«

Could any of the experts eyes here really pick the difference in an
8x10" color print from a Lumix FZ50 and Nikon D80? If so, what might
those differences be, and how acute?

Let's assume a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens versus the Lumix IS lens, but
only within their overlapping focal lengths. And also disregard any
features not common to both. IOW I am interested only in the relative
print quality under identical camera and lens settings.

I am a semi-pro going overseas and hoping to downsize for the
occasion.

Thank you for any advice.

Rob Martin

They might think they could but there is no way, presuming the image is
processed and printed appropriately.
The only important issue is whether you would feel you are missing anything
by not lugging a dSLR/lens wherever you are trekking.
I have settled on a dSLR with 18-200 lens for my last few Asian/European
treks and although this is a minimalist gear set it is still quite large and
heavy to tote.

Rob Martin wrote:
> Could any of the experts eyes here really pick the difference in an
> 8x10" color print from a Lumix FZ50 and Nikon D80? If so, what might
> those differences be, and how acute?
>
> Let's assume a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens versus the Lumix IS lens, but
> only within their overlapping focal lengths. And also disregard any
> features not common to both. IOW I am interested only in the relative
> print quality under identical camera and lens settings.
>
> I am a semi-pro going overseas and hoping to downsize for the
> occasion.
>
> Thank you for any advice.
>
> Rob Martin

Rob,
For normal photographs in great light and plenty of light
(e.g. shooting at ISO 100), and no extremes in dynamic range,
it would probably be hard to tell the difference. But
as light levels fall and dynamic range increases, the
differences will become apparent. If you post process your
images and dodge and burn (semi pro I would expect you do this),
then you would see a difference: shadows have more noise on the
small pixel FZ50, and highlights slightly more noise too.

The FZ50 has a pixel pitch of only 1.97 microns whereas
the D80 has 6.1 micron pixel pitch. Why does this matter?
Compare the Canon S70 (2.3 micron pixel pitch) to the D200
(6.1 micron pitch and same sensor as the D80) at:

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

(In particular examine Figure 6 for low light sensitivity/high
iso performance and Figure 7 for dynamic range).

More data at:
Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...or.performance

Roger

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:11:26 +1100, Rob Martin wrote:

> Could any of the experts eyes here really pick the difference in an
> 8x10" color print from a Lumix FZ50 and Nikon D80? If so, what might
> those differences be, and how acute?
>
> Let's assume a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens versus the Lumix IS lens, but
> only within their overlapping focal lengths. And also disregard any
> features not common to both. IOW I am interested only in the relative
> print quality under identical camera and lens settings.
>
> I am a semi-pro going overseas and hoping to downsize for the occasion.
>
> Thank you for any advice.
I don't have the Nikon or the FZ50, but I do have a 30D and an FZ7 and can
venture some opinions based on my experience with those that might
be relevant.

Whether there will be a noticeable difference depends on the
subject matter and the lighting. At low ISOs, with the subject at a
reasonable distance from the camera and with no subject movement they
should give pretty close to the same result. At equivalent settings as
you increase the ISO the FZ will be showing more noise--whether it will be
noticeable depends on the subject--the 50 is supposed to be much better
than the FZ7 and the FZ30 but there should still be a noticeable
difference with low-contrast subjects and subjects with a lot of detail.
According to the DPreview test the timings on the FZ50 are in the same
ballpark as for the FZ7, with some on the 50 being a little longer. I've
missed shots due to the lag between full press and shoot on the FZ7 that
I'd have gotten with the 30D--the same should be true on the FZ50 vs the
D80. With close subjects you'll get different depth of field with the FZ
and the Nikon--again whether that's noticeable depends on the subject.


--
X:\Newsreaders\sig.txt

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:11:26 +1100, Rob Martin <> wrote:
> Could any of the experts eyes here really pick the difference in an
> 8x10" color print from a Lumix FZ50 and Nikon D80? If so, what might
> those differences be, and how acute?
>
> Let's assume a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens versus the Lumix IS lens, but
> only within their overlapping focal lengths. And also disregard any
> features not common to both. IOW I am interested only in the relative
> print quality under identical camera and lens settings.
>
> I am a semi-pro going overseas and hoping to downsize for the
> occasion.

At ISO100, probably not.
At ISO800, most definitely.

The big sensor on the Nikon gives you a much cleaner picture at high
ISOs; the flip side of that is that it requires a bigger body/lens.

-dms

The FZ-50 performance really is not that bad when you shoot in RAW mode and
do the postprocessing on a PC. Drawbacks are that the files (raw + .jpg)
occupy roughly 20 MB for each picture and it takes about 4 seconds until you
are ready to take the next shot. Still it would be a lot less weight to
carry a FZ-50 and a high capacity "image tank" then a DSLR and assorted
lenses.

"Rob Martin" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:...
> Could any of the experts eyes here really pick the difference in an
> 8x10" color print from a Lumix FZ50 and Nikon D80? If so, what might
> those differences be, and how acute?
>
> Let's assume a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens versus the Lumix IS lens, but
> only within their overlapping focal lengths. And also disregard any
> features not common to both. IOW I am interested only in the relative
> print quality under identical camera and lens settings.
>
> I am a semi-pro going overseas and hoping to downsize for the
> occasion.
>
> Thank you for any advice.
>
> Rob Martin

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> More data at:
> Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...or.performance

Oops, wrong URL. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

I've added a lot to the page so it is now more complete.

Roger

"bmoag" <> wrote in message
news:7KL7h.8115$ ...
> They might think they could but there is no way, presuming the image is
> processed and printed appropriately.
> The only important issue is whether you would feel you are missing
> anything by not lugging a dSLR/lens wherever you are trekking.
> I have settled on a dSLR with 18-200 lens for my last few Asian/European
> treks and although this is a minimalist gear set it is still quite large
> and heavy to tote.
>

The point here really is that you wouldn't want to take the photo with the
FZ50 in the first place, the handling is bloody aweful, I would rather poke
my eyes out than have to use that EVF..