First shots with Panasonic FZ20

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

If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new
Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside
churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy.
http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics

I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at
all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to
be as bad in real life!

Douglas

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

In article <lfbKrNBiglsCFwHQ@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk
says...
> I can't find the low light examples on your site. I can appreciate
> the audible noise issue, but for low light it doesn't hold a candle
> to the dSLRs IMO (so to speak).
>
You are probably not thinking about a low end DSLR comparison. My guess
is that a big chunk of 350D owners (just for example) only have the kit
lens. That is hard to use wider than f8. The FZ20 works quite well at
f2.8, so score + 3 stops to FZ20.

Now the FZ20 sensor noise at ISO 100 might be about the same as the 350D
at ISO 800 (an uninformed guess at this point), so score +3 stops to the
350D

Now the FZ20 has IS (which works), so score +2 stops to the FZ20 for
those "inside church" fairly static shots.

Net result is + 2 stops advantage to the FZ20.

Now if you buy a 100-400 IS lens for your 350D you now pick up the 2 stop
IS advantage and another 1 - 1.5 stops of lens speed. Ok so that is
better than the FZ20, but only by a stop or so. Crank up the FZ20 ISO
and spend some time with Neat Image and the FZ20 can probably still get
the shot.

You need to buy some Canon primes or f2.8 L (IS) zooms to get a long way
ahead of the FZ20 in "getting the low light shot".

Of course AF performance is much better with the SLR's, but photography
was done by manual focus for about a hundred and fifty years.

Having said all that, I just bought a 350D, because I already own a few
good Canon primes (but no L zooms unfortunately). My daughter has a FZ20
but I have not yet shot them side by side.

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

Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

>> I can't find the low light examples on your site. I can appreciate
>> the audible noise issue, but for low light it doesn't hold a candle
>> to the dSLRs IMO (so to speak).
>>
>You are probably not thinking about a low end DSLR comparison. My guess
>is that a big chunk of 350D owners (just for example) only have the kit
>lens. That is hard to use wider than f8. The FZ20 works quite well at
>f2.8, so score + 3 stops to FZ20.

No, I'm thinking compared to D70 (which is low end). I had recent
experience shooting head-to-head with a FZ20 owner on safari (I
was using a 70-210 AF f4-5.6 and was able to catch hippos and
a rarish sight of a brown hyena at dusk where he got naught.
I was not impressed with the FZ20's ISO400 which is much on par
with the D70's ISO1600.

>Now the FZ20 has IS (which works), so score +2 stops to the FZ20 for
>those "inside church" fairly static shots.

Yes, the IS and the big optical zoom does make for great wildlife
shots in good light. There's no doubt, for the money it's a good
performer in daylight. Not in bad light though.

>You need to buy some Canon primes or f2.8 L (IS) zooms to get a long way
>ahead of the FZ20 in "getting the low light shot".

Not true, with a D70 anyway. You're better off even at f5.6 ($200
lens). An f2.8, and of course the 2.8 VR would leave the FZ20
light years behind, but that's $1500 worth of lens.

>Of course AF performance is much better with the SLR's, but photography
>was done by manual focus for about a hundred and fifty years.

Shutter lag is also a bit more of a bugbear compared to the D70,
according to shooter I was with anyway.

>Having said all that, I just bought a 350D, because I already own a few
>good Canon primes (but no L zooms unfortunately). My daughter has a FZ20
>but I have not yet shot them side by side.

Given what you say about the 350D, I'm surprised you didn't splurge
just a bit further and get the D70. The kit lens is great too,
and if you don't need tele- at low light, you can't beat the
$100 50mm f1.8 for value.


--
Ken Tough

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

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hQd7IAC6XqsCFwXq@objectech.co.uk...
> Ryadia@home <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> I can't find the low light examples on your site. I can appreciate
>>> the audible noise issue, but for low light it doesn't hold a candle
>>> to the dSLRs IMO (so to speak).
>
>>Hmmm ... f2.8 and 1/20th second @ ISO 200, (hand held) not low enough?
>
> Depends what you're shooting. If it's animals, 1/20th will get you
> a blurred critter, and 1/125 at ISO 800 RAW will be a decent shot.
> Image stabilisation stabilises the image, not the subject!
>
>>You'd need at least 1/125th to do that with a 20D so the comparison is
>>that
>>this camera can take a picture well below the shake level from mirror slap
>>that would blur a DSLR's shots and at substantially lower ISO values than
>>are needed with higher shutter speed.
>
> Also depends on the focal length. I can take 1/20 shots with my
> wide angle zoom on the D70 (say at 25mm) and they're decent. The
> mirror slap isn't so much the problem as wibbly hands.
>
>
>>I have reason to believe the high ISO performance of Canon's 20D is due to
>>image processing, not superior sensors. My early indications are that the
>>relatively noise free high ISO shots a Canon takes are at the expense of
>>detail... Like they've been de-noised with in-camera software.
>
> No, the sensor is larger and more sensitive. (Nikon dSLRs are the
> same) The sensor size also means you have the benefit of a shallow
> depth of field where you need it.
>
>>The jury is still out on the FZ. I think it might have a back focus issue.
>>I'll find out before I go much further.
>
> It's very good value in decent light, make no mistake.
>
> The lack of real raw output will also bite you if you're looking
> for top quality, since post-processing is limited for adjusting
> contrast, USM, or other optimising.
>
> --
> Ken Tough

My experience with the FZ is less than 50 shots so far. I bought it because
a few weeks ago a priest refused to let me shoot a wedding ceremony in his
church saying the "noise" of the shutter was disturbing. OK, that's his
call. This camera can shoot silently and I'll use it for only that purpose.

On the subject of Canon's sensors... Canon have confirmed that much of their
low noise at high ISO is obtained with the "processing engine" (Digic?), not
specifically the sensor design. So far that's all I can get out of them but
in any case, the 20D is not something I would consider comparing a consumer
camera with. The lens I use on the 20D most of the time cost three times as
much as the FZ!

The TIFF capture mode of the FZ is as close to RAW as it gets. 14.5 megabyte
files mean lots of information available to edit but the images are quite
different than ones from the 20D and I am still working on the concept.
Maybe over the coming weekend I will get some time to explore it further.

Douglas

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

Ryadia wrote:
> If anyone is interested, I shot some low light pics with the new
> Panasonic FZ20 I bought last week. I bought it to shoot silently inside
> churches and for those moments when the DSLRs are just too clumsy.

What advantage does it have over a DSLR?

Surely not size, I find it too big.



> http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics
>


I'm about to order the $95 canvas print of your digicam and keyboard
shot!


> I might point out it's performance in good light is not too shabby at
> all. And all the chatter about high noise in low light doesn't seem to
> be as bad in real life!
>
> Douglas

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

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:Ldidnf6L_Je-cynfRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
> Ryadia@home wrote:
>

>
> OT tangent: That house in the shots must be some kind of manufactured
> home? Really, it looks pretty cool, I'm curious. How the heck do you drain
> water off that valley between the peaks? I've got three valleys & peaks &
> the bugger leaks in winter, fortunately it's sold but I'd be interested in
> something like in that pic.
>
> --
The house is a replica of a 80 year old boat house at Portsea, a
bay-one-side, ocean-the-other location in Victoria, (Australia) where the
rich and famous mingle with the riff-raff. Well that's the tale but when you
see the actual boat house, you begin to realize the 20 years since seeing it
and drawing it can morph the memory just a mite! Each of those gables in the
real thing, allowed a mast to stay up when the yachts were housed.

Massive drainage channel. The front section is only 25 feet deep and then a
terrarium joins the front living area to the rear sleeping area. Not a
factory house in any way, shape or form. Believe it or not, this was built
from the ground up, on-site in nine months by three people... Then came the
interior which is still not finished. The ceilings are the same shape as the
roof... Supposedly to provide acoustic harmony. The walls are sound proofed
too but the acoustics still don't match the Sydney opera house!

The house is on a small block of land I sold off to fund the Techno Aussie
digital print centre. Unfortunately it is right next door to my house and is
the reason I will be moving soon. What I didn't realize when I sold the
block was that I'd lose control over what got built. The outdoor area and
all the windows face directly into my bedrooms and the lovely garden setting
I used to photograph portraits and hold the occasional Wedding in, now has a
glaring white plank wall behind it! The owner starts his truck up at 4:30 AM
every morning and rattles it past my bedroom window. So bad, I'm moving just
as soon as I find a more appropriate home.

The rant is over now,
the cat is coming back!

Douglas