FZ30 PR, preview, and samples

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Some" noise... I think my eyes are deceiving me. The level of noise (also
at low(er) ISO's!) is in my opinion extremely bad. Especially for a camera
at this pricepoint. The lens itself might be very good, the sensor is
obviously too small for this number of megapixels. Don't get me wrong, not
trying to start a flame here (hey, I just ordered an H1, which can't be
described as a noiseless digicam as well...), just being objective. I also
think that they should have used the 7 megapixel sensor. Okay, you lose some
resolution but you gain a lot in the image quality department. But alas, to
satisfy the market they opted for the worse. Logical, but sad.

The rest of the camera I truly adore though. Very nice lens, manual zoom and
focus, big tiltable screen, great!

P-P.


"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:1HtDe.73927$G8.52142@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Fred@fred.fred wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:09:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>>> http/www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072004panasonic_fz30.asp
>>>> http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting that, Dave. With the manual zoom and manual focus
>>> controls, VGA movies, and swivel viewfinder it looks like a true
>>> photographer's camera!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>
>> Any idea on noise compared to the FZ20?
>
> Good question. What is the size of the pixel (in absolute units!)? A
> bigger sensor would mean a bigger lens and a much bigger and heavier
> camera (volume being proportional to linear size cubed). I did notice
> that the weight had crept up from the FZ20 and the maximum lens aperture
> at full zoom had crept down a little.
>
> I looked at the sample images and there was some noise present in the
> darker areas, as you would expect from an 8MP sensor of that physical
> size. Whether it would be a problem an 8 x 10 print I don't know, you'd
> need to print the samples out for yourself. My guess is not, providing
> you stick with the lower ISO settings.
>
> I was impressed with the lens quality on the couple of sample images I
> downloaded at full resolution.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

P-P. Henneken wrote:
> "Some" noise... I think my eyes are deceiving me. The level of noise
> (also at low(er) ISO's!) is in my opinion extremely bad. Especially
> for a camera at this pricepoint. The lens itself might be very good,
> the sensor is obviously too small for this number of megapixels.
> Don't get me wrong, not trying to start a flame here (hey, I just
> ordered an H1, which can't be described as a noiseless digicam as
> well...), just being objective. I also think that they should have
> used the 7 megapixel sensor. Okay, you lose some resolution but you
> gain a lot in the image quality department. But alas, to satisfy the
> market they opted for the worse. Logical, but sad.
> The rest of the camera I truly adore though. Very nice lens, manual
> zoom and focus, big tiltable screen, great!
>
> P-P.

The ability of noise to destroy any particular image is dependant on the
exact image viewing contidions. Whilst you can see the noise on the
sample images when viewed at 1:1 zoom on the screen (hence my describing
it as "some noise"), can you see the noise on these images when printed
out or viewed at normal size? I don't mean taking a magnifying glass to
an 10 x 8 inch print either! Vieweing at 1:1 on my screen corresponds to
a print width of 37 inches, not a size I have ever used. Personally, I
cannot agree with "extremely bad".

I do agree that there are lower noise sensors available (at least to some
manufacturers), and I do agree that for many purposes 5MP would be
adequate. 8MP is indeed market-driven. At a rough estimate, the
sensitive area per pixel is the same on the FZ20 and FZ30, so actually
having a larger total sensitive area should produce a net improvement for
images under normal viewing conditions.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Dave Sill schrieb:

> http/www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072004panasonic_fz30.asp
> http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/
>
> From the press release:

Hi -

thanks for the information.

The camera has all features (besides the "some noise") I would
like if the lens would have more wide angle.
The 0.7 adapter could serve the purpose but I do not know how
it works:
1) Is then the full zoom working (equivalent 24mm to 300mm) or is
the adapter only working when the lens position is wide angle?
2) Is there a remarkable reduction of the aperture?

Regards Udo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Udo Huebner wrote:
[]
> The camera has all features (besides the "some noise") I would
> like if the lens would have more wide angle.
> The 0.7 adapter could serve the purpose but I do not know how
> it works:
> 1) Is then the full zoom working (equivalent 24mm to 300mm) or is
> the adapter only working when the lens position is wide angle?

Probably, the full range. It is teleconvertors which tend to have
vignetting problems.

> 2) Is there a remarkable reduction of the aperture?

I don't know, but I don't think so.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

As mentioned I ordered an H1, beforehand I downloaded some DPReview sample
images to be printed as a photo. The ISO400 pictures coming out of the H1 I
also consider "very bad". So I ordered some 6x4 inch photo's with ISO400 and
ISO200 shots. The noise of the ISO400 shots was very obvious, even on the
6x4 photo's. ISO200, on the other hand, was fine, while on screen it's also
quite bad.

So what you're saying sure makes sense. A bit of noise on screen will not be
seen on the actual photo. But some pictures of the FZ30 contain that much
noise that I find it hard to believe (considering the tests I just did) that
it will not show on the actual photo. Let alone an enlargement! Okay, it's
an 8mp image so the actual "noise-pixels" will be smaller but still. That
being said, it's the result of the less-than-perfect 8mp sensor.

I really do believe that the 7mp sensor would have been a better choice. I
wonder what Fuji will release soon, the F10 images are really, really
outstanding in this respect (actually wanted that camera before the H1 but
the total lack of manual controls bothered me). If they can bring out an
image stabilized 6 (or 8, or 9...) megapixel camera with the same low-noise
as the F10 and with comparable specs/options as the S2 IS, H1, FZ5/20/30 it
will be quite some camera!

Greets,

P-P. (anxiously awaiting the iso400 noisebomb H1) ;-)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:XX2Ee.75035$G8.57086@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> P-P. Henneken wrote:
>> "Some" noise... I think my eyes are deceiving me. The level of noise
>> (also at low(er) ISO's!) is in my opinion extremely bad. Especially
>> for a camera at this pricepoint. The lens itself might be very good,
>> the sensor is obviously too small for this number of megapixels.
>> Don't get me wrong, not trying to start a flame here (hey, I just
>> ordered an H1, which can't be described as a noiseless digicam as
>> well...), just being objective. I also think that they should have
>> used the 7 megapixel sensor. Okay, you lose some resolution but you
>> gain a lot in the image quality department. But alas, to satisfy the
>> market they opted for the worse. Logical, but sad.
>> The rest of the camera I truly adore though. Very nice lens, manual
>> zoom and focus, big tiltable screen, great!
>>
>> P-P.
>
> The ability of noise to destroy any particular image is dependant on the
> exact image viewing contidions. Whilst you can see the noise on the
> sample images when viewed at 1:1 zoom on the screen (hence my describing
> it as "some noise"), can you see the noise on these images when printed
> out or viewed at normal size? I don't mean taking a magnifying glass to
> an 10 x 8 inch print either! Vieweing at 1:1 on my screen corresponds to
> a print width of 37 inches, not a size I have ever used. Personally, I
> cannot agree with "extremely bad".
>
> I do agree that there are lower noise sensors available (at least to some
> manufacturers), and I do agree that for many purposes 5MP would be
> adequate. 8MP is indeed market-driven. At a rough estimate, the
> sensitive area per pixel is the same on the FZ20 and FZ30, so actually
> having a larger total sensitive area should produce a net improvement for
> images under normal viewing conditions.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

P-P. Henneken wrote:
> As mentioned I ordered an H1, beforehand I downloaded some DPReview
> sample images to be printed as a photo. The ISO400 pictures coming
> out of the H1 I also consider "very bad". So I ordered some 6x4 inch
> photo's with ISO400 and ISO200 shots. The noise of the ISO400 shots
> was very obvious, even on the 6x4 photo's. ISO200, on the other hand,
> was fine, while on screen it's also quite bad.
>
> So what you're saying sure makes sense. A bit of noise on screen will
> not be seen on the actual photo. But some pictures of the FZ30
> contain that much noise that I find it hard to believe (considering
> the tests I just did) that it will not show on the actual photo. Let
> alone an enlargement! Okay, it's an 8mp image so the actual
> "noise-pixels" will be smaller but still. That being said, it's the
> result of the less-than-perfect 8mp sensor.

My own take with these cameras is to stick with the minimum ISO, unless
the "atmosphere" of a grainy photo would add to the image - a candid or
night shot for example.

> I really do believe that the 7mp sensor would have been a better
> choice. I wonder what Fuji will release soon, the F10 images are
> really, really outstanding in this respect (actually wanted that
> camera before the H1 but the total lack of manual controls bothered
> me). If they can bring out an image stabilized 6 (or 8, or 9...)
> megapixel camera with the same low-noise as the F10 and with
> comparable specs/options as the S2 IS, H1, FZ5/20/30 it will be quite
> some camera!

If their camera/sensor is truely as good as the reviews have reported, and
the lower noise is not simply achieved by image processing, then it would
indeed be a stunning combination. Why some manufacturers don't have image
stabilisation escapes me - it is such an advantage if you need a long
telephoto. It would be great to have ISO 400 as a usable setting rather
than a "high-grain scene" mode!

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:EX3Ee.75073$G8.60001@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> My own take with these cameras is to stick with the minimum ISO, unless
> the "atmosphere" of a grainy photo would add to the image - a candid or
> night shot for example.

True. Stick with the low(er) ISO settings. One additional advantage of the
image stabilization is ofcourse the fact that you can also use this to
decrease the shutter speed to have enough light hit the small sensor. Also
one of the reason why I wanted an IS camera.


> If their camera/sensor is truely as good as the reviews have reported, and
> the lower noise is not simply achieved by image processing, then it would
> indeed be a stunning combination.

I find this
http/img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifilmf10_samples/originals/dscf0461.jpg
an incredible achievement for such a tiny P&S camera! Okay, there is some
noise, but for an ISO400 shot it's very very good!

> Why some manufacturers don't have image stabilisation escapes me - it is
> such an advantage if you need a long telephoto. It would be great to have
> ISO 400 as a usable setting rather than a "high-grain scene" mode!

Exactly. A reason why I wanted to wait for an IS Fuji camera but alas,
patience is not a word in my vocabulary... ;-)

P-P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:59 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

> One additional advantage of the
>image stabilization is ofcourse the fact that you can also use this to
>decrease the shutter speed to have enough light hit the small sensor. Also
>one of the reason why I wanted an IS camera.

Only if the subject is not moving very fast. IS is a big advantage but
a limited one. You get to leave the tripod at home but it won't help
with moving subjects.

KS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"King Sardon" <kingsardon@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:s842e1dsdvn913l43bkea1te6ks100s2mf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:59 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
> Only if the subject is not moving very fast. IS is a big advantage but
> a limited one. You get to leave the tripod at home but it won't help
> with moving subjects.
>
> KS

Obviously! But the first affordable image stabilized point and shoot
superzoom with f1.4 through the whole zoomrange I have yet to find! ;-)

P-P.

 

[Per]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:99088$42e0b0ef$546b0e31$29283@news.multikabel.nl...
> "Some" noise... I think my eyes are deceiving me. The level of noise (also
> at low(er) ISO's!) is in my opinion extremely bad. Especially for a camera
> at this pricepoint. The lens itself might be very good, the sensor is
> obviously too small for this number of megapixels. Don't get me wrong, not
> trying to start a flame here (hey, I just ordered an H1, which can't be
> described as a noiseless digicam as well...), just being objective. I also
> think that they should have used the 7 megapixel sensor. Okay, you lose
> some resolution but you gain a lot in the image quality department. But
> alas, to satisfy the market they opted for the worse. Logical, but sad.

The 7 Mpix cameras, like Sony DSC-P200 and Canon SD500 are now better
regarding noise than most 5 Mpix cameras.
Maybe the manufacturers will learn to handle the challenges of an 8 Mpix
sensor eventually, but evidently not yet...
The noise grain is so much larger and more noticeable than the pix
resolution even at 100 ISO.
/per

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:06:33 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"King Sardon" <kingsardon@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
>news:s842e1dsdvn913l43bkea1te6ks100s2mf@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:59 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl>
>> wrote:
>> Only if the subject is not moving very fast. IS is a big advantage but
>> a limited one. You get to leave the tripod at home but it won't help
>> with moving subjects.
>>
>> KS
>
>Obviously! But the first affordable image stabilized point and shoot
>superzoom with f1.4 through the whole zoomrange I have yet to find! ;-)

How useful would f1.4 be at the tele end? Other than to impress your
friends with the bulk of the glass, I mean. To go forward, we need
more sensitive sensors.

KS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl> writes:

> "King Sardon" <kingsardon@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
> news:s842e1dsdvn913l43bkea1te6ks100s2mf@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:59 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <pep@wanadoo.nl>
> > wrote:
> > Only if the subject is not moving very fast. IS is a big advantage but
> > a limited one. You get to leave the tripod at home but it won't help
> > with moving subjects.
> >
> > KS
>
> Obviously! But the first affordable image stabilized point and shoot
> superzoom with f1.4 through the whole zoomrange I have yet to find! ;-)

I am just trying to imagine how big such a lens would be..... After all,
Panasonic seems to have given up the constant f/2.8 zoom in the FZ30. I
suspect it is because they increased the size of the sensor (so the 8MP would
have roughly the same pixel pitch and noise characteristics as the previous
5MP), and reused the Leica lens they had with the FZ20.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http/www.the-meissners.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> writes:

> I am just trying to imagine how big such a lens would be..... After all,
> Panasonic seems to have given up the constant f/2.8 zoom in the FZ30. I
> suspect it is because they increased the size of the sensor (so the 8MP would
> have roughly the same pixel pitch and noise characteristics as the previous
> 5MP), and reused the Leica lens they had with the FZ20.

According to http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/ the FZ20
and FZ30 have different lenses:

FZ30 FZ20

35 - 420 mm equiv. 36 - 432 mm equiv.
12x optical zoom 12x optical zoom
F2.8 - F3.7 F2.8 (throughout range)
14 elements in 10 groups 13 elements in 8 groups
MEGA OIS Image Stabilization MEGA OIS Image Stabilization
Non-extending Extending type
Internal zoom & focus
55 mm lens thread

The different numbers of elements/groups and extending vs. non-extending
is pretty conclusive.

-Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Dave Sill <dave@sill.org> wrote:
> Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> writes:
>
>> I am just trying to imagine how big such a lens would be..... After all,
>> Panasonic seems to have given up the constant f/2.8 zoom in the FZ30. I
>> suspect it is because they increased the size of the sensor (so the 8MP would
>> have roughly the same pixel pitch and noise characteristics as the previous
>> 5MP), and reused the Leica lens they had with the FZ20.
>
> According to http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/ the FZ20
> and FZ30 have different lenses:
>
> FZ30 FZ20
>
> 35 - 420 mm equiv. 36 - 432 mm equiv.

If you peer at the pics of the FZ30 it's also 7.4-88.8mm rather than
6-72 on the 10 and 20. A very different piece of glass.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

In article <wx0wtndtz69.fsf@sws5.ornl.gov>, Dave Sill <dave@sill.org>
wrote:

> The different numbers of elements/groups and extending vs. non-extending
> is pretty conclusive.

You got it. The non-extending aspect also speeds the startup time. One
of the major reasons I'm lusting after the FZ30. When you see a good
shot coming up, the delay until the camera has readied itself can drive
you NUTS!!

--

Chas Right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Dave Sill <dave@sill.org> writes:

> Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> writes:
>
> > I am just trying to imagine how big such a lens would be..... After all,
> > Panasonic seems to have given up the constant f/2.8 zoom in the FZ30. I
> > suspect it is because they increased the size of the sensor (so the 8MP would
> > have roughly the same pixel pitch and noise characteristics as the previous
> > 5MP), and reused the Leica lens they had with the FZ20.
>
> According to http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/ the FZ20
> and FZ30 have different lenses:
>
> FZ30 FZ20
>
> 35 - 420 mm equiv. 36 - 432 mm equiv.
> 12x optical zoom 12x optical zoom
> F2.8 - F3.7 F2.8 (throughout range)
> 14 elements in 10 groups 13 elements in 8 groups
> MEGA OIS Image Stabilization MEGA OIS Image Stabilization
> Non-extending Extending type
> Internal zoom & focus
> 55 mm lens thread
>
> The different numbers of elements/groups and extending vs. non-extending
> is pretty conclusive.

Ok, I thought I had read in the panasonic group at dpreview, that they had
reused the lens.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http/www.the-meissners.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:09:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:

>Dave Sill wrote:
>> http/www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072004panasonic_fz30.asp
>> http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/
>
>Thanks for posting that, Dave. With the manual zoom and manual focus
>controls, VGA movies, and swivel viewfinder it looks like a true
>photographer's camera!

Except for the plain hot shoe. No "TTL." You have to set things. No
spontaneity. So one would have to keep their Nikon with external flash for
those outdoor flash pictures, like Halloween parades.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:09:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Dave Sill wrote:
> >> http/www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072004panasonic_fz30.asp
> >> http/www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/
> >
> >Thanks for posting that, Dave. With the manual zoom and manual focus
> >controls, VGA movies, and swivel viewfinder it looks like a true
> >photographer's camera!
>
> Except for the plain hot shoe. No "TTL." You have to set things. No
> spontaneity. So one would have to keep their Nikon with external flash for
> those outdoor flash pictures, like Halloween parades.

While admitily my pictures became more spot on when I switched from auto flash
to TTL, it isn't that hard to shoot with a generic auto flash once you get the
hang of it. On my Olympus C-2100UZ, it was a matter of connect the flash, turn
it on, and go into manual mode since the camera would remember the f/stop and
shutter speed previously used, and if you only use manual mode for flash, the
settings are the same as the last time. Of all of the steps, the one that took
the longest was turning on the flash, and letting it cycle up.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http/www.the-meissners.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 03 Aug 2005, Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

>While admitily my pictures became more spot on when I switched from auto flash
>to TTL, it isn't that hard to shoot with a generic auto flash once you get the
>hang of it. On my Olympus C-2100UZ, it was a matter of connect the flash, turn
>it on, and go into manual mode since the camera would remember the f/stop and
>shutter speed previously used, and if you only use manual mode for flash, the
>settings are the same as the last time. Of all of the steps, the one that took
>the longest was turning on the flash, and letting it cycle up.

The only external flash I've used is "TTL." Just has does auto work? You
leave the camera set at one f-stop, tell the flash that, and then the flash
shuts itself off? At my Halloween parades people are all distances from me.
Barely enough time for the camera to auto-focus.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).