Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ50 image samples from DPNow

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Digital Photography Now, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. We've a hands-on report using the new 10.2 megapixel Panasonic Lumix
    DMC-LZ50 superzoom, including downloadable original sample images and a
    close examination of ISO noise performance, including a comparison with last
    year's Lumix technology.

    Find it here:

    http://dpnow..com/2836.html

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
     
    Digital Photography Now, Jul 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. (Digital Photography Now) wrote:

    > We've a hands-on report using the new 10.2 megapixel Panasonic
    > Lumix DMC-LZ50 superzoom
    > http://dpnow..com/2836.html


    Thanks. I'm sure those example pictures look fine printed out at normal
    sizes, but up close and personal they look pretty noisy to me. Whether
    that matters or not is up to the individual, but I was hoping for more
    from the FZ-30's successor. After all, it's the only thing that was
    really wrong with the 30.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Jul 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

    > but I was hoping for more from the FZ-30's successor.


    I was also hoping to learn to read titles properly before posting a
    reply! Sorry for the mistake.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Jul 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Digital Photography Now

    J. Clarke Guest

    Andrew MacPherson wrote:

    > (Digital Photography Now) wrote:
    >
    >> We've a hands-on report using the new 10.2 megapixel Panasonic
    >> Lumix DMC-LZ50 superzoom
    >> http://dpnow..com/2836.html

    >
    > Thanks. I'm sure those example pictures look fine printed out at normal
    > sizes, but up close and personal they look pretty noisy to me. Whether
    > that matters or not is up to the individual, but I was hoping for more
    > from the FZ-30's successor. After all, it's the only thing that was
    > really wrong with the 30.


    Uh, if they are OK printed out at normal sizes then where is the problem?

    > Andrew McP


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Digital Photography Now

    m Ransley Guest

    What about iso 400, 800, 1600, 3200, that would of been of real
    relevance.
     
    m Ransley, Jul 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Re: FZ50 - not 'LZ50' - sorry!

    Apologies for that mistake!

    "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote in message
    news:x71xg.56054$...
    > We've a hands-on report using the new 10.2 megapixel Panasonic Lumix
    > DMC-LZ50 superzoom, including downloadable original sample images and a
    > close examination of ISO noise performance, including a comparison with
    > last year's Lumix technology.
    >
    > Find it here:
    >
    > http://dpnow..com/2836.html
    >
    > Digital Photography Now
    > http://dpnow.com
    >
     
    Digital Photography Now, Jul 24, 2006
    #6
  7. lid (J. Clarke) wrote:

    > Uh, if they are OK printed out at normal sizes then where
    > is the problem?


    In that case, why produce a camera with more than about 5MP? I rarely
    print pictures these days. They live on a highly portable CD or DVD
    which I can view at whatever resolution I feel like, anywhere I go. I
    can't remember the last time I visited a house without a PC of some
    kind. It's a much more convenient format than slides, which is what I
    used to shoot to before digital.

    I was wrong with my use of "noise" by the way. The grainy effect is a
    result of processing to remove noise, I suspect.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Jul 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Re: FZ50 - not 'LZ50' - sorry!

    (Digital Photography Now) wrote:

    > Apologies for that mistake!


    Easily done. :) I thought *I'd* made the mistake, misread the title, and
    missed a model in Panasonic's new lineup. Thanks for the pictures and
    first look anyway. They're useful to see as I dither between updating my
    Canon S1 to an S3, FZ-50, or Pentax K100D.

    Maybe I'll buy all three and juggle them until two have broken and I'm
    forced to used the remaining camera? ;-)

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Jul 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Digital Photography Now

    m Ransley Guest

    Re: FZ50 - not 'LZ50' - sorry!

    A very good reason to buy a a 10mp camera is the optical zoom quality
    increase, when used with their smart zoom feature it goes to 17.1x at 5
    mp, so in your lcd and eye viewer you compose and see apx 600mm
    equivilant full view. It is in fact a 17.1 optical quality 5 mp camera.
    Sony has the same feature, Canon does not. More mp, used at lower
    settings, give much more flexibility without buying added image
    degrading lenses, or put on a Telephoto lens for amazing length . Also
    printers are better and cheaper every year so why should the race ever
    be over, it won`t, I look forward to 20- 40+ mp, it will never end and
    should not. As they will always need to sell us better products to make
    us buy them, they must continualy evolve to suceed, or go broke.
     
    m Ransley, Jul 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Digital Photography Now

    J. Clarke Guest

    Andrew MacPherson wrote:

    > lid (J. Clarke) wrote:
    >
    >> Uh, if they are OK printed out at normal sizes then where
    >> is the problem?

    >
    > In that case, why produce a camera with more than about 5MP?


    What do you consider to be "normal sizes"? Do you ever crop?

    > I rarely
    > print pictures these days. They live on a highly portable CD or DVD
    > which I can view at whatever resolution I feel like, anywhere I go.


    Screen resolution is much lower than print resolution so I still don't
    understand the problem.

    > I
    > can't remember the last time I visited a house without a PC of some
    > kind. It's a much more convenient format than slides, which is what I
    > used to shoot to before digital.
    >
    > I was wrong with my use of "noise" by the way. The grainy effect is a
    > result of processing to remove noise, I suspect.
    >
    > Andrew McP


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 24, 2006
    #10
  11. On other discussion sites people still insist on pixel-peeping by examining
    tiny areas of the image on-screen at 100% and, guess what, they don't like
    what they see. This is why I decided to print the shots and view them that
    way.

    On a more interesting point, there was a comment that some of the shots had
    a 'painted' feel to them which was attributed to the noise reduction. I
    think this is a fair comment.

    As I said in the article, going to ten megapixels is a strategy I would not
    have voted for and I must say I wonder what a 6 megapixel FZ50 would be like
    mated to the Venus Engine III.

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com


    "Andrew MacPherson" <> wrote in message
    news:memo.20060724113636.3432B@address_disguised.address_disguised...
    > (Digital Photography Now) wrote:
    >
    >> We've a hands-on report using the new 10.2 megapixel Panasonic
    >> Lumix DMC-LZ50 superzoom
    >> http://dpnow..com/2836.html

    >
    > Thanks. I'm sure those example pictures look fine printed out at normal
    > sizes, but up close and personal they look pretty noisy to me. Whether
    > that matters or not is up to the individual, but I was hoping for more
    > from the FZ-30's successor. After all, it's the only thing that was
    > really wrong with the 30.
    >
    > Andrew McP
     
    Digital Photography Now, Jul 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Samples up to ISO 1600 are in the article:

    http://dpnow.com/2836a.html

    Look further down the page.

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com


    "m Ransley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What about iso 400, 800, 1600, 3200, that would of been of real
    > relevance.
    >
     
    Digital Photography Now, Jul 24, 2006
    #12
  13. "Digital Photography Now" <> wrote:
    > On other discussion sites people still insist on pixel-peeping by
    > examining tiny areas of the image on-screen at 100% and, guess what, they
    > don't like what they see. This is why I decided to print the shots and
    > view them that way.


    How big are you printing?

    The experience here is that if I have two images that look noticeably
    different in per-pixel quality on the screen at 100%, and I print them both
    at 300 ppi, then people I show them to can easily tell the difference.
    (Epson R800).

    So my guess is that you're printing a lot smaller than 9x12.

    Now a fun test would be to take a crop from a sharp 5D image and print it at
    220 ppi, and then take the same image with the FZ30 at a variety of focal
    lengths and determine how many FZ30 pixels it takes to match the 5D and
    repeat _at each ISO_.

    > On a more interesting point, there was a comment that some of the shots
    > had a 'painted' feel to them which was attributed to the noise reduction.
    > I think this is a fair comment.


    Sounds really disgusting.

    > As I said in the article, going to ten megapixels is a strategy I would
    > not have voted for and I must say I wonder what a 6 megapixel FZ50 would
    > be like mated to the Venus Engine III.


    They don't have a choice. Sony puts all their new technology into the higher
    pixel count sensors. They've put a lot of effort into the fine details of
    the pixel design since the days of the F707, and the image quality per
    square mm of sensor is probably going up slightly while the image quality
    per pixel is going down.

    If you are feeling energetic, read the individual "Product News" articles on
    their sensors at the Sony CX News site. (It'll take some groveling over
    back issues to find them all.)

    http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/index.html

    (Yes, I'm assuming (not necessarily correctly) that it's a Sony sensor,
    although I'm sure the other sensor mfrs are playing a similar game. There
    are the occasional "outliers", though, so you have to be careful. The Canon
    G5, I think it was, had really really bad noise performance, so the apparent
    "improvement" in the G6 was more of an epiphenomenon than a reality.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Digital Photography Now

    Charles Guest

    In article <ea3n6s$dcn$>, David J. Littleboy
    <> wrote:

    > (Yes, I'm assuming (not necessarily correctly) that it's a Sony sensor,
    > although I'm sure the other sensor mfrs are playing a similar game.


    I read that Panasonic uses their own sensors, not Sony.

    --
    Charles
     
    Charles, Jul 25, 2006
    #14
  15. "Charles" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >> (Yes, I'm assuming (not necessarily correctly) that it's a Sony sensor,
    >> although I'm sure the other sensor mfrs are playing a similar game.

    >
    > I read that Panasonic uses their own sensors, not Sony.


    Yes, that's why the qualification. My understanding was that Panasonic uses
    both their own and Sony sensors. But even if they use their own, they're
    basically forced to play the game that Sony defines, so your time isn't
    wasted looking at what Sony claims they're doing.

    Fuji is, of course, even more aggressive than Panasonic in pushing their own
    sensors, and the dual-sensel pixel (for increased dynamic range) is a cool
    idea, even if claiming that rotating the sensor 45 degrees increases
    resolution is one of the more disgustingly sleazy advertizing claims of the
    20th century.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 25, 2006
    #15
  16. On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:04:39 +0900, David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    > (Yes, I'm assuming (not necessarily correctly) that it's a Sony sensor,
    > although I'm sure the other sensor mfrs are playing a similar game.


    I believe Panasonic makes their own sensors.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jul 25, 2006
    #16
  17. Digital Photography Now

    Charles Guest

    In article <ea3nuc$dht$>, David J. Littleboy
    <> wrote:

    > Fuji is, of course, even more aggressive than Panasonic in pushing their own
    > sensors, and the dual-sensel pixel (for increased dynamic range) is a cool
    > idea, even if claiming that rotating the sensor 45 degrees increases
    > resolution is one of the more disgustingly sleazy advertizing claims of the
    > 20th century.


    The Panasonic sensors have a reputation (which I think is deserved) of
    being noisy. Much noisier than the Sony sensors at the same pixel
    count.

    --
    Charles
     
    Charles, Jul 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 image samples from DPNow

    Charles wrote:
    []
    > The Panasonic sensors have a reputation (which I think is deserved) of
    > being noisy. Much noisier than the Sony sensors at the same pixel
    > count.


    But they also have the reputation of sharper images, and I think the two
    are related. Less in-camera noise reduction gives both sharper images and
    more noise.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Digital Photography Now

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 image samples from DPNow

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Charles wrote:
    > []
    >> The Panasonic sensors have a reputation (which I think is deserved) of
    >> being noisy. Much noisier than the Sony sensors at the same pixel
    >> count.

    >
    > But they also have the reputation of sharper images, and I think the two
    > are related. Less in-camera noise reduction gives both sharper images and
    > more noise.
    >
    > David
    >
    >


    Like most things in life, you have to decide which is more important.
    Everything is a trade-off.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 25, 2006
    #19
    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. Nick Withers

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC43 digital camera

    Nick Withers, May 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    815
    Boomer
    May 11, 2004
  2. XL 02

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC40 - Redeeming Qualities ?

    XL 02, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    468
    XL 02
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Hans-Georg Michna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    825
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Aug 3, 2003
  4. Digital Photography Now

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 DSLR image samples online at DPNow.com

    Digital Photography Now, Jul 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    552
    Digital Photography Now
    Jul 21, 2006
  5. sobriquet

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 vs DMC-FZ35

    sobriquet, Oct 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,413
    sobriquet
    Oct 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page