet rainy day while covering the tour de Yorkshire.

Sorry these are small poor quality as pulled from my Facebook page .
while try to sort full size version tomorrow.

-- hide signature --

Back to bridge cameras......

jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)

Hey thanks what I really wanted to discuss is highlights and shadows I found an old thread from 2014.... So it sounds like y'all have been discussing that a while. I think I'll start a new thread on it tomorrow. I have the same problem trying to pull up photos on this tablet. Take care!

-- hide signature --

jlina

Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

I assume that, it was a quite bright scene, even hour after sunset - lot of sand reflecting the rays, so depending on metering, possibly camera could decide to make it "darker" to save highlights in the picture.

For the focus, im not sure, maybe focus box was wide enough to catch the bigger subject behind the dog, and focus on it instead ? Possibly if it was small enough to have just dog eye or 'face' in it, and focusing was small area or point, picture would look very diffrent.

Not sure however, i know the basics of exposure (or i think i do), however in practice it is always a little bit of lottery involved, unless you got it perfectly. Question, do you remember what mode you used ? I am always in either aperture or shutter semi auto modes.

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: Flower
1

Hi Mike! That wasn't my defensive voice that was my confused voice.

for one thing when taking a shot of a single flower I thought you wanted a shallow depth of field to blur the background? so if this shot had a lot of depth of field you're saying that the flower looks more 3D because of that?

Remember I have only ever dealt with the 300 and the 1000. So I have no comparison basis.

Thanks!

-- hide signature --

jlina

jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Hi there I was shooting in A mode, I never went to S mode until I got this camera. You're right and good eye for noticing the sun on the sand. I just was very disappointed in the photo when I got home because it was much lighter outside than the photo showed. And I took about a dozen that day that were the same.

That doesn't happen with the new camera, I'm glad

I'm also focusing a lot more on shadows and highlights and exposure now that I've got a basic camera and figure it out how to frame photos.

-- hide signature --

jlina

Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Hi ! Nice fog and night pics, however, lets be honest, semi new smartphones will do better then this, at least for low light pics, unless we would use tripod, with some long exposure, raw, and pp it after.

To be honest my Nokia 930 from 2014 (with i don't use anymore because microsoft decided to stop supporting its own mobile system and devices, and my bank app stopped working (and some others), made at times better low light pictures with its 1/2.5” 20 megapixel sensor. Not to mention new flagships (however i still believe then in many cases, nokia still do better pictures then 2020 / 2021 flagships - but thats totally oftop- sorry) - of course, they have nothing in comparison with daylight zoom pics, from any fz camera.

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Framing is the worst, especially with BRANCHES!

also sometimes, darker picture is better, because (in theory) it is way easier to pull out detail from shadow in pp (it works better for raw files, but even for jpg there are some possibilities) then from burned highlights with often just make gray areas even after pp and there is nothing to save from them, at least for small sensor cameras in my opinion - with could be wrong !

Also - i hate being bothered with pp, this is silly, because, lets face it, most great pictures are skillfully (is that a word ?) postprocessed, but i just want making pics, not spend hours in some app (i may or may not take back those words in time).

In theory fz300 is second camera i owned, and third i used (first was some red sony 5mp compact with 10 times zoom i think, with was crazy to me at the time), and i never send any back or replaced any of it. I just try to do best with what i have in hand, either camera or some phone (and i don't buy expensive flagships, because - no reason to), and i am always (with is childish i know) amazed with just ability to capture a moment in time. Ok i will not spam anymore today, because i obviously got sidetracked and i forgot what was the issue at hand - was it low light abilities of our cameras ?

Edit : wish I lived near the ocean or sea, I only see it every couple of years, I miss the smell and the storms..

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Mikedigi
Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Fran - re

Just out of interest, in your opinion, what did the FZ1000 do better?

For a given large landscape shot at less than 400mm focal length, and all other things being equal, the FZ1000 puts more pixels on a distant object than the FZ330 and theoretically gives more resolution. Take distant trees for example. But enough difference to matter to me?

But on my e.g. small objects in a dim National Trust house, e.g. at f4, the FZ330 gives more depth of focus than the FZ1000 at f4, so I might have to use the FZ1000 at f5.6, requiring higher ISO. This matters to me a lot.

Every camera is a compromise, it always come back to "What do you want most?".

Small size and light weight matter to me a lot too, and this favoured the fZ330.

But my Olympus Stylus 1S is likely to run alongside my twice-as-big FZ330 for ever. It doesn't do it all, but it does more-per-size-and-weight, which often suits me fine.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 12,611
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)

Porost wrote:

Hi ! Nice fog and night pics, however, lets be honest, semi new smartphones will do better then this, at least for low light pics, unless we would use tripod, with some long exposure, raw, and pp it after.

To be honest my Nokia 930 from 2014 (with i don't use anymore because microsoft decided to stop supporting its own mobile system and devices, and my bank app stopped working (and some others), made at times better low light pictures with its 1/2.5” 20 megapixel sensor. Not to mention new flagships (however i still believe then in many cases, nokia still do better pictures then 2020 / 2021 flagships - but thats totally oftop- sorry) - of course, they have nothing in comparison with daylight zoom pics, from any fz camera.

My smartphone does great

-- hide signature --

Back to bridge cameras......

Porost Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)

Well you can make great photo with matchbox and tape anyway!

Cheers

 Porost's gear list:Porost's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,908
Re: FZ300.. Full-size out-of-camera jpgs (Pt.1)
1

Don't despair! It is a wild and windy day with a storm blowing in and I just took 20 minutes of photos. I'll be happy to share! It was also my first try at -2 highlights. Will post later.

-- hide signature --

jlina

Mikedigi
Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: Flower
1

jlina wrote:

Hi Mike! That wasn't my defensive voice that was my confused voice.

for one thing when taking a shot of a single flower I thought you wanted a shallow depth of field to blur the background? so if this shot had a lot of depth of field you're saying that the flower looks more 3D because of that? . . . . . . .

Errrrrrrm . . . . if you now understand sensor size v focus depth and, especially, "all other things being equal", could we just leave it there for now?

Re "wanted a shallow depth of field to blur the background", there is a common misconception that shallow focus depth is always a Good Thing.

But for at least 50% of what I do, I need shallow focus depth like a Hole in the Head, I just want the whole of a given target to be in focus and I don't care about the background.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads