«

what do you think about this?

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> what do you think about this?
>
> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20
>

Hmmm the FZ30 is not very good at all at all, I belong to a small digital
photography group we have two people with
Panasonics one with an FZ30 (just bought it) and one with an FZ5. Looking at
two portraits last week, not of the same person though alas, the FZ5 one is
more detailed and sharper.

Various lavatory chain pulling noises.

Jem


------------------------
My Photopolymer Etchings;
http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/j/jimread

wrote:
> what do you think about this?
>
> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20

With no image stabilisation on the Fuji S9500 - there's really no
comparison.

On the basis of the images - there is much more agressive noise reduction
on the Fuji which makes the image quite awful compared to the FZ30.

David

Agreed, and the resolution is so high on the Panasonic, that you can noise
filter the image and still be sharper than the Fuji.
ed

"David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote in
message news:Cq82f.125124$ o.uk...
> wrote:
> > what do you think about this?
> >
> >
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20
>
> With no image stabilisation on the Fuji S9500 - there's really no
> comparison.
>
> On the basis of the images - there is much more agressive noise reduction
> on the Fuji which makes the image quite awful compared to the FZ30.
>
> David
>
>

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:54:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david->
wrote:

> wrote:
>> what do you think about this?
>>
>> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20
>
>With no image stabilisation on the Fuji S9500 - there's really no
>comparison.
>
>On the basis of the images - there is much more agressive noise reduction
>on the Fuji which makes the image quite awful compared to the FZ30.
>
>David
>

How come other shots with the FZ30 at that kind of speed are so
horrifically noisy, yet that image didn't seem to be?
-Rich

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:54:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david->
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> what do you think about this?
>>>
>>> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20
>>
>>With no image stabilisation on the Fuji S9500 - there's really no
>>comparison.
>>
>>On the basis of the images - there is much more agressive noise reduction
>>on the Fuji which makes the image quite awful compared to the FZ30.
>>
>>David
>>
>
> How come other shots with the FZ30 at that kind of speed are so
> horrifically noisy, yet that image didn't seem to be?
> -Rich


If on the same page you check out the other examples you can see that the
Fuji is usually vastly superior, color and sharpness wise.

Especially look at the "détail faible éclairage" picture, and judge for
yourself...

P-P.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:23:43 +0200, "P-P. Henneken" <>
wrote:

>"Rich" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:54:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david->
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> what do you think about this?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.p...5&p2=711&ph=20
>>>
>>>With no image stabilisation on the Fuji S9500 - there's really no
>>>comparison.
>>>
>>>On the basis of the images - there is much more agressive noise reduction
>>>on the Fuji which makes the image quite awful compared to the FZ30.
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>
>> How come other shots with the FZ30 at that kind of speed are so
>> horrifically noisy, yet that image didn't seem to be?
>> -Rich
>
>
>If on the same page you check out the other examples you can see that the
>Fuji is usually vastly superior, color and sharpness wise.
>
>Especially look at the "détail faible éclairage" picture, and judge for
>yourself...
>
>P-P.
>

Also, on the original image (the doll) if you look at the teeth
you'll see CA in the Panasonic image.
-Rich

Rich wrote:
[]
> Also, on the original image (the doll) if you look at the teeth
> you'll see CA in the Panasonic image.
> -Rich

Both my FZ5 and FZ20 show a small amount of CA. Mot as much as the Canon
S2 IS, though. The CA is only noticeable under unusual conditions, and
even then it's not a problem. It does seem to be one price you pay for a
12:1 zoom range in an f/2.8 lens.

David

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david->
wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>[]
>> Also, on the original image (the doll) if you look at the teeth
>> you'll see CA in the Panasonic image.
>> -Rich
>
>Both my FZ5 and FZ20 show a small amount of CA. Mot as much as the Canon
>S2 IS, though. The CA is only noticeable under unusual conditions, and
>even then it's not a problem. It does seem to be one price you pay for a
>12:1 zoom range in an f/2.8 lens.
>
>David
>

Most cameras nowadays tend to control it pretty well, except for
cheap P&S's.
-Rich

Rich wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david->
> wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>> []
>>> Also, on the original image (the doll) if you look at the teeth
>>> you'll see CA in the Panasonic image.
>>> -Rich
>>
>> Both my FZ5 and FZ20 show a small amount of CA. Mot as much as the
>> Canon S2 IS, though. The CA is only noticeable under unusual
>> conditions, and even then it's not a problem. It does seem to be
>> one price you pay for a 12:1 zoom range in an f/2.8 lens.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Most cameras nowadays tend to control it pretty well, except for
> cheap P&S's.
> -Rich

Perhaps CA isn't quite the best way to describe what you get with these
lenses - it's not classic CA with an RGB (or BGR) radial edge to
white/black transition, more a faint red/violet ghost image just visible
in the presence of a bright object. Perhaps it's an internal relfection?
Both the Leica/Panasonic and Canon very long zoom lenses show the effect.

You can get a hint of what I mean in this image:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...35-01-crop.jpg

whereas nothing like as much in this image:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-53-crop.jpg

David