FZ20 Review

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, May 15, 2005.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    I just read the review of the Panasonic FZ20. I trying to see how much
    of this also applies to the FZ5. The primary negative as noted by Pop
    Photo is Noise. They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    acceptable. At all of the remaining ISO setting they said that the
    noise level was unacceptable. If this carries over to the FZ5, and I
    see no reason why that would be different, then I am have to rethink my
    plans to purchase that and focus in on the Canon S2 even if it is only
    available in silver.
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    Bill Spanger Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:37:37 GMT, measekite <> wrote:

    > They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    >acceptable.


    You don't have to worry about the noise with the FZ line, it only effects the
    image in dark situations, and you can't see anything in the Panasonic EVF
    or LCD if it's that dark anyway.
    If you want to see what pictures made with the FZ20/5 look like go to the DP
    Review site and check into the Panasonic group.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033
     
    Bill Spanger, May 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite

    ecm Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > I just read the review of the Panasonic FZ20. I trying to see how

    much
    > of this also applies to the FZ5. The primary negative as noted by

    Pop
    > Photo is Noise. They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    > acceptable. At all of the remaining ISO setting they said that the
    > noise level was unacceptable. If this carries over to the FZ5, and I


    > see no reason why that would be different, then I am have to rethink

    my
    > plans to purchase that and focus in on the Canon S2 even if it is

    only
    > available in silver.


    Sorry if this sounds like a flame, really it's not, but I've been
    reading your posts for what seems like months. Y'know what? You need to
    go ahead and buy something. Pick one - flip a coin if you can't decide.
    The color of the case won't make the slightest bit of difference to the
    image. In the end, no matter what you pick, it'll have good and bad,
    all digicams do.

    The challenge of photography is to get that image, the one that burns
    itself into your memory whether or not you want it to, despite the
    limitations of your equipment. You're focusing too much on the
    technical aspects of the camera - really, whichever one you finally
    buy, it'll be bittersweet - you'll end up lusting for the aperture of
    that one or the resolution of this one or the flash of the other
    one..... and in the meantime, you'll learn to overcome your camera's
    shortcomings and you'll actually take a good picture or two. You're
    missing one of the two best seasons to be a new camera owner - go buy a
    camera, start taking pics, enjoy!

    ECM
     
    ecm, May 15, 2005
    #3
  4. measekite wrote:
    > I just read the review of the Panasonic FZ20. I trying to see how
    > much of this also applies to the FZ5. The primary negative as noted
    > by Pop Photo is Noise. They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy
    > but acceptable. At all of the remaining ISO setting they said that
    > the noise level was unacceptable. If this carries over to the FZ5,
    > and I see no reason why that would be different, then I am have to
    > rethink my plans to purchase that and focus in on the Canon S2 even
    > if it is only available in silver.


    You will find that all the small sensor cameras show a little noise, and
    this applies FZ5/FZ20 just as it does to the Canon S2. Cameras with a
    larger sensor (e.g. the 8.8 x 6.6mm sensor in the Nikon 8400 and 8800)
    will show a little less noise, and cameras with a near-35mm sensor (e.g.
    Nikon and Canon DSLRs) will show noticeably less noise.

    During my recent week-long outing with the Panasonic FZ5 and Nikon 8400 I
    found I got the best results by leaving the FZ5 on ISO 80, but allowing
    the 8400 to adjust its ISO automatically. The swivel finder on the 8400
    proved invaluable in some situations, and that /might/ be a good reason
    for preferring one camera over another.

    Results from both cameras were superb, ranging from shots inside dark
    cathedrals and Gaudi houses, night-time shots at exposures more than
    0.25s, to 432mm shots of Formula 1 cars in action with sharp lettering but
    distinctive spinning wheels.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 15, 2005
    #4
  5. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Bill Spanger wrote:

    >On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:37:37 GMT, measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    >>acceptable.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You don't have to worry about the noise with the FZ line, it only effects the
    >image in dark situations, and you can't see anything in the Panasonic EVF
    >or LCD if it's that dark anyway.
    >
    >



    Then why would a reputable review magazine make such an issue out of the
    noise. The implication is that the noise will ruin the pictures at
    higher ISO settings.

    >If you want to see what pictures made with the FZ20/5 look like go to the DP
    >Review site and check into the Panasonic group.
    >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #5
  6. measekite

    measekite Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    >measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I just read the review of the Panasonic FZ20. I trying to see how
    >>much of this also applies to the FZ5. The primary negative as noted
    >>by Pop Photo is Noise. They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy
    >>but acceptable. At all of the remaining ISO setting they said that
    >>the noise level was unacceptable. If this carries over to the FZ5,
    >>and I see no reason why that would be different, then I am have to
    >>rethink my plans to purchase that and focus in on the Canon S2 even
    >>if it is only available in silver.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You will find that all the small sensor cameras show a little noise, and
    >this applies FZ5/FZ20 just as it does to the Canon S2. Cameras with a
    >larger sensor (e.g. the 8.8 x 6.6mm sensor in the Nikon 8400 and 8800)
    >will show a little less noise, and cameras with a near-35mm sensor (e.g.
    >Nikon and Canon DSLRs) will show noticeably less noise.
    >
    >During my recent week-long outing with the Panasonic FZ5 and Nikon 8400 I
    >found I got the best results by leaving the FZ5 on ISO 80, but allowing
    >the 8400 to adjust its ISO automatically. The swivel finder on the 8400
    >proved invaluable in some situations, and that /might/ be a good reason
    >for preferring one camera over another.
    >
    >


    Yes, I know this but why did pop photo appear to tell the readers that
    this is worse than the typical point and shoot in that regard.

    >Results from both cameras were superb, ranging from shots inside dark
    >cathedrals and Gaudi houses, night-time shots at exposures more than
    >0.25s, to 432mm shots of Formula 1 cars in action with sharp lettering but
    >distinctive spinning wheels.
    >
    >


    What ISO setting have you used and how were the results at each one. If
    you want great depth of field in a photo you need higher ISO so you can
    close down your lense..

    >Cheers,
    >David
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #6
  7. measekite wrote:
    []
    > Yes, I know this but why did pop photo appear to tell the readers that
    > this is worse than the typical point and shoot in that regard.


    Maybe they measured a higher value of noise on a meter - this may, or may
    not, correspond with your subjective evaluation of the noise on real
    images.

    >> Results from both cameras were superb, ranging from shots inside dark
    >> cathedrals and Gaudi houses, night-time shots at exposures more than
    >> 0.25s, to 432mm shots of Formula 1 cars in action with sharp
    >> lettering but distinctive spinning wheels.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > What ISO setting have you used and how were the results at each one. If
    > you want great depth of field in a photo you need higher ISO so
    > you can close down your lense..


    Usually ISO 80 with the Panasonic FZ5, auto with the Nikon 8400. The
    problem with small sensor cameras is usually the opposite - getting the
    lens open wide enough to get a small depth of field! If you do need a
    small aperture, and hence a longer exposure, simply hold the camera
    steady, brace it, or use a tripod. I choose to brace against available
    objects.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 15, 2005
    #7
  8. measekite

    measekite Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    >measekite wrote:
    >[]
    >
    >
    >>Yes, I know this but why did pop photo appear to tell the readers that
    >>this is worse than the typical point and shoot in that regard.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Maybe they measured a higher value of noise on a meter - this may, or may
    >not, correspond with your subjective evaluation of the noise on real
    >images.
    >
    >


    How visible is the noise at ISO200 and ISO400 when enlarging to 8.5x11
    and 11x14? This is my main concern. In film I hated grain.

    >
    >
    >>>Results from both cameras were superb, ranging from shots inside dark
    >>>cathedrals and Gaudi houses, night-time shots at exposures more than
    >>>0.25s, to 432mm shots of Formula 1 cars in action with sharp
    >>>lettering but distinctive spinning wheels.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>What ISO setting have you used and how were the results at each one. If
    >>you want great depth of field in a photo you need higher ISO so
    >>you can close down your lense..
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Usually ISO 80 with the Panasonic FZ5, auto with the Nikon 8400. The
    >problem with small sensor cameras is usually the opposite - getting the
    >lens open wide enough to get a small depth of field! If you do need a
    >small aperture, and hence a longer exposure, simply hold the camera
    >steady, brace it, or use a tripod. I choose to brace against available
    >objects.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #8
  9. measekite wrote:
    []
    > How visible is the noise at ISO200 and ISO400 when enlarging to 8.5x11
    > and 11x14? This is my main concern. In film I hated grain.


    This is a subjective value - how visible it is to me isn't the same as how
    visible it is to you. As I said, I would normally use the camera at ISO
    80 for best quality, and only use the higher ISO settings when there was
    no alternative. Under those latter circumstances I would expect to see
    grain, but would accept that it was better than no picture at all. If you
    want noise-free at these higher ISO values then a DSLR is probably the
    only camera which might (or might not) satisfy you.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 15, 2005
    #9
  10. measekite

    Bill Spanger Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:56:39 GMT, measekite <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Bill Spanger wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:37:37 GMT, measekite <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    >>>acceptable.


    >Then why would a reputable review magazine make such an issue out of the
    >noise. The implication is that the noise will ruin the pictures at
    >higher ISO settings.


    ISO 80 is not a higher setting. You should ask them how they even noticed
    noise at ISO 80 in a properly exposed photo.
     
    Bill Spanger, May 15, 2005
    #10
  11. measekite

    measekite Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    >measekite wrote:
    >[]
    >
    >
    >>How visible is the noise at ISO200 and ISO400 when enlarging to 8.5x11
    >>and 11x14? This is my main concern. In film I hated grain.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >This is a subjective value - how visible it is to me isn't the same as how
    >visible it is to you. As I said, I would normally use the camera at ISO
    >80 for best quality, and only use the higher ISO settings when there was
    >no alternative. Under those latter circumstances I would expect to see
    >grain, but would accept that it was better than no picture at all. If you
    >want noise-free at these higher ISO values then a DSLR is probably the
    >only camera which might (or might not) satisfy you.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >
    >


    Are you saying ( I know you have not seen one) that the Canon S2 and the
    Fuji S5100 would be about the same for noise at those enlargements?


    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #11
  12. "Bill Spanger" <> wrote:
    > measekite <> wrote:
    > >Bill Spanger wrote:
    > >>measekite <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>They said that a ISO 80 the results are noisy but
    > >>>acceptable.

    >
    > >Then why would a reputable review magazine make such an issue out of the
    > >noise. The implication is that the noise will ruin the pictures at
    > >higher ISO settings.


    "Noisy but acceptable" is damning with faint praise.

    > ISO 80 is not a higher setting. You should ask them how they even noticed
    > noise at ISO 80 in a properly exposed photo.


    Presumably, simply by looking. The FZ20 has insanely small pixels. (The
    FZ10, with its larger pixels, does quite well at ISO 50 but lousy at ISO
    100.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 15, 2005
    #12
  13. measekite

    Bill Spanger Guest

    On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:44:10 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    wrote:
    >> ISO 80 is not a higher setting. You should ask them how they even noticed
    >> noise at ISO 80 in a properly exposed photo.

    >
    >Presumably, simply by looking. The FZ20 has insanely small pixels. (The
    >FZ10, with its larger pixels, does quite well at ISO 50 but lousy at ISO
    >100.)


    At ISO 80 it in unlikely that they're seeing noise in a photo, I have an FZ 20
    and it does very well at ISO 80 or 100. I suspect they have some way of
    measuring noise and that's what they're basing their comments on.
    Measuring and seeing can be two different things.
     
    Bill Spanger, May 15, 2005
    #13
  14. measekite wrote:
    []
    > Are you saying ( I know you have not seen one) that the Canon S2 and
    > the Fuji S5100 would be about the same for noise at those
    > enlargements?


    I am saying that the smaller sensors used in typical P&S cameras have a
    small pixel area, which results in a limited maximum signal-to-noise ratio
    (simply because of the physics involved). The sensors in today's cameras
    operate at a similar performance level, so the noise characteristics will
    be similar (assuming the designs are equally competent). The cameras
    differ in the algorithms used in the firmware as to how that noise is
    treated - you can reduce the noise but it may result in a more "plastic"
    appearance to the image. Your own vision system (eye/brain) may prefer
    the results of one set of processing algorithms over another. Just as
    some people prefer Fuji film over Kodak, you may prefer Nikon noise
    (grain) over Pentax.

    If lower noise at higher ISO is crucially important to you, a DSLR is more
    likely to produce results that please you better. For me, the results
    from the 432mm f/3.3 image stabilised lens system on a camera weighing
    just 12oz (the Panasonic FZ5) are more than adequate. The slight amount
    of noise that you may (or may not) see are more than compensated for by
    the usability of the camera over a similarly equipped 35mm system.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 15, 2005
    #14
  15. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Bill Spanger wrote:

    >On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:44:10 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>ISO 80 is not a higher setting. You should ask them how they even noticed
    >>>noise at ISO 80 in a properly exposed photo.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>Presumably, simply by looking. The FZ20 has insanely small pixels. (The
    >>FZ10, with its larger pixels, does quite well at ISO 50 but lousy at ISO
    >>100.)
    >>
    >>

    >
    >At ISO 80 it in unlikely that they're seeing noise in a photo, I have an FZ 20
    >and it does very well at ISO 80 or 100. I suspect they have some way of
    >measuring noise and that's what they're basing their comments on.
    >Measuring and seeing can be two different things.
    >
    >
    >


    How does it do at ISO200 and ISO400 on letter size enlargements?
     
    measekite, May 15, 2005
    #15
  16. measekite

    Bill Spanger Guest

    On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:15:06 GMT, measekite <> wrote:

    >How does it do at ISO200 and ISO400 on letter size enlargements?


    I don't know, I've had no use for any speed higher than ISO 80,
    if I'm shooting indoors sports I bring the sun with me in the form of Sunpak 522
    and 611 strobes.
     
    Bill Spanger, May 15, 2005
    #16
  17. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Bill Spanger wrote:

    >On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:15:06 GMT, measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>How does it do at ISO200 and ISO400 on letter size enlargements?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I don't know, I've had no use for any speed higher than ISO 80,
    >if I'm shooting indoors sports I bring the sun with me in the form of Sunpak 522
    >and 611 strobes.
    >
    >


    I thought that if you want a great deal of depth of field then you close
    down your lense. You then either have to use a very slow shutter speed
    (not always an option) or use a faster ISO.
     
    measekite, May 16, 2005
    #17
    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. Mike Henley

    The new Panasonic DMC-FZ20

    Mike Henley, Jul 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    961
    David J Taylor
    Nov 24, 2004
  2. Harlen Ng

    Purchased new FZ20?

    Harlen Ng, Aug 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    415
    Atreju
    Aug 30, 2004
  3. Atreju

    Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z3 vs. Panasonic Lumix FZ20

    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    552
    Christian Ordig
    Sep 3, 2004
  4. Martin
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    389
    Alan Meyer
    Sep 2, 2004
  5. Thingumy

    Review sites (was FZ20 v's S2)

    Thingumy, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    270
    Thingumy
    Aug 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page