eastcoastjoe
07-06-2005, 02:39 PM
I have been thinking about this for a while now and resisted the urge to post but with the recent thread started by the guy who was trading in his Frank (FZ) for a DSLR, I thought it was time.
I too had problems with the Frank's (FZ) noise; I worried a bit; got a bit upset for a few days and then I looked into the solutions for the problem.
I bought a copy of Neat Image and have barely looked back. I mean, I was annoyed for a few days after my purchase of N.I. thinking that perhaps my FZ wasn't such a good camera or value if it needs external software to make up for internal short comings. Then it dawned on me; and please forgive me as sometimes I am a little dense - my Frank (FZ) plus a copy of Neat Image delivers clearer, sharper and overall better images than I could afford to make otherwise and quite competitive with many cameras costing sigificantly more. I can make bigger, better and more affordable prints with my FZ and my photo printer than I ever hoped to or was able to in the film days.
Great; I expect that the Nikon will produce images with considerably less noise than the FZ; hey, I expect that a bag full of Nikor lenses that cover the range of the Leica lens on the FZ will produce better results as well. While I am at it, I wish I shot in Adobe RGB instead of just processed in ARGB; and I wouldn't mind a RAW or Superfine JPEG mode either; but when I add the cost of those improvements it simply adds up to pictures not taken and images not made. As of now, I couldn't afford to pursue this hobby AND resolve those issues. I would have taken many more pics over the years with my old Minolta SRT if it weren't for processing costs but for me, and I imagine for many, cost is a big factor in any hobby.
While I thought that the Frank (FZ) was a bit expensive, I looked at the alternatives and realized that I could get an FZ and probably a super cool DSLR in a few years for less than the cost of one DSLR now. That means in the future I will have to carefully plan to buy and carry lenses but until that becomes affordable, my FZ will do more than I need it to do. But think about it; these are electronic and not mechanical devices so they will change and improve much more quickly. Think of the $3000 8086 PC vs. a new Dell. My old Mac plus cost more that my (now aging) G4. Some people need to be early adopters of the latest technology; but many of us can't jump on board until the subsequent generations of technology come down in price.
FWIW I have used Neat Image to reduce noise in pics shot at ISO 400 with results clear enough to make a cropped 8x10 with no visible noise or artifacts. Are they perfect? No. Are they as good or better than I could have gotten from my old SRT? Yes. When I use ISO 100 or 80 the results are simply remarkable; as you can see, I am remarking right now.
Just the act of using ANY digital camera allows me do do things I couldn't dream of before. I love Photoshop and I have so much more control over the final image than I would have using film. That I can afford to do this work at all, I consider a technological miracle that, for me, more than offsets the compromises presented by any digital camera.
Digital camers are at a stage when all have at least one signicant compromise. Until the now-expensive sensors are cheaper or until better sensors come along there will be trade offs; in the case of the Frank (FZ), Pana went low rent on plenty of features to get the nifty lens on it for the price they're charging. Don't forget until recently Nikon was still selling the 4MP D2H; it can still be found online for some multiple of the FZ's price. Sure the Canon Digital Rebel is a great deal but the kit lens on the Rebel is, to put it politely, weak.
The real question then becomes, which digital camera flaw doesn't affect me or am I willing to live with? Because, as Roseanne Rosanna Danna used to say, "it's always someting." For many, the advanced point and shoot camera is the ticket to high quality photographs and continuing their photo hobby in the digital age.
I too had problems with the Frank's (FZ) noise; I worried a bit; got a bit upset for a few days and then I looked into the solutions for the problem.
I bought a copy of Neat Image and have barely looked back. I mean, I was annoyed for a few days after my purchase of N.I. thinking that perhaps my FZ wasn't such a good camera or value if it needs external software to make up for internal short comings. Then it dawned on me; and please forgive me as sometimes I am a little dense - my Frank (FZ) plus a copy of Neat Image delivers clearer, sharper and overall better images than I could afford to make otherwise and quite competitive with many cameras costing sigificantly more. I can make bigger, better and more affordable prints with my FZ and my photo printer than I ever hoped to or was able to in the film days.
Great; I expect that the Nikon will produce images with considerably less noise than the FZ; hey, I expect that a bag full of Nikor lenses that cover the range of the Leica lens on the FZ will produce better results as well. While I am at it, I wish I shot in Adobe RGB instead of just processed in ARGB; and I wouldn't mind a RAW or Superfine JPEG mode either; but when I add the cost of those improvements it simply adds up to pictures not taken and images not made. As of now, I couldn't afford to pursue this hobby AND resolve those issues. I would have taken many more pics over the years with my old Minolta SRT if it weren't for processing costs but for me, and I imagine for many, cost is a big factor in any hobby.
While I thought that the Frank (FZ) was a bit expensive, I looked at the alternatives and realized that I could get an FZ and probably a super cool DSLR in a few years for less than the cost of one DSLR now. That means in the future I will have to carefully plan to buy and carry lenses but until that becomes affordable, my FZ will do more than I need it to do. But think about it; these are electronic and not mechanical devices so they will change and improve much more quickly. Think of the $3000 8086 PC vs. a new Dell. My old Mac plus cost more that my (now aging) G4. Some people need to be early adopters of the latest technology; but many of us can't jump on board until the subsequent generations of technology come down in price.
FWIW I have used Neat Image to reduce noise in pics shot at ISO 400 with results clear enough to make a cropped 8x10 with no visible noise or artifacts. Are they perfect? No. Are they as good or better than I could have gotten from my old SRT? Yes. When I use ISO 100 or 80 the results are simply remarkable; as you can see, I am remarking right now.
Just the act of using ANY digital camera allows me do do things I couldn't dream of before. I love Photoshop and I have so much more control over the final image than I would have using film. That I can afford to do this work at all, I consider a technological miracle that, for me, more than offsets the compromises presented by any digital camera.
Digital camers are at a stage when all have at least one signicant compromise. Until the now-expensive sensors are cheaper or until better sensors come along there will be trade offs; in the case of the Frank (FZ), Pana went low rent on plenty of features to get the nifty lens on it for the price they're charging. Don't forget until recently Nikon was still selling the 4MP D2H; it can still be found online for some multiple of the FZ's price. Sure the Canon Digital Rebel is a great deal but the kit lens on the Rebel is, to put it politely, weak.
The real question then becomes, which digital camera flaw doesn't affect me or am I willing to live with? Because, as Roseanne Rosanna Danna used to say, "it's always someting." For many, the advanced point and shoot camera is the ticket to high quality photographs and continuing their photo hobby in the digital age.