Want a new camera.... But....

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

Ed wrote:
> I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS
> and that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go
> out on a shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots
> that it's hard to justify the next step up in technology. I think
> I'll wait for the FZ-25 before making my move.
> Ed

Well, it seems to me that the FZ5 is the next step following the FZ20, and
it has dropped the manual focus ring. Panasonic are supposedly entering
the DSLR market with the 4/3 system at some point in the future, to they
may not want to instrodfuce models which conflict with a low-end DSLR.
You would find the IS a big boon, so you have a choice of the heavier FZ20
with manual focus, or the lighter FZ5 with no maunal focu or hot shoe.
The rest of the specs are in the same class as your C-750, but adding the
IS greatly increases the usability of the longer end of the zoom. The
range (36 - 432mm) is slightly greater as well.

If you really must wait, I'd suggest that having a swivel LCD finder,
perhaps a bigger sensor than the 1/2.5 inches, and perhaps a better EVF
were worth having. Some might want better video as well.

Cheers,
David

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

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
> Well, it seems to me that the FZ5 is the next step following the FZ20, and
> it has dropped the manual focus ring.

No, the FZ5 is aimed at a lower point in the market than the FZ20. Its
relationship to the FZ20 is similar to the Konica-Minolta Z series'
relationship to the A series, IMHO. The Zs and the FZ4/5 are good
cameras, but the As and the FZ10/15/20 are nicer all round.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'"

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

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
> Part of my point was with a DSLR potentially coming, Panasonic may want to
> move away slightly from the higher-end cameras like the FZ20.

Ah, I see what you mean - you think the 20 might be the last in that
particular line.

>
> Having used and compared both the FZ20 and FZ5, there is little, if any,
> difference in quality, just a slight difference in facilities (f/3.3
> instead of f/2.8 lens at maximum zoom) and no flash hot-shoe or manual
> focus. There is less difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 than between the
> A and Z Minolta - I was disappointed to see the excellent A2 viewfinder
> had been dropped even from the A200.
>

I find the 5 feels rather flimsy - the 10 and 20 are very close to Canon
build quality; you can feel that corners have been cut on assembly and
materials! That said, I'm sure you can get images as good as a 20 from
a 5, under most circumstances.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'"

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

Yea, I wouldn't get a camera without Manual Focus and I think the ring is a
great idea. I know its much easier to manually focus than my C-750. I also
would always want the hot shoe as I have really gotten good use out of my
Promaster 5750DX flash on the Olympus. Its fully automatic TTL on the
Olympus and I guess I'd be giving that up with the FZ-20, but that's
something I can live with. I'd sell the Promaster and get a less expensive
manual flash for the Panasonic.

I still hope the next model of the FZ would have a swivel EVF, maybe more
resolution in the EVF, better movie mode (even though I'm not sure I'd use
it), and hopefully, faster operation with lower power just by the fact that
new should be faster and lower power. 7 or 8 mp wouldn't be bad either, but
like some have said, that would put it into the $800 to $1000 range like the
A2.

Ed

"NewsDroid" <spamblok@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:spamblok-F97314.20550818052005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <118l8rlpokvc259@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote:
>
> > I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS
and
> > that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go out on a
> > shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots that it's
hard to
> > justify the next step up in technology. I think I'll wait for the FZ-25
> > before making my move.
> > Ed
>
> It's a hard road to find the perfect camera. I love my FZ20's BIG Leica
> lens and IS, the manual focus and zoom control knob are so-so and I miss
> my pervious Canon S1-IS's swiveling viewfinder.
>
> I guess you line them up side-by-side at DPreview and keep your wallet
> zipped until something comes on the market that has everything.
>
> --
> ....NewsDroid

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

In article <WXWie.35120$G8.18434@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> I do agree about the swivel LCD and better EVF. I haven't found speed and
> power as much of a problem.

One problem I have had with the FZ20 is the somewhat limited dynamic
range. Loss of shadow detail and blown highlights, often in the same
photo. Maybe it's the intense light we tend to get in New Zealand.
Certainly I'm forever having to hunt around for the right combination of
sun on the clouds or snow or something, half press the shutter to lock
the reading, then frame up for the shot.

Do other digicams have the same battle?

--
.....NewsDroid

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>Ed wrote:
>
>
>>I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS
>>and that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go
>>out on a shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots
>>that it's hard to justify the next step up in technology. I think
>>I'll wait for the FZ-25 before making my move.
>>Ed
>>
>>
>
>Well, it seems to me that the FZ5 is the next step following the FZ20, and
>it has dropped the manual focus ring. Panasonic are supposedly entering
>the DSLR market with the 4/3 system at some point in the future, to they
>may not want to instrodfuce models which conflict with a low-end DSLR.
>You would find the IS a big boon, so you have a choice of the heavier FZ20
>with manual focus, or the lighter FZ5 with no maunal focu or hot shoe.
>The rest of the specs are in the same class as your C-750, but adding the
>IS greatly increases the usability of the longer end of the zoom. The
>range (36 - 432mm) is slightly greater as well.
>
>If you really must wait, I'd suggest that having a swivel LCD finder,
>perhaps a bigger sensor than the 1/2.5 inches, and perhaps a better EVF
>were worth having. Some might want better video as well.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>

Are we not getting near to the description of the Canon S2?

>
>
>

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>NewsDroid wrote:
>
>
>>In article <WXWie.35120$G8.18434@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>"David J Taylor"
>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I do agree about the swivel LCD and better EVF. I haven't found
>>>speed and power as much of a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>One problem I have had with the FZ20 is the somewhat limited dynamic
>>range. Loss of shadow detail and blown highlights, often in the same
>>photo. Maybe it's the intense light we tend to get in New Zealand.
>>Certainly I'm forever having to hunt around for the right combination
>>of sun on the clouds or snow or something, half press the shutter to
>>lock the reading, then frame up for the shot.
>>
>>Do other digicams have the same battle?
>>
>>
>
>Digicams are nearer to slide film than print film in exposure tolerance -
>need to get it right first time and ensure highlights aren't clipped!
>DSLRs have a better dynamic range, and working in RAW can help. I tend to
>use the FZ5 fixed at ISO 80 (except for some night shots),
>

Is that because to the higher noise level above ISO80?

>if that makes
>any difference to the dynamic range issue. One trick I have used in the
>past with film cameras is contrast reduction by stretching a few hairs
>over the lens opening.
>
>You may also want to check that your display is correctly calibrated:
>
> http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise
> level looks in your enlargements.

It looks noisier, but acceptable to me for the type of shot! It's a
subjective thing, I suggest you look at the sample shots on the various
review sites.

David

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

Bill Spanger wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:26:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>> []
>>> If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise
>>> level looks in your enlargements.
>>
>> It looks noisier, but acceptable to me for the type of shot! It's a
>> subjective thing, I suggest you look at the sample shots on the
>> various review sites.
>
> Now that the OP has beaten this noise horse to death maybe we should
> tell him/her that there's software that removes noise very nicely in
> most cases. :-)

Indeed, yes. I use Paint Shop Pro 9 which can also remove geometric
distortions and reduce so-called "chromatic aberration".

The OP could also try out the cameras for him/herself to determine what
is, or is not, acceptable.

Cheers,
David

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

Bill Spanger wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:26:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>[]
>>
>>
>>>If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise
>>>level looks in your enlargements.
>>>
>>>
>>It looks noisier, but acceptable to me for the type of shot! It's a
>>subjective thing, I suggest you look at the sample shots on the various
>>review sites.
>>
>>
>
>Now that the OP has beaten this noise horse to death maybe we should tell
>him/her that there's software that removes noise very nicely in most cases. :-)
>
>

Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces
(not eliminates) noise is does compromise other things in the picture
like sharpness.

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces
> (not eliminates) noise is does compromise other things in the picture
> like sharpness.

I don't think that Photoshop has a specific digital camera noise reduction
function, unlike Paint Shop Pro which has DCNR, and you might also like to
try out NeatImage (free version available). These programs employ special
algorithms to retain sharpness while reducing noise.

Cheers,
David

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

Also, try out Noiseware Pro. That's my favorite. Fast, easy to use. There
is also a free version.

Ed


"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:6JYje.37043$G8.13502@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> measekite wrote:
> []
> > Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces
> > (not eliminates) noise is does compromise other things in the picture
> > like sharpness.
>
> I don't think that Photoshop has a specific digital camera noise reduction
> function, unlike Paint Shop Pro which has DCNR, and you might also like to
> try out NeatImage (free version available). These programs employ special
> algorithms to retain sharpness while reducing noise.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>

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

Anyone know if the Canon S2 shows all of the menu information in the EVF
like the Z5? I like that feature.

Jan Böhme wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:05:10 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>If you really must wait, I'd suggest that having a swivel LCD finder,
>>>perhaps a bigger sensor than the 1/2.5 inches, and perhaps a better EVF
>>>were worth having. Some might want better video as well.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Are we not getting near to the description of the Canon S2?
>>
>>
>
>Slap a flash hotshoe onto the Canon S2, and I wouldn't find much else
>to long for in a non-DSLR. Probably only a better EVF with an
>instantaneous refresh rate.
>
>Jan Böhme
>Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
>Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
>
>

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

I often shoot theater productions at ISO 400 and get plenty of noise. I
batch run the files through Noiseware Pro and that makes a huge improvement.
It subtracts color and luminance noise without reducing sharpness. The
adjustments let you determine how smooth you want the noisy areas to be
before it starts to look plastic and phoney. I think these noise programs
are invaluable with typical digital camera noise.

Ed

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mEale.1684$rY6.1596@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop
>
> 1. How effective is it in reducing noise?
>
> 2. What are the undesireable things it does when noise it reduced?
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
> >measekite wrote:
> >[]
> >
> >
> >>All of the sample shots I find are ISO80. I would like to see the
> >>same shot at ISO 80,200,400.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I suggest you borrow a camera from a photo store and take pictures for
> >yourself, as we seem to have established that the camera is basically OK
> >for you. Also be aware that as already mentioned you can reduce the
> >effect of noise in an image with programs like Neat Image, Paint Shop Pro
> >etc.
> >
> >I really wouldn't get hung up on this - if you want low noise from a
small
> >sensor camera stick with low ISO, and if you need low noise and high ISO,
> >buy a DSLR.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mEale.1684$rY6.1596
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop
>
> 1. How effective is it in reducing noise?
> 2. What are the undesireable things it does when noise it reduced?

I would say that the effectiveness of noise reduction varies from image
to image. For example, if the main subject is reasonably well
illuminated, its intrinsic noise levels will likely be low. If the
background is darker, then that's where the noise is likely to show up.
If the background is out-of-focus, then applying noise reduction to it
will not disturb much detail, so the noise reduction will be fairly
"invisible" but effective. If the entire image is noisy, then it may
fundamentally already have less detail as a result of the noise. Hence,
applying noise reduction may reduce the details even further, and also
affect the tonal transitions, to make the end result look a bit
"plasticky". To some degree, the undesirable effects of noise reduction
are a subjective assessment that depends on the print size and the image
quality desired by the photographer.

It may be instructive to investigate the effects of noise reduction on
images for yourself. That way you can readily gain some first hand
experience. There are a number of demo or freeware versions of noise
reduction software that can be installed on your computer. Then, it is
possible to download some images from the digicam review sites that have
specifically been taken with varying ISO values and therefore varying
degrees of noise present. Apply the the noise reduction and see what you
get, and you should then be able to reach a judgement as to how important
noise might be for your purposes.

Keep in mind that using a ZLR at ISO 200 or ISO 400 will result in images
that are quite a bit noisier than those from a DSLR at the same or even
higher ISOs.

--
Witold.

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

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/101-e.html

Might answer some questions.