does the noise factor in FZ50 really bother??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Saint, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. Saint

    Saint Guest

    heard many people complain about the FZ50 having noise. does that
    really bother so much??

    is there any way which can be used to override the noise issue and get
    some cool photos?

    -sid
     
    Saint, Dec 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Saint wrote:
    > heard many people complain about the FZ50 having noise. does that
    > really bother so much??
    >
    > is there any way which can be used to override the noise issue and get
    > some cool photos?
    >
    > -sid
    >

    Stay at 100 or 200ISO and/or use a noise removal program like Noise Ninja.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Saint

    Saint Guest

    hi wayne...

    thanx for the answer.

    will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??

    -sid

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Saint wrote:
    > > heard many people complain about the FZ50 having noise. does that
    > > really bother so much??
    > >
    > > is there any way which can be used to override the noise issue and get
    > > some cool photos?
    > >
    > > -sid
    > >

    > Stay at 100 or 200ISO and/or use a noise removal program like Noise Ninja.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    > --
    > Wayne J. Cosshall
    > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    > Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Saint, Dec 5, 2006
    #3
  4. "Saint" <> wrote:
    >
    > will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??


    No. They make the noise worse.

    The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon D50
    or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 5, 2006
    #4
  5. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Saint" <> wrote:
    >> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??

    >
    > No. They make the noise worse.
    >
    > The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon D50
    > or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >

    Exactly, about the filters. If they make it darker you will get longer
    exposures or have to raise the ISO, and thus more noise.

    dSLRs do have lower image noise, but that is a big shift.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 5, 2006
    #5
  6. "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Saint" <> wrote:
    >>> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??

    >>
    >> No. They make the noise worse.
    >>
    >> The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon
    >> D50 or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.
    >>

    > Exactly, about the filters. If they make it darker you will get longer
    > exposures or have to raise the ISO, and thus more noise.
    >
    > dSLRs do have lower image noise, but that is a big shift.


    DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, and Pentax <whatever their current
    ultralight model is> are a only a tad more expensive and only a tad heavier
    and bulkier than the better P&S cameras. They really are amazing. (The D50
    has a bit more bulk and weight to it for we ham-fisted 6'2" bowlers.)

    Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit is a
    long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than the
    Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed, but the Canon 50/1.4 is quite a bit
    nicer in several ways than the 50/1.8. And things are most likely somewhat
    different again over in Pentax land.)

    Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is within 100
    grams (15%) of the weight of the FZ30. (Of course, you don't get an insane
    zoom, but you get far far better images.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Saint

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    > DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, ...
    > Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    > Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit is a
    > long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than the
    > Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed,...
    > Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is ...


    Keep in mind that the Nikon D40 won't AF with any of those Nikkors you
    mention. The D50 is a better choice.
     
    Paul Rubin, Dec 5, 2006
    #7
  8. "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >> DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, ...
    >> Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    >> Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit
    >> is a
    >> long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than the
    >> Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed,...
    >> Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is ...

    >
    > Keep in mind that the Nikon D40 won't AF with any of those Nikkors you
    > mention. The D50 is a better choice.


    Oops. Really? Wow. Are you sure? I'm talking about the "D" lenses, such as
    the 50/1.4D. Oops, there it is "Other Type G or D AF Nikkor - All functions
    supported except autofocus". Yuck, that's really really stupid.

    I was trying to be a nice guy and less of a Canonista and recommend Nikon.
    Wrong.

    David J. Littleboy
    Wrong again, in
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Saint

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is within 100
    > grams (15%) of the weight of the FZ30. (Of course, you don't get an insane
    > zoom, but you get far far better images.)
    >


    Is "any" zoom "insane"? I regard zoom as
    essential, for all but specialized work.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 5, 2006
    #9
  10. "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >> Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is within 100
    >> grams (15%) of the weight of the FZ30. (Of course, you don't get an
    >> insane zoom, but you get far far better images.)

    >
    > Is "any" zoom "insane"? I regard zoom as essential, for all but
    > specialized work.


    No; my "insane" refers to the extreme range of the FZ30, which provides a
    zoom range that would be optically unreasonable in an APS-C or FF camera.

    But primes aren't as much of a hindrance as you think; the vast majority of
    the great photographs in the history of photography were taken with primes.
    You do have to think and plan ahead a bit, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Saint

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:el3m13$6th$...
    >
    > "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote:
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>> DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, ...
    >>> Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    >>> Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit
    >>> is a
    >>> long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than the
    >>> Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed,...
    >>> Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is ...

    >>
    >> Keep in mind that the Nikon D40 won't AF with any of those Nikkors you
    >> mention. The D50 is a better choice.

    >
    > Oops. Really? Wow. Are you sure? I'm talking about the "D" lenses, such as
    > the 50/1.4D. Oops, there it is "Other Type G or D AF Nikkor - All
    > functions supported except autofocus". Yuck, that's really really stupid.


    The D40 requires AF-S lenses to autofocus; no focusing screw in this one.

    >
    > I was trying to be a nice guy and less of a Canonista and recommend Nikon.
    > Wrong.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Wrong again, in
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 5, 2006
    #11
  12. Saint

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:el39um$3o4$...
    >
    > "Saint" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??

    >
    > No. They make the noise worse.
    >
    > The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon
    > D50 or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.


    But you give up movie mode, live preview, and that hyper zoom that makes
    such a nice light travel package. DSLRs are nice, but I don't see these as
    competitive products.

    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 5, 2006
    #12
  13. Saint

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:12:42 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Saint" <> wrote:
    >>>> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??
    >>>
    >>> No. They make the noise worse.
    >>>
    >>> The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon
    >>> D50 or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.
    >>>

    >> Exactly, about the filters. If they make it darker you will get longer
    >> exposures or have to raise the ISO, and thus more noise.
    >>
    >> dSLRs do have lower image noise, but that is a big shift.

    >
    > DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, and Pentax <whatever their current
    > ultralight model is> are a only a tad more expensive and only a tad heavier
    > and bulkier than the better P&S cameras. They really are amazing. (The D50
    > has a bit more bulk and weight to it for we ham-fisted 6'2" bowlers.)


    And that's fine if the range and quality of the kit lenses is good enough.
    Remember that that inexpensive point-and-shoot has a Leitz-designed lens
    with an acceptance angle at the wide end the same as that of 270mm on the
    DSLR, so comparing apples to apples you've got to factor in an f/3.5 270mm
    and that runs both the price and the size of that DSLR way up.

    If low light is the primary use of the camera, and you're willing to do
    all your shooting with a moderate tele then the DSLR with the f/1.8 50mm
    is a cost-competitive option.

    > Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    > Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit
    > is a long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than
    > the Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed, but the Canon 50/1.4 is quite a
    > bit nicer in several ways than the 50/1.8. And things are most likely
    > somewhat different again over in Pentax land.)
    >
    > Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is within
    > 100 grams (15%) of the weight of the FZ30. (Of course, you don't get an
    > insane zoom, but you get far far better images.)


    Whether the images are "far better" is debatable. I really should put
    some of the same subject up taken with an FZ and a 30D sometime, cropped
    to the same number of pixels and with the EXIF data stripped, to see how
    many people can tell which were shot with the 30D and which with the FZ.

    In low light the DSLR has a clear advantage, however in good light it's
    not so clear (to me anyway) as DSLR advocates would have one believe.

    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 5, 2006
    #13
  14. Saint

    SimonLW Guest

    "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    news:XQedh.19$%...
    >
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:el3m13$6th$...
    >>
    >> "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote:
    >>> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>>> DSLRs like the Canon 400D, D40, ...
    >>>> Get the US$79.95 50/1.8 lens, and you have an amazing low-light camera.
    >>>> Splurge for the 50/1.4, and it's even better. (Actually, this last bit
    >>>> is a
    >>>> long story; the Nikon cheap 50/1.8 is an all-round better lens than the
    >>>> Nikkor 50/1.4 except for the speed,...
    >>>> Seriously, an ultralight DSLR with a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 prime is ...
    >>>
    >>> Keep in mind that the Nikon D40 won't AF with any of those Nikkors you
    >>> mention. The D50 is a better choice.

    >>
    >> Oops. Really? Wow. Are you sure? I'm talking about the "D" lenses, such
    >> as the 50/1.4D. Oops, there it is "Other Type G or D AF Nikkor - All
    >> functions supported except autofocus". Yuck, that's really really stupid.

    >
    > The D40 requires AF-S lenses to autofocus; no focusing screw in this one.


    Example of a slow morph into the digital age rather than instant. Canon was
    chastised for dumping their old FD mount and going with the EOS back in
    1986. In hindsight this was a good choice. With Nikon there are all these
    annoying incompatibilities one must be careful of if they have a stock of
    older lenses or older bodies and newer lenses. Pentax will likely have the
    same issue as they plan to start putting the focus motor in the lens soon.
    -S
     
    SimonLW, Dec 5, 2006
    #14
  15. Saint

    acl Guest

    SimonLW wrote:
    > Example of a slow morph into the digital age rather than instant. Canon was
    > chastised for dumping their old FD mount and going with the EOS back in
    > 1986. In hindsight this was a good choice. With Nikon there are all these
    > annoying incompatibilities one must be careful of if they have a stock of
    > older lenses or older bodies and newer lenses. Pentax will likely have the
    > same issue as they plan to start putting the focus motor in the lens soon.


    I keep seeing this posted and don't understand it. Maybe you can help.
    Any AF Nikon lens will mount, AF and meter on my D200; so will all AIS
    MF lenses (I have never seen any non-AIS, and they're pretty old). Why
    would it be better to not be able to use any MF lens? And, if I simply
    ignore the existence of any MF lenses, ie, if I pretend that they
    simply cannot be mounted on my camera, why is this worse than really
    being unable to mount them (Canon)?

    As for other (D70, D80 etc) Nikon SLRs, all AF lenses AF and meter on
    all Nikon digital SLRs (except the D40, appparently, and I'm sure this
    is done to cripple it). MF lenses fit but do not meter at all. Again:
    pretend they don't fit. Why is this worse than Canon's approach?

    Another question: Besides making FD mount lenses simply not it onto AF
    cameras, what advantages did the new Canon mount bring with it?
     
    acl, Dec 5, 2006
    #15
  16. "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "Saint" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??

    >>
    >> No. They make the noise worse.
    >>
    >> The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon
    >> D50 or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.

    >
    > But you give up movie mode, live preview, and that hyper zoom that makes
    > such a nice light travel package. DSLRs are nice, but I don't see these as
    > competitive products.


    It's a tradeoff: you give up a lot of image quality with the P&S cameras.
    Bells and whistles, convenience, and noise.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Saint

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > I was trying to be a nice guy and less of a Canonista and recommend Nikon.
    > Wrong.
    >


    No good deed goes unpunished, David ;-)

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Dec 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Saint

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "acl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > SimonLW wrote:
    >> Example of a slow morph into the digital age rather than instant. Canon
    >> was
    >> chastised for dumping their old FD mount and going with the EOS back in
    >> 1986. In hindsight this was a good choice. With Nikon there are all these
    >> annoying incompatibilities one must be careful of if they have a stock of
    >> older lenses or older bodies and newer lenses. Pentax will likely have
    >> the
    >> same issue as they plan to start putting the focus motor in the lens
    >> soon.

    >
    > I keep seeing this posted and don't understand it. Maybe you can help.
    > Any AF Nikon lens will mount, AF and meter on my D200; so will all AIS
    > MF lenses (I have never seen any non-AIS, and they're pretty old). Why
    > would it be better to not be able to use any MF lens? And, if I simply
    > ignore the existence of any MF lenses, ie, if I pretend that they
    > simply cannot be mounted on my camera, why is this worse than really
    > being unable to mount them (Canon)?
    >
    > As for other (D70, D80 etc) Nikon SLRs, all AF lenses AF and meter on
    > all Nikon digital SLRs (except the D40, appparently, and I'm sure this
    > is done to cripple it). MF lenses fit but do not meter at all. Again:
    > pretend they don't fit. Why is this worse than Canon's approach?
    >
    > Another question: Besides making FD mount lenses simply not it onto AF
    > cameras, what advantages did the new Canon mount bring with it?


    He was referring to the clean break made by Canon as opposed to the jagged
    edge of the Nikon side. Yes, the D200 works with all your manual lenses, but
    do all Nikon bodies? Can you give me a quick summary of what lenses will
    work on which bodies and to what extent? What will happen if you mount your
    AIS lenses on a D40?

    Yes, Nikon has kept the F mount, but the differing capabilities of the
    individual bodies can drive you crazy. Example, the G lenses won't work on
    any older bodies due to the lack of an aperture ring. So which bodies will
    use them and which won't? Will they work on an N90? N8008?
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 5, 2006
    #18
  19. Saint

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:el444q$amj$...
    >
    > "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote:
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>> "Saint" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> will filters like polariser, ND etc...help??
    >>>
    >>> No. They make the noise worse.
    >>>
    >>> The easiest way to fix P&S noise is to buy a 6MP dSLR, such as the Nikon
    >>> D50 or D40 and lenses that are f/2.8 or faster.

    >>
    >> But you give up movie mode, live preview, and that hyper zoom that makes
    >> such a nice light travel package. DSLRs are nice, but I don't see these
    >> as competitive products.

    >
    > It's a tradeoff: you give up a lot of image quality with the P&S cameras.
    > Bells and whistles, convenience, and noise.


    Exactly, that's why I don't see DSLRs and ZLRs as cameras going after the
    same use and same audience. I have a DSLR, but I'd really a good ZLR for
    travel. My dream camera was the Sony F828 with lower noise and no fringing.
    I loved the features, handling, range, but the image quality was, well....

    Anyway, if Sony every did update the 828, I'd be all over it. The R1? Why
    bother?

    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 5, 2006
    #19
  20. Saint

    acl Guest

    Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    > "acl" <> wrote in message


    > > I keep seeing this posted and don't understand it. Maybe you can help.
    > > Any AF Nikon lens will mount, AF and meter on my D200; so will all AIS
    > > MF lenses (I have never seen any non-AIS, and they're pretty old). Why
    > > would it be better to not be able to use any MF lens? And, if I simply
    > > ignore the existence of any MF lenses, ie, if I pretend that they
    > > simply cannot be mounted on my camera, why is this worse than really
    > > being unable to mount them (Canon)?
    > >
    > > As for other (D70, D80 etc) Nikon SLRs, all AF lenses AF and meter on
    > > all Nikon digital SLRs (except the D40, appparently, and I'm sure this
    > > is done to cripple it). MF lenses fit but do not meter at all. Again:
    > > pretend they don't fit. Why is this worse than Canon's approach?
    > >
    > > Another question: Besides making FD mount lenses simply not it onto AF
    > > cameras, what advantages did the new Canon mount bring with it?

    >
    > He was referring to the clean break made by Canon as opposed to the jagged
    > edge of the Nikon side. Yes, the D200 works with all your manual lenses, but
    > do all Nikon bodies? Can you give me a quick summary of what lenses will
    > work on which bodies and to what extent? What will happen if you mount your
    > AIS lenses on a D40?


    I know what he's referring to. As I said in my previous post, if you
    simply ignore the fact that manual lenses can be mounted at all on
    Nikon DSLRs, then any AF lens you get will work on any Nikon DSLR (or
    it did, before the D40). Is that complicated? I don't think so.

    The D40 might complicate things, but I've been seeing this argument a
    long time, long before the D40. Since (to repeat for a third time) any
    AF lens works on all Nikon DSLRs (before the D40!), just ignore the MF
    lenses and you're in the same position as you are with Canon (no MF
    lenses). If you buy MF lenses, presumably you can spend 5-10 min to
    work out which fit and which don't fit.


    >
    > Yes, Nikon has kept the F mount, but the differing capabilities of the
    > individual bodies can drive you crazy. Example, the G lenses won't work on
    > any older bodies due to the lack of an aperture ring. So which bodies will
    > use them and which won't? Will they work on an N90? N8008?
    >


    Well, but, for the fourth time, any AF lens would work on any AF
    digital body before the D40. OK, if we're going to also talk about
    older bodies then you're right, it's confusing (and irritating, if a
    newer lens doesn't fit on your F-801 or whatever). But this isn't the
    case now. Anyway, I'd personally take a bit of confusion+ability to use
    excellent and cheap MF lenses over no confusion and no such ability.
    Opinions may differ.
     
    acl, Dec 5, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. *ProteanThread*
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,379
    Hermit
    Oct 20, 2004
  2. Philip Harris

    New thread: does 1.6x crop factor multiply EOS 300 kit lens?

    Philip Harris, Dec 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    487
    Philip Harris
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. Musty

    Does 20D have the 1.6x mag factor

    Musty, Sep 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    483
    Paul J Gans
    Sep 8, 2004
  4. Mr Troy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    700
    Kpt Kill
    Feb 21, 2008
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    414
    Henry Jones
    Feb 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page