Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic DMC-FZ30....ugh!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:56:37 PM

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

"RichA" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1126887844.871631.213350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>


Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with
Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images.

It's a marriage made in heaven.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:16:01 PM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:JGCWe.109779$G8.72895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> RichA wrote:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>
> I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
> photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO, then the
> FZ30 isn't for you.

ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and that
is very bad.
September 17, 2005 12:10:09 AM

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:56:37 +0100, "Pinky & Perky sing Parsifal"
<remember@cceptnoimitations.com> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:1126887844.871631.213350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>
>
>
>Ah, but it's easy to see why Panasonic are going to hop into bed with
>Olympus - they both have the same enthusiasm for noisy images.
>
>It's a marriage made in heaven.
>

Not really. One thing Olympus did in it's upper end was avoid the
hideious plastic bodies of the Panasonics. Now (E-500)
that's bleeding into Olympus. Pretty soon, if they aren't careful,
they'll be just another Kodak.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:10:53 AM

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

Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:JGCWe.109779$G8.72895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> RichA wrote:
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>
>> I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
>> photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
>> then the FZ30 isn't for you.
>
> ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
> that is very bad.

The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.

David
September 17, 2005 5:34:16 PM

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

"RichA" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1126887844.871631.213350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>

Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is
?.
You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to
discuss it ?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:34:17 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:34:16 +0100, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:1126887844.871631.213350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>
>
>Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is
>?.
>You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to
>discuss it ?

Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
September 17, 2005 5:34:18 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:16:47 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:34:16 +0100, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>"dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RichA" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:1126887844.871631.213350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>>
>>
>>Isn't this a group for digital.slr-systems, which i don't think the FZ-30 is
>>?.
>>You might not like the output from P&S cameras, but is this the place to
>>discuss it ?
>
>Don't try to use logic on Rich. It's a waste of time.

If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group,
it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take
share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they
are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony
R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on
high ISO capability?
-Rich
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:34:19 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:50:33 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich
<none@none.com> wrote:

>If you want to completely restrict this subject to another group,
>it can be done, but since these cameras are being designed to take
>share from the DSLR market, and it impacts them directly, maybe they
>are fit for discussion, particularly when a camera like the Sony
>R1 has (to an extent) finally broken the DSLR strangle-hold on
>high ISO capability?

No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to
read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:53:51 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>"David J Taylor"
>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>>wrote in message
>>news:JGCWe.109779$G8.72895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>>
>>>I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
>>>photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
>>>then the FZ30 isn't for you.
>>
>>ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
>>that is very bad.
>
>
> The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
> the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
> bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
> to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
> by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
> coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.
>
> David
>
>
I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility is
shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.

The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
truth for the sake of promoting Canon.

If the Panasonic had mirrors and hinges flapping around at the time of
exposure it would be perfectly fair to say it's images are noisy at high
ISO and it can't take a low light picture as well as a Canon. It
doesn't. It actually performs quite well in low light situations. I
don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
in low light, to boost shutter speed.

The Canon "S" series DSLRs have a particularly bad mirror design which
shudders more than most SLRs during exposure. The Canon's (ands nearly
every other SLR - film and digital) actually need high ISO in order to
maintain high shutter speeds in low light and produce a sharp (or clear)
picture. The Panasonic does not.

The pictures here http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics are from
a FZ20, the forerunner of the FZ30 but none the less, relevant to this
discussion. You simply could not take these pictures with the same ISO
settings as the Panasonic, using a Canon DSLR. Not even on a tripod. The
only way is to wind up the ISO.

A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the
same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview
never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you
believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon
DSLR... Total bullshit!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:53:52 PM

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

Pix on Canvas wrote:
[]
>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
[]
> I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
> Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
> sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility
> is shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
> manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.
>
> The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ
> cameras don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR
> does so attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is
> distorting the truth for the sake of promoting Canon.
[]

I agree that the comparison is unfair. If you compare the sensitive areas
the Canon is 329 sq.mm. and the FZ30 is 38 sq.mm. Therefore if you are
going to show the XT at ISO 1600, the similar figure for the FZ30 would be
ISO 200, not ISO 400. The results would be comparable under such
conditions.

Of course, the original posting was simply stating the obvious, that a
small sensor camera is not as sensitive as a large sensor one!

David
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:53:52 PM

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

In message <432bcb91@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
>don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
>attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
>truth for the sake of promoting Canon.

That is easy to circumvent; DPR gives the f-stop and shutter speeds, so
all you have to do, really, is the math to expose the absolute exposure
of each; wher one has x stops more exposure than the other.

Personally, I think that the better way to compare is to use absolute
exposure that is fixed in a comparison, and then bringing the resulting
images to the same tonal curve in the display images. Then you are
really comparing two cameras at the same light level (assuming that the
f-stops and shutter speeds are fairly accurate in the cameras compared;
shutter-speed can be circumvented with manual flash, leaving only f-stop
as questionable).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:53:52 PM

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

In message <432bcb91@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>I
>don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
>for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
>in low light, to boost shutter speed.

What difference does that make? The idea is to have a standard subject,
to compare noise and general image quality.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 9:53:52 PM

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

In message <432bcb91@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>A truly fair comparison then, would be to compare the two cameras in the
>same lighting but with each camera's best settings... Something dpreview
>never does, with any of their Canon comparisons. They would have you
>believe it's impossible to take a good picture if you don't have a Canon
>DSLR... Total bullshit!

Both cameras at their best would be a nice addition, but it would hardly
be useful as an only comparison, as you are catering to the weaker link.

The need for low-light performance is very real and very important,
despite what a minority of tripod-carrying still-life shooters like you
have to say.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
September 17, 2005 9:53:52 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:53:51 +1000, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>David J Taylor wrote:
>> Pete D wrote:
>>
>>>"David J Taylor"
>>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>>>wrote in message
>>>news:JGCWe.109779$G8.72895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ30/page14.as...
>>>>
>>>>I would take the Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20 over a DSLR, for my own
>>>>photographic needs. If your needs include low noise at high ISO,
>>>>then the FZ30 isn't for you.
>>>
>>>ISO 400 is hardly hi ISO, the Panasonic has high noise at low ISO and
>>>that is very bad.
>>
>>
>> The performance of the Panasonic at ISO 400 is typical of cameras using
>> the smaller sensor format compared to the DSLR format - it is not "very
>> bad" at all. The higher noise level is a well-known trade-off. Fuji seem
>> to have done some work in this area which may improve usable sensitivity
>> by a stop or more, and it would be interesting to see the Fuji sensor
>> coupled with a good image-stabilised long zoom.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>I get really offended when I see these lop sided reviews pumping up
>Canon at the expense of other brands. dpreview is well known for this
>sort of behavior and really ought to stop it before their credibility is
>shot. You can't keep taking money from a company and deny you are
>manipulating stories to their benefit and still expect to be believed.
>
>The truth lies somewhere between two extremes of statistics. FZ cameras
>don't need as high ISO settings in low light as a Canon DSLR does so
>attempting to make a Panasonic look bad at high ISO is distorting the
>truth for the sake of promoting Canon.
>
>If the Panasonic had mirrors and hinges flapping around at the time of
>exposure it would be perfectly fair to say it's images are noisy at high
>ISO and it can't take a low light picture as well as a Canon. It
>doesn't. It actually performs quite well in low light situations. I
>don't ever recall having a need to shoot bottle labels at high ISO just
>for the hell of it. You only need high ISO to capture moving objects or
>in low light, to boost shutter speed.
>

Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature
shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops
to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you
(maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes
the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun.
If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash
isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine,
otherwise...
If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a
camera that is severely restricted in what it can do.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:18:13 PM

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

In message <ovhoi112kbp059hbn3da7kg9dn8dctvkrf@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Problem is, you run into this need all the time. Go shoot some nature
>shots, step into the woods, or shade and your exposure at 100ISO drops
>to 1/15 at f3.5. Go inside anywhere. A well lit store will net you
>(maybe) 1/30 at f2.4 at 400 ISO. Any action (as you stated) pushes
>the ISO requirement higher than 200 unless it's in bright sun.
>If all you shoot is in bright sun, or within flash range (and flash
>isn't always the nicest choice for lighting) then you're fine,
>otherwise...
>If a camera can't deliver at least 400 ISO cleanly, you end up with a
>camera that is severely restricted in what it can do.

On a cloudy day in the woods, I'm already under-exposing at ISO 1600
with a 400mm IS lens at 1/320.

We have a long way to go, and film should not be remembered as a frame
of reference.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:32:25 PM

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

Ed Ruf wrote:
>
>
> No, it's simple, what's the charter of this group say? Is that too hard to
> read? You don't get to make up your own rules. Post it to rpd or rpdz.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Oh, Sorry Ed... I thought when one of the group's founders (Alan Browne)
led by example and changed the rules or guidelines to suit himself and
his style of posts, it was fine for everyone else to do the same.

I didn't realize you subscribed to the "do as I say not as I do theory"
of Canadian logic. I'll keep that in mind for the next time you go off
topic.

I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed.
It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as
real people, you know.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:32:26 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:32:25 +1000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pix on
Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>picture entirely like a Canon can. Thanks for the enlightenment, Ed.
>It's good to know who the bigots are around here. Some masquerade as
>real people, you know.

Bigot? Hardy har har......! Thanks for helping me start the day with a good
laugh.

Let's see:

If you would take 2 seconds to look at my sig, you would see I actually
use a lowly ancient P&S camera (Coolpix 990) and a first gen "ZLR" (Coolpix
5700) and have many photos from these on my site.

I've posted many times about the low light capability, or not. of the 5700
and the use of Neat Image to get usable higher ISO images from it.

I argued against Alan's position during the initial discussions of the
group charter before it's formation.

The charter is the charter. I made use of it to make a point against the
inane posting habits of a certain individual who would appear to be an
annoyance to more than just myself.

So, if that makes me a bigot, so be it. Glad you've joined the group(s).


----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:32:26 PM

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

In message <432cdfcb$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
>low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
>cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
>that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
>picture entirely like a Canon can.

Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
even convincing logic.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 11:55:06 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <432cdfcb$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I'll also keep in mind that no matter how poorly a Canon DSLR behaves in
>>low light, it should absolutely never be pointed out that other types of
>>cameras handle the situation much, much better by producing photographs
>>that may show a little (easily removed) noise but never stuff up the
>>picture entirely like a Canon can.
>
>
> Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
>
> You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
> even convincing logic.

One of the annoying things about your questioning John is your
insistence on evidence for everything you can't comprehend, rather than
accept the fact that maybe someone other than you actually takes photos
with a variety of cameras and knows which one to use in which
circumstance to obtain the best results rather than intimately
understand the whole (boring) spectrum of electronic imaging.

I'm a Photographer, not a technologist. My assessment of a camera's
value is based only on how good a picture it takes. I couldn't care less
if I tried, whether it used a 4/3 sensor or a 35mm size sensor. If a
camera can be used for something and it's better for that use than
another, I'll use it.

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

None of these pictures could have been taken with a 20D at the ISO
settings of the Panasonic and the resulting images, still have been
sharp. I know because I tried. The mirror shudder of a 20D almost
guarantees you can't get a sharp picture under 1/125th shutter speed at
any ISO setting when it's got an f2.8 lens on it.

From where I stand, that makes the Panasonic a better low light camera
than the 20D. Just try and take a picture with a 20D at 1/15th shutter
speed while hand holding the camera... Don't bother what lens you use,
just make sure it's a f2.8 like the Leica on the Panasonic is.

Some may argue that the FZ can do this because it has an image
stabilizer. Big deal. It came built in to the camera. Others might claim
using ISO 1600 with the 20D will result in a sharp image. So what?
That's subscribing to the same theory I've just offered...

The Panasonic has no shutter vibrations. It has no mirror slap. It can
take sharp pictures at ridiculously slow shutter speeds so it doesn't
need to use a high ISO to do this. The two cameras are so different they
can only be judged when allowed to work at their own best settings for a
given scene.

Nothing about the specifications of these two cameras can be validly
compared to each other unless you let the finished photograph be the
point of judgment... And isn't that what Photography is all about?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:53:35 PM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
>
> You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
> even convincing logic.

He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:26:44 AM

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

In message <11itk7f6cq4ii41@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>> Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
>>
>> You keep making comments like this, but you fail to produce examples or
>> even convincing logic.
>
>He's posted several examples in the past. Every one of them was user error.

Well, he seems to be shifting on the subject, too. He used to sing this
about "noise reduction at high ISOs", but now it's hand-holding the
Canon without IS, vs the FZ20 _with_ IS. Maybe he realized there was no
such noise reduction in the RAW data.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!