I'm hooked on the FZ300

[Dak on cam]

I don't think that my FZ200 felt limited by optics, rather by its sensor performance, not entirely surprising at its size.

Here is a sample shot from a minute ago (raw processed, so less noise reduction than what the internal processor would use):



The script is in focus. The camera picked ISO200 (this camera should really just be shot at ISO100 if you can help it). Rendition is reasonable except for noise. The camera picked F3.5 (but it isn't really much worse at F2.8), a brighter aperture than the HS30EXR can deliver at the long end. That leads to a fairly narrow depth of field, making material out of the focus plane dissolve rather fast, even though the "end blurriness" is not all that large due to the small sensor. Maybe it is that which threw you off? Small depth of field without great background blur to show for it?

Just for comparison: here is the same scale with an admittedly subpar full-frame setup (to get at 600mm equivalent, I use a 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 lens in front of an old 2× teleextender, necessitating manual focus. At least optical stabilisation still works in that setup, as opposed to front-mounted teleconverters).





That teleextender doesn't fix the EXIF, so we are effectively talking about 600mm at F11 here. The main difference at article size is stronger bokeh (F11 on full-frame vs F3.5 on crop factor 5.6, about F20 equivalent).

When going in, one gets higher resolution, lower noise in spite of higher ISO, and quite more graceful dissolution of out-of-focus regions.

But the setup is much more expensive and cumbersome (in practice, I don't really use teleextenders).

--
Dak

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

... I have all the above cameras. ...

Now here is where the surprises come in. I also tested the Fuji S1 vs the Panasonic FZ300 at different zoom lengths and including IDZ vs i-zoom. ...

Lot of talk that's meaningless without posting images, especially given the image quality of "Camera comparison" images you 'HAVE' posted; e.g., HERE and in your DPR Galleries,

Some FZ200 images for you to match with any of your images:




Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just cropped excess sky.

;-)

For my test images, it was a very boring subject, a wooden pole about 95 feet from my house. Nothing to look at, I just analyzed the images to see which showed the grain in the wood the best lol.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Dak,

Thank you for your considered response to my complaint about the FZ200. First of all, your suggestion that I had a bad copy of the camera is possibly true: I have based all of my impressions on just one camera, which is what most people do. However, I have owned a number of Lumix cameras, and this is the only one where I have had issues, so I am fairly confident in Panasonic quality control.

As regards user errors, I think I used the camera with a reasonable degree of understanding – I used the stabilization feature where necessary, I did not base my criticisms on cases where there was heat haze or other atmospheric phenomena, or shooting through windows, and I don't use UV filters, cheap or otherwise, except in a few defined circumstances where there is an obvious environmental challenge.

What I did find was that at the longer focal lengths there was a loss of fine detail, and the jpeg engine smoothed this out in a strange way, resulting in some bizarre artefacts.

Moving to the HS30, I got better resolution at the long end (which is 720mm equiv.) and better jpeg rendering. (I think the HS30 embodied a couple of improvements over the HS20, which is your reference point.)

You mention the HS series have 16MP available, but the camera is built round the EXR concept, and the pixel binning process optimises the camera output although it nominally halves the potential resolution.

And of course the manual zoom control, which you mention, makes it a more enjoyable camera to use than the motor-driven zoom models.

Of course, in the end it is personal taste that decides which cameras we like and keep, and for me it was the Fuji.

I'm surprised you didn't get the HS50. I went from the HS20 to the HS50 but still have both. I also have the S1 which marginally improves the optical resolution over the HS50 and is better for long exposures.

 

[photoholiko]

I want to help you prove your point, (I may have posted these before)
















This guy moves a too much to be in focus!1.

 

[Jon_T]

... I have all the above cameras. ...

Now here is where the surprises come in. I also tested the Fuji S1 vs the Panasonic FZ300 at different zoom lengths and including IDZ vs i-zoom. ...

Lot of talk that's meaningless without posting images, especially given the image quality of "Camera comparison" images you 'HAVE' posted; e.g., HERE and in your DPR Galleries,

Some FZ200 images for you to match with any of your images:




Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just cropped excess sky.

;-)

For my test images, it was a very boring subject, a wooden pole about 95 feet from my house. Nothing to look at, I just analyzed the images to see which showed the grain in the wood the best lol.

Still my point still remains, posting one camera has better IQ than another is meaningless without images.

Likewise any online "full" review of a camera without sample images is not worth much.

 

[Brian Chichester]

Still my point still remains, posting one camera has better IQ than another is meaningless without images.

Likewise any online "full" review of a camera without sample images is not worth much.

Good point. Re my issue with the FZ200, here is one of the shots at maximum zoom that gave me concern.


Little egret

The bird is OK, the background looks like a bad painting.

Now shots, again at max. zoom, from the HS30.


Another little egret


Young cygnet

The dynamic range, colour and jpeg rendering are all more pleasing to my eye.



--
Brian's Flickr stream: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91818363@N08/
Einmal ist keinmal

 

[Dak on cam]

Still my point still remains, posting one camera has better IQ than another is meaningless without images.

Likewise any online "full" review of a camera without sample images is not worth much.

Good point. Re my issue with the FZ200, here is one of the shots at maximum zoom that gave me concern.


Little egret

The bird is OK, the background looks like a bad painting.

If I interpret this correctly, it is an image shot using i.Zoom and raw (a combination that delivers a proper 2000×1500 crop as a raw file). That means maximum optical resolution.

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

P.S.: the EXIF contains the following tidbit:

.# High Pass Sharpen....'BlendMode': App.Constants.BlendMode.HardLight, ....'Strength': 50, ....'Radius': 5....08/07/2023 12:45:44 # File 'egret1.tif' saved......# Resize....'AspectRatio': 1.33333, ....'CurrentDimensionUnits': App.Constants.UnitsOfMeasure.Pixels, ....'CurrentResolutionUnits': App.Constants.ResolutionUnits.PixelsPerIn, ....'Height': 1500, ....'MaintainAspectRatio': True, ....'Resample': True, ....'ResampleType': App.Constants.ResampleType.Bicubic, ....'ResizeAllLayers': True, ....'Resolution': 180, ....'Width': 2000, ....'SharpnessValue': 60, ....'AdvancedMode': True, ....'ResizeType': 0, ....'OneSide_Type': 0, ....'OneSide_LongWidth': 4597, ....'OneSide_ShortHeight': 3447, ....'OneSide_Unit': App.Constants.UnitsOfMeasure.Pixels, ....'OneSide_Active': 0....02/10/2025 11:12:01 # File 'egret1a.jpg' saved.....

In particular the "HardLight" operation with a radius of 5 seems suspicious. Whether raw or not: do you have the original image available before you pulled it through the photo editor/converter?

--
Dak

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Just kidding, have fun nerds!

Best,

Den

 

[Brian Chichester]

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

Dak,

Thank you for your response. I should point out in all fairness that I have moved on from this camera and do not have a pressing need to know what was wrong with the files.

It's interesting that you first assumed it was down to poor technique, but having seen an image you are now blaming bad processing.

I can't find the raw file, so maybe I accidentally deleted it or it died of shame, but here is the SOOC jpeg of the shot, downsized for convenience. It was a 5.2MB jpeg, so not the lowest quality.


Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

--
Brian's Flickr stream: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91818363@N08/
Einmal ist keinmal

 

[Jon_T]

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

...

Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it. ...

Actually it was by you by selecting the i.Zoom setting. ;-)


If the 35mm equivalent focal length is greater than 108mm; i.Zoom was used.

If sharpness is your higher priority do not use any form of digital zoom.

... I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji. ...

Never used Fuji, but can safely say with any form of digital zoom IQ is inferior to optical zoom focal length.

Being that the FZ200 sensor is 12 MP; will need to adjust camera-to-subject distance so the main object (e.g. bird) fills the image area to use as much a the sensor's 12 MP.

If the object covers a small area of the sensor as with your posted bird image, the bird will not look sharp with cropping image to smaller size to make the bird "look" larger using a crop FOV.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Dak on cam]

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

Dak,

Thank you for your response. I should point out in all fairness that I have moved on from this camera and do not have a pressing need to know what was wrong with the files.

It's interesting that you first assumed it was down to poor technique, but having seen an image you are now blaming bad processing.

I can't find the raw file, so maybe I accidentally deleted it or it died of shame, but here is the SOOC jpeg of the shot, downsized for convenience. It was a 5.2MB jpeg, so not the lowest quality.


Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

No, this is a 700kB JPEG file that has been processed by Paintshop Pro. Even smaller than the last one.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

When your camera clandestinely uses Paintshop Pro behind your back, that's creepy. I would have gotten rid of it, too.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

Should be rare, really.

--
Dak

 

[Dak on cam]

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

...


Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it. ...

Actually it was by you by selecting the i.Zoom setting. ;-)


If the 35mm equivalent focal length is greater than 108mm; i.Zoom was used.

If sharpness is your higher priority do not use any form of digital zoom.

... I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji. ...

Never used Fuji, but can safely say with any form of digital zoom IQ is inferior to optical zoom focal length.

Being that the FZ200 sensor is 12 MP; will need to adjust camera-to-subject distance so the main object (e.g. bird) fills the image area to use as much a the sensor's 12 MP.

If the object covers a small area of the sensor as with your posted bird image, the bird will not look sharp with cropping image to smaller size to make the bird "look" larger using a crop FOV.

Iff he used a raw file in connection with i.Zoom (something that the FZ200 allows unlike pretty much any other model), the raw file is just a 2000×1500 central crop, unprocessed. That should not look as weird as that.

By now I don't believe in the raw file theory anymore. Instead I think this was a 4000×3000 image blown up from a 2000×1500 pixel crop by using i.Zoom and then (for whatever unimaginable reason) reduced to half size again using Bicubic Interpolation.

An agglomeration of bad ideas that would have been avoided by taking the raw file or not using i.Zoom altogether. It would be easier to diagnose if we were able to get a straight file right out of the camera, without any more processing.

As it is, one can only guess.

--
Dak

 

[Brian Chichester]

Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

No, this is a 700kB JPEG file that has been processed by Paintshop Pro. Even smaller than the last one.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

When your camera clandestinely uses Paintshop Pro behind your back, that's creepy. I would have gotten rid of it, too.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

Should be rare, really.

This dialogue has probably gone on too long, but just to clarify what you are seeing, the SOOC jpeg (which was a 5.2MB file) was downsized in Paintshop Pro for convenience of uploading to dpreview. What you see is the same as the camera output but smaller. The camera did not have access to Paintshop Pro.

Good night.

--
Brian's Flickr stream: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91818363@N08/
Einmal ist keinmal

 

[Dak on cam]

Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

No, this is a 700kB JPEG file that has been processed by Paintshop Pro. Even smaller than the last one.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

When your camera clandestinely uses Paintshop Pro behind your back, that's creepy. I would have gotten rid of it, too.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

Should be rare, really.

This dialogue has probably gone on too long, but just to clarify what you are seeing, the SOOC jpeg (which was a 5.2MB file) was downsized in Paintshop Pro for convenience of uploading to dpreview. What you see is the same as the camera output but smaller. The camera did not have access to Paintshop Pro.

It is not possible to diagnose the problem properly without a file from the camera without additional processing. The "convenience" makes it useless. In particular it may be possible to downscale the oversized image in a manner that better minimizes the i.Zoom artifacts from digitally upsizing it via i.Zoom.

--
Dak

 

[Jon_T]

Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

No, this is a 700kB JPEG file that has been processed by Paintshop Pro. Even smaller than the last one.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

When your camera clandestinely uses Paintshop Pro behind your back, that's creepy. I would have gotten rid of it, too.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

Should be rare, really.

This dialogue has probably gone on too long, but just to clarify what you are seeing, the SOOC jpeg (which was a 5.2MB file) was downsized in Paintshop Pro for convenience of uploading to dpreview. What you see is the same as the camera output but smaller. The camera did not have access to Paintshop Pro. ...

Agree. :-(

Typical DAK micro analysis of an item beyond anyone cares about.

 

[Jon_T]

The kind of washiness I see here in my book points to bad processing (the simplest form of which would be saving at too low JPEG quality) more than to an optical problem, unless the optical problem is atmospheric. Could you provide a link to the raw file?

...


Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it. ...

Actually it was by you by selecting the i.Zoom setting. ;-)


If the 35mm equivalent focal length is greater than 108mm; i.Zoom was used.

If sharpness is your higher priority do not use any form of digital zoom.

... I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji. ...

Never used Fuji, but can safely say with any form of digital zoom IQ is inferior to optical zoom focal length.

Being that the FZ200 sensor is 12 MP; will need to adjust camera-to-subject distance so the main object (e.g. bird) fills the image area to use as much a the sensor's 12 MP.

If the object covers a small area of the sensor as with your posted bird image, the bird will not look sharp with cropping image to smaller size to make the bird "look" larger using a crop FOV.

Iff he used a raw file in connection with i.Zoom (something that the FZ200 allows unlike pretty much any other model), the raw file is just a 2000×1500 central crop, unprocessed. That should not look as weird as that.

By now I don't believe in the raw file theory anymore. Instead I think this was a 4000×3000 image blown up from a 2000×1500 pixel crop by using i.Zoom and then (for whatever unimaginable reason) reduced to half size again using Bicubic Interpolation.

An agglomeration of bad ideas that would have been avoided by taking the raw file or not using i.Zoom altogether. It would be easier to diagnose if we were able to get a straight file right out of the camera, without any more processing.

As it is, one can only guess.

We already discussed/ speculated on the FZ200's anomaly of being able to use RAW with i.Zoom.

Really wished you would adopt the KISS principal. :-|

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Little egret, puzzled by its unrealistic background.

No, this is a 700kB JPEG file that has been processed by Paintshop Pro. Even smaller than the last one.

So bad processing is no doubt the answer, but it was by the camera, not me, so I am perhaps justified in getting rid of it.

When your camera clandestinely uses Paintshop Pro behind your back, that's creepy. I would have gotten rid of it, too.

I don't get this kind of problem with the Fuji.

Should be rare, really.

This dialogue has probably gone on too long, but just to clarify what you are seeing, the SOOC jpeg (which was a 5.2MB file) was downsized in Paintshop Pro for convenience of uploading to dpreview. What you see is the same as the camera output but smaller. The camera did not have access to Paintshop Pro.

Good night.

I actually don't see that kind of artifacting with any of my cameras. But I will tell you this, avoid i-zoom at all costs it is MUCH worse than Fuji's IDZ. I even had a conversation with Grok AI about it and it agreed. I had Grok AI rank the digital zoom image quality of all my cameras and it ranked Olympus M43 as the best, Fuji as the next best and Panasonic in last place. It told me that the black pixels I see with i-zoom on Panasonic cameras is a common characteristic of their brand of digital zoom and the problem would be even worse with the FZ80D because of its much higher density sensor. Stick to optical zoom only on Panasonic cameras. 16 MP on the Fuji cameras does result in more resolved detail though to maximize this you should get a Bayer sensor camera like the S1. It outresolves my HS50 (not by a lot but you can see the difference.) Kim Letkeman's extensive reviews compare them too. I like both, the HS50's manual zoom lens comes in very handy and the HS series lets you use raw mode or raw+jpg in burst mode.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Jon_T]

I actually don't see that kind of artifacting with any of my cameras. But I will tell you this, avoid i-zoom at all costs it is MUCH worse than Fuji's IDZ. ...

Must be due to how you're using i.Zoom.

All your Fuji's IDZ images I've seen you posted are low contrast and OOF/ soft.

Once again your 'talk' is meaningless without out posting comparison images.

Not at my computer at this time so here's one of my FZ200 images with i.Zoom I posted recently to your similar previous post.

Be more than happy to post more i.Zoom images for comparisons, when I'm at my computer.

Guess you've forgotten the FZ1000, FZ200 and FZ80 i.Zoom images I posted in replies to your previous posts.


Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just croped excess sky

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I actually don't see that kind of artifacting with any of my cameras. But I will tell you this, avoid i-zoom at all costs it is MUCH worse than Fuji's IDZ. ...

Must be due to how you're using i.Zoom.

All your Fuji's IDZ images I've seen you posted are low contrast and OOF/ soft.

Once again your 'talk' is meaningless without out posting comparison images.

Not at my computer at this time so here's one of my FZ200 images with i.Zoom I posted recently to your similar previous post.

Be more than happy to post more i.Zoom images for comparisons, when I'm at my computer.

Guess you've forgotten the FZ1000, FZ200 and FZ80 i.Zoom images I posted in replies to your previous posts.


Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just croped excess sky

The softness is a product of IDZ limiting artifacts by blurring them, I think you stated this yourself. It's very similar to the Dynamic Fine Zoom on your Nikon P950 and my P900, you can see it on your Nikon camera if you push DFZ to 2x. Panasonic does not do this kind of blurring which is why the artifacts stand out more with i-zoom (you saw it when I posted my solar filter images a few months ago and also in the FZ200 i-zoom image of the egret that was posted in this thread.)

It shows up much more posting full resolution i-zoom images vs downscaling them down to 2000x1500.

I'll find one to post in here as an example, it will show the same artifacts as the image Brian posted of the egret.

Take a look Jon:

You can see the artifacts pretty clearly even when downsizing the images to screen size (1280x1024), but I'll post the full size unprocessed versions anyway.













--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Jon_T]

I actually don't see that kind of artifacting with any of my cameras. But I will tell you this, avoid i-zoom at all costs it is MUCH worse than Fuji's IDZ. ...

Must be due to how you're using i.Zoom.

All your Fuji's IDZ images I've seen you posted are low contrast and OOF/ soft.

Once again your 'talk' is meaningless without out posting comparison images.

Not at my computer at this time so here's one of my FZ200 images with i.Zoom I posted recently to your similar previous post.

Be more than happy to post more i.Zoom images for comparisons, when I'm at my computer.

Guess you've forgotten the FZ1000, FZ200 and FZ80 i.Zoom images I posted in replies to your previous posts.


Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just croped excess sky

The softness is a product of IDZ limiting artifacts by blurring them, I think you stated this yourself. It's very similar to the Dynamic Fine Zoom on your Nikon P950 and my P900, you can see it on your Nikon camera if you push DFZ to 2x. Panasonic does not do this kind of blurring which is why the artifacts stand out more with i-zoom (you saw it when I posted my solar filter images a few months ago and also in the FZ200 i-zoom image of the egret that was posted in this thread.)

It shows up much more posting full resolution i-zoom images vs downscaling them down to 2000x1500.

I'll find one to post in here as an example, it will show the same artifacts as the image Brian posted of the egret.

Take a look Jon:

You can see the artifacts pretty clearly even when downsizing the images to screen size (1280x1024), but I'll post the full size unprocessed versions anyway.

As usual you missed my point.

Yes I'm well aware of issues you mentioned.

My point was using i.Zoom within its limitations to get good IQ, and to post images that match the IQ of the image I posted.

Not using it the way 'you' want to use it despite "knowing" it will result in poor IQ. :-(