Pana FZ30 vs. Fuji 9500 :comparation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tiresia2@hotmail.it, Oct 8, 2005.

  1. Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Jem Raid Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > what do you think about this?
    >
    > http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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
     
    Jem Raid, Oct 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor, Oct 9, 2005
    #3
  4. Ed Guest

    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"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:Cq82f.125124$...
    > wrote:
    > > what do you think about this?
    > >
    > >

    http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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
    >
    >
     
    Ed, Oct 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Rich Guest

    On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:54:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> what do you think about this?
    >>
    >> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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, Oct 10, 2005
    #5
  6. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:54:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> what do you think about this?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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.
     
    P-P. Henneken, Oct 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich Guest

    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"
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> what do you think about this?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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, Oct 10, 2005
    #7
  8. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich Guest

    On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    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, Oct 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Rich wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    > 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/FZ20-moon-2004-10-23-2335-01-crop.jpg

    whereas nothing like as much in this image:

    http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ5-moon-2005-04-23-2223-53-crop.jpg

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Bruce Graham Guest

    In article <te33f.127363$>, david-
    -this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
    > Rich wrote:
    > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    > > 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/FZ20-moon-2004-10-23-2335-01-crop.jpg
    >
    > whereas nothing like as much in this image:
    >
    > http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ5-moon-2005-04-23-2223-53-crop.jpg
    >
    > David
    >

    Have I read that cameras do their best to correct for CA before we get to
    see the image? On my not brilliant Canon 100-300 tele-zoom I can improve
    the obvious CA by scaling the RGB channels differently in Photoshop. The
    end result is more of a blur than colour fringes and a lot better than
    the uncorrected image. (I think I read that CA has two components, one
    sort being a radial scale effect that is easily removed and the other
    being due to the different colours coming to a focus in different planes
    - and that type can't be removed).

    I would imagine that if the lens designer assumes that the lateral type
    of CA can be removed in camera, they can try to minimise the longitudinal
    and let the lateral go to hell. The lens would be no use on any other
    camera, but these big zooms are bolted on to the camera for life, so that
    would not matter. And they do seem to work a lot better than you would
    expect for their big zoom ratio and low price.

    Maybe somebody with optical knowledge can comment on this guess and
    apologies if I'm treading on old ground..

    Bruce Graham
     
    Bruce Graham, Oct 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Bruce Graham wrote:
    > In article <te33f.127363$>, david-
    > -this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    >>> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    >>> 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/FZ20-moon-2004-10-23-2335-01-crop.jpg
    >>
    >> whereas nothing like as much in this image:
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ5-moon-2005-04-23-2223-53-crop.jpg
    >>
    >> David
    >>

    > Have I read that cameras do their best to correct for CA before we
    > get to see the image? On my not brilliant Canon 100-300 tele-zoom I
    > can improve the obvious CA by scaling the RGB channels differently in
    > Photoshop. The end result is more of a blur than colour fringes and
    > a lot better than the uncorrected image. (I think I read that CA has
    > two components, one sort being a radial scale effect that is easily
    > removed and the other being due to the different colours coming to a
    > focus in different planes - and that type can't be removed).
    >
    > I would imagine that if the lens designer assumes that the lateral
    > type of CA can be removed in camera, they can try to minimise the
    > longitudinal and let the lateral go to hell. The lens would be no
    > use on any other camera, but these big zooms are bolted on to the
    > camera for life, so that would not matter. And they do seem to work
    > a lot better than you would expect for their big zoom ratio and low
    > price.
    >
    > Maybe somebody with optical knowledge can comment on this guess and
    > apologies if I'm treading on old ground..
    >
    > Bruce Graham


    Bruce, I think it would be possible to reduce CA in the camera's firmware,
    but not simple to do so. I don't think that any current camera has this
    capability, but perhaps some RAW -> image converters do. I, too, am
    amazed by how well these lens systems work.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 12, 2005
    #12
  13. ThomasH Guest

    On 10-Oct-05 09:24, Rich wrote:
    > 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"
    >>><-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>what do you think about this?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&ma2=24&mo2=165&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.


    What is CA?

    > -Rich
     
    ThomasH, Oct 15, 2005
    #13
  14. ThomasH Guest

    On 12-Oct-05 10:36, David J Taylor wrote:
    > Bruce Graham wrote:
    >
    >>In article <te33f.127363$>, david-
    >>-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
    >>
    >>>Rich wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    >>>><-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    >>>>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/FZ20-moon-2004-10-23-2335-01-crop.jpg
    >>>
    >>>whereas nothing like as much in this image:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ5-moon-2005-04-23-2223-53-crop.jpg
    >>>
    >>>David
    >>>

    >>
    >>Have I read that cameras do their best to correct for CA before we
    >>get to see the image? On my not brilliant Canon 100-300 tele-zoom I
    >>can improve the obvious CA by scaling the RGB channels differently in
    >>Photoshop. The end result is more of a blur than colour fringes and
    >>a lot better than the uncorrected image. (I think I read that CA has
    >>two components, one sort being a radial scale effect that is easily
    >>removed and the other being due to the different colours coming to a
    >>focus in different planes - and that type can't be removed).
    >>
    >>I would imagine that if the lens designer assumes that the lateral
    >>type of CA can be removed in camera, they can try to minimise the
    >>longitudinal and let the lateral go to hell. The lens would be no
    >>use on any other camera, but these big zooms are bolted on to the
    >>camera for life, so that would not matter. And they do seem to work
    >>a lot better than you would expect for their big zoom ratio and low
    >>price.
    >>
    >>Maybe somebody with optical knowledge can comment on this guess and
    >>apologies if I'm treading on old ground..
    >>
    >>Bruce Graham

    >
    >
    > Bruce, I think it would be possible to reduce CA in the camera's firmware,
    > but not simple to do so. I don't think that any current camera has this
    > capability, but perhaps some RAW -> image converters do. I, too, am
    > amazed by how well these lens systems work.
    >
    > David


    I never ever heard of something called CA, or saw it mentioned here
    before. I really hope that you will give me a pointer what this
    acronym stands for!

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 15, 2005
    #14
  15. ThomasH wrote:
    []
    > I never ever heard of something called CA, or saw it mentioned here
    > before. I really hope that you will give me a pointer what this
    > acronym stands for!
    >
    > Thomas


    Thomas, please see:

    http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html

    CA = Chromatic Aberration

    and is an effect which produces colour fringes on images. There is a
    further, separate effect in some digital cameras which appears similar,
    called Purple Fringing, but which has a different cause:

    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/chromatic_aberration_01.htm

    although I'm not completely happy with their explanation.

    (I found these using Google - perhaps you could have too)

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 15, 2005
    #15
  16. ThomasH Guest

    On 15-Oct-05 08:59, David J Taylor wrote:
    > ThomasH wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>I never ever heard of something called CA, or saw it mentioned here
    >>before. I really hope that you will give me a pointer what this
    >>acronym stands for!
    >>
    >>Thomas

    >
    > Thomas, please see:
    >
    > http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
    >
    > CA = Chromatic Aberration


    No web pages please! Just the decoding of the two-letter combination.

    Chromatic aberration!!!! Aaaaaaa! Almighty powers and forces,
    well that took me by surprise. I never saw it called other than
    by its full name. And CF would be "color fringing" in your
    cryptolingo?

    (In our company we have had a 500 pages book explaining all
    "internal" 3 and 4 letters acronyms. I *hate these*...
    We used to communicate in a finer way, using full sentences
    and words.)

    And which of the examples posted by the French magazine
    you believe showed aberrations?


    I agree with all of you: Panasonic Lumix is horrible and looks
    noisy, worse than the Fujifilm, and some S9000 samples looks
    atrocious with excessive artifacts, much worse than the Lumix.

    My conclusion is that both both companies botched it in their
    own way. Instead of looking for the virtues of the previous
    models (FZ20, FZ5) and sensors (F10 and F11), they both went
    on the unrelenting chase for more megapixels. Noise levels
    and dynamic range be damned.

    I was looking toward after the S9000, once I saw the fatal
    noise levels in the FZ30, but now I am twice disappointed.
    Personally I prefer a big SLR, but my wife loves the small
    size and compactness of the integrated solution and she
    still uses the FZ10, you just gotta love this incredible
    Leica zoom. We are looking for an upgrade, and my high
    hopes were in the Fujifilm, once I saw their results in
    the otherwise very simplistic F10. I wish I could get a
    Lumix like the FZ20 or FZ5 with this Fuji sensor!

    Thomas


    >
    > and is an effect which produces colour fringes on images. There is a
    > further, separate effect in some digital cameras which appears similar,
    > called Purple Fringing, but which has a different cause:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/chromatic_aberration_01.htm
    >
    > although I'm not completely happy with their explanation.
    >
    > (I found these using Google - perhaps you could have too)
    >
    > David
    >
    >
     
    ThomasH, Oct 15, 2005
    #16
  17. ThomasH wrote:
    > On 15-Oct-05 08:59, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> ThomasH wrote:
    >> []
    >>
    >>> I never ever heard of something called CA, or saw it mentioned here
    >>> before. I really hope that you will give me a pointer what this
    >>> acronym stands for!
    >>>
    >>> Thomas

    >>
    >> Thomas, please see:
    >>
    >> http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
    >>
    >> CA = Chromatic Aberration

    >
    > No web pages please! Just the decoding of the two-letter combination.
    >
    > Chromatic aberration!!!! Aaaaaaa! Almighty powers and forces,
    > well that took me by surprise. I never saw it called other than
    > by its full name. And CF would be "color fringing" in your
    > cryptolingo?


    Well, it's not my cryptolingo (whatever that is), but CA is a widely used
    abbreviation both within optical circles and within this newsgroup. CF is
    compact flash, and PF is purple fringing. I tried to be helpful in giving
    you the Web site references as CA and PF are often confused.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 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. Bob Hewitt

    Fuji 9500 raw

    Bob Hewitt, Oct 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    335
    autodelete
    Oct 12, 2005
  2. jem

    Fuji 9500 "CF" card

    jem, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    467
    Fred Williams
    Dec 3, 2005
  3. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    463
  4. Pana FZ30 vs FZ20

    , Aug 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    661
  5. mianileng

    Pana FZ30 battery

    mianileng, Jul 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    346
Loading...

Share This Page