Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opinion on Z3 photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:50:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi, guys! I have a new Konica-Minolta Dimage Z3 and decided to share
some of the photos I have taken during the last week and hear what some
other photographers think of my work.

Take a look here, there are three categories, "Color Photos", "B&W" and
"Nature, Animals." Feel free to post comments under the corresponding
photo (not sure if it requires annoying registration), or here, in this
thread.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hex/
Have a happy new year, hope you had a great party!

More about : opinion photos

Anonymous
January 2, 2005 4:47:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
> Hi, guys! I have a new Konica-Minolta Dimage Z3 and decided to share
> some of the photos I have taken during the last week and hear what some
> other photographers think of my work.
>
> Take a look here, there are three categories, "Color Photos", "B&W" and
> "Nature, Animals." Feel free to post comments under the corresponding
> photo (not sure if it requires annoying registration), or here, in this
> thread.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/hex/
> Have a happy new year, hope you had a great party!
>
The pictures are too small to render a meaningful critique on the image
quality of the camera
The EYE picture looks pretty sharp but the portraits of the young girls
appear a little soft.
Perhaps that was an effect you were trying to achieve or perhaps
downsampling the image so drastically degraded its sharpness.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:08:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The pictures are too small to render a meaningful critique on the
image
> quality of the camera
> The EYE picture looks pretty sharp but the portraits of the young
girls
> appear a little soft.
> Perhaps that was an effect you were trying to achieve or perhaps
> downsampling the image so drastically degraded its sharpness.
> Bob Williams

Actually there is a buton on the left of the image, where you can view
it at 1024x768.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:52:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darin Kaloyanov" <dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104671322.498500.222470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> //snip//>
> Actually there is a buton on the left of the image, where you can view
> it at 1024x768.


I agree that some of the images appear a little soft. I assume these are the
complete images, and not enlargements of cropped portions. I also have a Z3,
and have seen the same softness in some of my photos. Were you using
autofocus or manual focus?

RWP
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 3:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
>>The pictures are too small to render a meaningful critique on the
>
> image
>
>>quality of the camera
>>The EYE picture looks pretty sharp but the portraits of the young
>
> girls
>
>>appear a little soft.
>>Perhaps that was an effect you were trying to achieve or perhaps
>>downsampling the image so drastically degraded its sharpness.
>>Bob Williams
>
>
> Actually there is a buton on the left of the image, where you can view
> it at 1024x768.
>
AH! That is much better.
However, the Princess' eyelashes and lips are still a bit soft.
Probably a Depth of Field problem at such a close distance, because some
of the hairs on her head appear quite sharp.
If you used the Z3's famous f2.8 setting, I would expect the DOF to be
very shallow and that could explain the slight softness in parts of the
image.
Composition-wise and artistically, you did a great job.
To check the lens sharpness, mount the camera on a tripod and shoot a a
flat subject with lots of detail. A $20 bill or similar currency is
usually a good test subject.
I suspect that your lens will be tack-sharp because the Leica Vario
Elmarit's quality is legendary.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:29:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

@Bob Patton, I was using autofocus and some of the photos are cropped,
not scaled down to size, which should explain the bad quality of some
of the photos.

@Bob Williams - please do explain the problem with the f2.8 on the Z3,
I bought this camera several days ago, and I am both an unexperienced
photographer and unfamiliar with the camera. Does the Z3 have a Leica
lens?

I would appreciate any further comments and links to Z3 sites, etc.
Thank you!
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 4:59:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
> @Bob Patton, I was using autofocus and some of the photos are cropped,
> not scaled down to size, which should explain the bad quality of some
> of the photos.
>
> @Bob Williams - please do explain the problem with the f2.8 on the Z3,
> I bought this camera several days ago, and I am both an unexperienced
> photographer and unfamiliar with the camera. Does the Z3 have a Leica
> lens?
>
> I would appreciate any further comments and links to Z3 sites, etc.
> Thank you!
>


This site explains the relationship between Depth of field and aperture
number,
focal length and camera-to-subject distance.
http://www.azuswebworks.com/photography/dof.html
You can enter Depth of Field into Google and find lots more info.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 11:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is something that I hope that I already understand, but thanks for
the site - it is always good to refresh your memories. Did you have
anything special in mind, when mentioning the f2.8 on the Z3? Can any
of you show me some nice Z3 photos?
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:52:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Images are indeed a bit soft, when using the telephoto, otherwise the
camera is great for macro work. Thanks for the links too!
Would you describe the Z3 as a semi-professional camera?
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1104768589.609796.139410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dkaloyanov@gmail.com says...
> This is something that I hope that I already understand, but thanks for
> the site - it is always good to refresh your memories. Did you have
> anything special in mind, when mentioning the f2.8 on the Z3? Can any
> of you show me some nice Z3 photos?
>
>
have you looked at www.dpreview.com ?

try the "panasonic talk" forum. You will get lots of links to Z3 photos
of all qualities there.
January 4, 2005 6:37:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c44c87ebd6256099897f4@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <1104768589.609796.139410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> dkaloyanov@gmail.com says...
> > This is something that I hope that I already understand, but thanks for
> > the site - it is always good to refresh your memories. Did you have
> > anything special in mind, when mentioning the f2.8 on the Z3? Can any
> > of you show me some nice Z3 photos?
> >
> >
> have you looked at www.dpreview.com ?
>
> try the "panasonic talk" forum. You will get lots of links to Z3 photos
> of all qualities there.
>

I think the OP was taking about a Konica-Minolta Z3, not a Panasonic
DMC-FZ3. The Z3 has an OIS, 35-420mm, F/2.8-4.5 APO DX lens; not the Leica.
There have been some reports of soft images at full tele in some of the
reivews I've read. Even so, I like some of the macro pics - especially the
eye.

ECM
January 5, 2005 1:50:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hmm.... depends on how you define "semi-professional". No offense, but
I see the K-M Z3 as a lower-end prosumer, or maybe an upper end
consumer camera. "Semi-professional", to me, means either a
professional would use it as a second camera, or a budding photog would
use it to hone skills on their way to becoming a pro. At some point,
semi-professional would also imply that the user would use the camera
to make money with it's output. I don't think this camera's up to that
standard.

Bluntly, I think that most pros looking for a cheap second camera would
pass over the Z3 for a better lens/better camera, like the Panasonic
FZ-20, the Nikon 8800, the K-M A2/A200, even the Oly C-8080 (no IS, but
the best lens in the bunch). More probably, a pro would pick the Canon
EOS 300D with a good IS lens as a backup camera.

OTOH, if you're just starting out, using this camera will teach you a
lot. Remember that it's the trained and experienced brain behind the
equipment that makes a true professional.

ECM
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 9:54:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I guess you are right, but at this time, this is my financial reach -
here, in Bulgaria, it cost me about $700 to get the camera with a 512MB
SD card, along with eight Ni-MH batteries (4x2100 and 4x2300mAh) - this
is about $200 more, if I had had it ordered from Amazon, for example.

I was thinking about the nice Canon EOS 300 film camera (hope I am not
mistaking the model), which costs only about $300 with a lovely
telephoto lens, but decided that I want a digital camera, as that would
certaily lower my costs while learning different photographic
techniques.

ECM, do you have a more experience with a Z3?
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
> This is something that I hope that I already understand, but thanks
for
> the site - it is always good to refresh your memories. Did you have
> anything special in mind, when mentioning the f2.8 on the Z3? Can any
> of you show me some nice Z3 photos?

Don't know whether they are nice or not, but here are a couple:
http://webpages.charter.net/rwpatton/images/new_page_1....
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 2:18:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

@ECM - Yes, I did understand that you had in mind the Digital rebel, I
just mentioned that a KM Z3 is quite expensive for me here, so the DR
is quite out of my range :)  But thanks for the useful info!

@RWP - Really nice photos, but they seem to be a bit soft and blurred -
did you move or/and was it shot at a telephoto setting? What firmware
are you using?

I see that both photos are using ISO 50 - do you always use ISO 50 for
low noise, or is this a coincidence on those shots?
!