Fz20 or FZ30?

[ExplorerZ]

I am not sure of the price? 7070 seems to be quite weak compared to 5050 and 8080. I really can't commend much about Lumix. Really have no knowledge. But judging from the photo put up, it is bright and clear but seem to lack depth of field making the image very digital or flat looking. I may be wrong.

1st nobody say the pic is soft :sweat: . 2nd the pic i put up was shot at f5.6, not the widest any lumix can go, so no blurred background
lastly all the cam you mention seems to be priced near dSLR, which TS have considered before, but which to get prosumer instead (due to fund)

unseen have a nice comparison :thumbsup:

here is another one

shot at f4, not the widest yet

 

[Ihsan Chua]

This image is from tchuanye

As you can see, in similar comparison, the lumix camera is STILL sharper...

Yup. Really sharp. I did not tweak my camera's sharpness but looking at your photo, my vibrancy will never be like yours. Yours is vibrant. Saw my friends outdoor shots using Lumix and also as what u have shown, it is power of Leica and of course the photographer who control the camera. Isn't it a waste that noise control is bad?

 

[unseen]

Yup. Really sharp. I did not tweak my camera's sharpness but looking at your photo, my vibrancy will never be like yours. Yours is vibrant. Saw my friends outdoor shots using Lumix and also as what u have shown, it is power of Leica and of course the photographer who control the camera. Isn't it a waste that noise control is bad?

Er... I didn't take the photo. it's taken by Panasonic's resident Macro King tchuanye...
Check out his series of macro shots using his FZ10. Noise is supposed to be better controlled though. Stunningly sharp, and with great colours.

The noise wise, frankly I was quite ok with my FZ5 even at ISO400. Once resized, it's not really noticable. Once you apply mild noise reduction + resize, it's almost all gone. Agreed though, better noise control would be best. I was more concerned about the slight colour shift at ISO400. However given a choice between sharpness and noise, I'll go with some noise and sharp images.

I'd advise people to stop worrying about the noise issue. The olympus cameras recommended are pretty capable cameras, but the prices are pretty much out of the budget for most people.

As I've mentioned b4.. if cameras are all about noise, Nikon and Olympus's dSLR departments would have closed shop long time ago, and there'd be left only Canon.

 

[JimDavis]

basically you can only add filters, and tele/wide converter. but make sure you check if it will cause vignetting anot. if it does, u might have to crop away and end up having a smaller pic but only wider or longer slightly

Slightly? For wide I may agree with you, but if you are using tele, and you are mouting a 1.5x tele converter, that will translate into 420mm x 1.5 = 630mm, is that 'sligtly'?:think:

 

[ExplorerZ]

Slightly? For wide I may agree with you, but if you are using tele, and you are mouting a 1.5x tele converter, that will translate into 420mm x 1.5 = 630mm, is that 'sligtly'?:think:

oopz say wrong, im saying smaller pic but wider a bit only, and smaller pic for tele. :sweat:

 

[Ihsan Chua]

This image is from tchuanye

As you can see, in similar comparison, the lumix camera is STILL sharper...

I am not sure if I am right. Is the second photo under studio light or has been photoshopped? The centre of the photo seems illuminated and the background is totally dark? I am really not sure. Just checking. No matter what, it is a really really nice shot. Wish I can also shoot such pics

 

[ExplorerZ]

I am not sure if I am right. Is the second photo under studio light or has been photoshopped? The centre of the photo seems illuminated and the background is totally dark? I am really not sure. Just checking. No matter what, it is a really really nice shot. Wish I can also shoot such pics

its possible to light just the subject and make background dark. just use a very weak flash and very fash shutter speed. this will under expose those that are further away. while the flash will light up those that is very near the lens

 

[Ihsan Chua]

its possible to light just the subject and make background dark. just use a very weak flash and very fash shutter speed. this will under expose those that are further away. while the flash will light up those that is very near the lens

Thanks for the tip. Never thought of shooting it in that manner. I really like that pic. Wonder will he mind if I make it my wall paper?

 

[unseen]

I am not sure if I am right. Is the second photo under studio light or has been photoshopped? The centre of the photo seems illuminated and the background is totally dark? I am really not sure. Just checking. No matter what, it is a really really nice shot. Wish I can also shoot such pics

its possible to light just the subject and make background dark. just use a very weak flash and very fash shutter speed. this will under expose those that are further away. while the flash will light up those that is very near the lens

Very fast shutter speed, yeah, but normally there's a speed limit due to the flash being able to sync at say only 1/200s. at 1/200s you may not be able to totally blacken the background.
If you use a big aperture, you're going to let in ambient light from the background.
The best way to go about it is to use a very small aperture. Since obviously using F8 or F13 @ 1/200s is going to give you a totally black image image in most room lighting conditions, you get a flash to fill in the subject..
by controlling the flash amt (or aperture) you will be able to emit just enough light to light up the foreground without lighting up the background.

 

[unseen]

Thanks for the tip. Never thought of shooting it in that manner. I really like that pic. Wonder will he mind if I make it my wall paper?

Check out his piece of stunning work:
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=187642
PM him to ask if you need

His stunning gallery: tchuanye.smugmug.com

 

[Ihsan Chua]

Check out his piece of stunning work:
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=187642
PM him to ask if you need

His stunning gallery: tchuanye.smugmug.com

Saw and gave my comments already. Super good. Like Nat Geo Shots

 

[unseen]

Saw and gave my comments already. Super good. Like Nat Geo Shots

LOL I can only hope to shoot insects as good as him one day..
He's THE man. Check out his coke drop macros... LOL quirky, but nice..

 

[policemf]

whoa..i couldnt log in this past few days..i come back so many post liau.. haha.. thanks guys.. so im still reading the revious posts..hmm...now more cams come into the pic huh? so the pics from lumix appears 'sharper'?

one more thing i wanna ask, for a noob here, i aint quite sure wat is the fstop value all about.. for fz20 its constant f2.8 while fz30 can vary to f2.8-3.7 rite? wat does it mean?

 

[unseen]

LOL Instead of us telling you that it's sharper, it's better you bio bio yourself and judge for yourself. Soft images usually you have the edges "blending" into the background etc..

Aperture = the hole which light goes in to reach your sensor.
bigger hole = more light
if more light, then shutter speed can be higher, so that's a good point

Bigger hole/Aperture causes smaller depth of field. Thus, good for some shots.

Photography wise, smaller aperture number = bigger hole.

Each stop = 1 multiple of (square root of 2) = 1.4
Thus, traditionally aperture goes from 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc... Digital we have more fine control.
Each jump = 1 stop = twice or half the amount of light (bigger hole more light, smaller less)
By opening your aperture from 4 to 2.8, you can effectly half your shutter speed

the constant f2.8 is the maximum aperture that can be attained. i.e. biggest the hole can open up to, to allow more light in. Zoom lenses are hard to keep a constant max aperture. That's why most dSLR zoom lenses with constant aperture usually cost about 5+ times more the variable ones.

 

[policemf]

wooo....nice..i actually went to this digital photography course a long time and the guy said sth like tat too.. more or less can ok understand ah.. thanks..

actually i wanna stick to lumix coz after all, i found the pics on my FX7 quite good for a PnS. both print and in PC. so since im quite familiar with the interface and all, i think i wanna stick to it lor.. but so far i onli hear lumixers complaining bout the noise level of the lumixs, nth much bout the other aspect of the cam. so i can safely say that apart from the noise which can get pretty bad at >200, other aspects are pretty good for the amount of cash paid? (obviously not comparing to the dSLRs)..

 

[unseen]

LOL trust me, the noise is pretty ok.. It's like the JC student who commited suicide because he thinks his dick is too small.. Someone said his dick was too small, but despite assurances from a doctor, he still thinks that it's too small.

I just went to dcresource to take the very 1st 2 reviews I saw..
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w100-review/index.shtml
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a700-review/index.shtml
FZ5:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz5-review/index.shtml
FZ30:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/index.shtml

Well these are newer generations of digital cameras, noise control should be better ya?
Look at the sony camera -> brilliant noise reduction. At the same time, notice how soft the image is as compared to the canon, the lumix cameras.
Look at the canon powershot -> Canon's tauted to have the best noise control around, and it does show that the images very clean.. However, at ISO400, FZ30's about the same, and FZ5 is cleaner but at the cost of some very fine details (not noticable at 4R size)

So, it ends up, do you want to pay for someone to do the noise reduction, or do you want to control the amount yourself?

Yeah I feel that it's pretty excellent for the amount of $$ paid), EVEN when comparing to dSLR. A constant F2.8 with OIS in Lens this focal length will cost approx 3 - 4x the price of a FZ30 new. There's always KM/Sony's inbuilt antishake, but if you're a sucker for less noise you'll need to go for the more expensive D7D

http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/06_02/auth/toku1/index_iso.htm
dSLR does not mean less noise. Hint: Look at ISO 1600
I mean, just look at olympus's dismal performance...
LOL you can see that Nikon's quite bad at controlling noise too.
Pentax is surprisingly very good at noise control too.
FYI -
ペンタックス = Pentax
オリンパス = Olympus
二コン = Nikon
コニカミノルタ = Konica Minolta
キヤノン = Canon

 

[policemf]

thanks guys for the tips..i'll look around first.. haha..me no progress package liau so must find money first! haaha

 

[HydroPoP]

Has anyone tried taking birds shot with the FZ30? With the 420mm and extra optical zoom and teleconverter, is it sufficient for birds? Any samples? Thanks! :think:

 

[policemf]

hey guys... jus bought the FZ30 just now.. haha! after long consideration, with of coz the comments and advice from u guys, think i made quite a good buy! will sure start snapping around..

 

[policemf]

Has anyone tried taking birds shot with the FZ30? With the 420mm and extra optical zoom and teleconverter, is it sufficient for birds? Any samples? Thanks! :think:

hmm.. not tried bird shots yet for me.. coz previously only had a P&S..