Re: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

John Navas <spamfilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus
lens isn't all that close:

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml>

   This is a decent performing lens when it comes to sharpness, but not
   a great lens...As is the case in almost every aspect of life -- there's
no free lunch.

"No Free Lunch"...something that everyone except John/troll have said
all along.

In other words, there simply is no real dSLR alternative to a compact
digital super-zoom like the Panasonic FZ28 with Leica lens.  "F/11 and
f/16" more than negate the ISO advantage of the dSLR.

Before concluding your Panasonic hardware hero worship, it really is
worth looking at the same reviewer to see how much he pans the product
that you're trying to elevate. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a
review of the FZ28, but he does have a review of the FZ50:

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml>

"I've become a big fan of the so-called super-telephoto genre of
digicams....But the trade-off with small sensors having high pixel
pitch is noise, and frankly Panasonic does not have a sterling
reputation in this area..."

(hmm...a poor reputation, despite that 'Leica' lens label?)

"The answer to the question about noise with the new 10MP chip and
Venus III is that it's not as good as one would wish nor as bad as
many had feared."

(mmm...what a *glowing* statement...)

"As can be seen below, ISO 100 is clean, though not without obvious
smoothing artifacts when viewed at 100%. (All shots were taken with
JPG settings to their lowest levels, and with no post processing)."

("obvious smoothing" is already evident at ISO 100...)

"At ISO 200 noise is still suppressed, but artifacting starts to
become more noticeable as detail continues to become smoothed over. By
ISO 400 noise is evident, though not terrible, as is an even greater
amount of detail smoothing and artifacting due to noise reduction
(look at the eyelashes). ISO 800 is simply unacceptable to my eye, and
1600 isn't worth discussing."

(Plus: "(I did not try the special mode which gives ISO 3200. I
didn't have the heart).")


"Panasonic has clearly decided that there are customers who want
higher resolution, and who will accept a trade-off of either noise or
detail loss to gain it."

And the article's conclusion:

"During the past roughly 7 years, as the digital capture side of
photographic technology has taken hold and flourished, there has been
a constant push by manufacturers and a pull by consumers for more
megapixels. This is no bad thing, in and of itself. More pixels means
more resolution, bigger prints sizes and a greater ability to crop."

"In the DSLR environment this continues to be a worthwhile
pursuit....But high resolution (better to call them high pixel count)
chips in digicams are another thing. The 10MP sensor in the Panasonic
FZ-50 is 7.18 X 5.32mm in size, while the 10MP sensor in the 10MP
Nikon D80, for example, is 23 X 15.8mm. Do the math.... the Nikon's
sensor [has] nearly10X the recording area for the same number of
pixels. So what do we get as a result when a digicam tries to match
megapixel count with a DSLR? Noise, or possibly worse – noise
reduction artifacts."

"It seems to me that the race to make digicams with pixel counts
equivalent to current DSLRs is one being fueled by camera maker's
marketing departments. Of course the naive consumer plays right into
their hands. If camera A has 10MP and camera B has 10MP, then other
factors aside they must be pretty similar – right? Certainly standing
at the camera counter holding a 10MP DSLR in one hand and a 10MP super-
zoom digicam in the other, the uninformed consumer won't understand
that one has a sensor 10X the area of the other, and the salesman
likely won't explain this or possibly even fully appreciate it
himself."

Thus, the very same reviewer that Mr. Navas picked ...of his own free
will... is emphatically stating that the camera class that Mr. Navas
has been advocating is designed to appeal to the "NAIVE CONSUMER"
genre. And John fell for it, hook, line and sinker.


-hh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: S6500FD/S6000FD owners report
    ... every camera you've ever commented upon. ... take for you to grow disenchanted with the FZ8's noise? ... batteries.Never required or will purchase a spare battery for the F20, ... greatest in the middle of the ISO range. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: A beginner question
    ... of calculating exposure times of astronomical objects ... ISO values with dim astronomical targets is rarely advantageous. ... because the important components of noise are amplified at the same rate ... When I looked at the question concerning a magnitude 5.8 object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime photography. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... and your 4 electron read noise does *NOT* exist in DSLR pixels at ... electron equivalents) as a function of ISO. ... pixel properties. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... and your 4 electron read noise does *NOT* exist in DSLR pixels at ... There is no ISO dependent structure at the ... electron equivalents) as a function of ISO. ... pixel properties. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Panasonic DMZ-FZ8 versus comparable dSLR
    ... ISO 200, which is the D70's lowest ISO setting, but the noise on the ... D70 at ISO 200 is essentially non-existent while on the FZ5, noise is ... I personally almost always shoot with my FZ8 at ISO 100, ... artifacts from in camera processing. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)