PDA

View Full Version : Night photo with Panasonic FZ20, Olympus 770.



Igor
10-12-2004, 03:43 PM
Hi all! :)
I looked at the description of this camera, that is done on a site

I compared photos with photos done by a camera Olympus 770, and it seems to me that the photos done with camera Olympus are best.
Why on the photos of Olympus water is visible, and it is invisible on the photos of Panasonic (pitch-dark). Is it mean that the Olympus is good in low light photo, then Panasonic?

Thank you

John_Reed
10-12-2004, 03:48 PM
Hi all! :)
I looked at the description of this camera, that is done on a site

I compared photos with photos done by a camera Olympus 770, and it seems to me that the photos done with camera Olympus are best.
Why on the photos of Olympus water is visible, and it is invisible on the photos of Panasonic (pitch-dark). Is it mean that the Olympus is good in low light photo, then Panasonic?

Thank youIgor, it is difficult to answer your question unless you tell us where these photos were located that you compared. Could you reply with a link to the photos? :confused:

Greg Anthony
10-12-2004, 03:58 PM
I think he's referring to these two shots from Jeff's reviews of the two cameras.

FZ-20 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-review/nightshot.jpg) and C-770 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/c765uz-review/nightshot.jpg)

It looks to me like the FZ-20 shot was taken on a night with a brighter moon therefore the exposure was shorter and the water didn't have time to develop in the picture. Also, if you view the images at full size, you can see the water details in the FZ-20 shot too.

Greg

John_Reed
10-12-2004, 04:34 PM
I think he's referring to these two shots from Jeff's reviews of the two cameras.

FZ-20 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-review/nightshot.jpg) and C-770 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/c765uz-review/nightshot.jpg)

It looks to me like the FZ-20 shot was taken on a night with a brighter moon therefore the exposure was shorter and the water didn't have time to develop in the picture. Also, if you view the images at full size, you can see the water details in the FZ-20 shot too.

GregThanks, Greg. I think you're right. The sky is a lot brighter in the FZ20 shot, and so are the buildings. You can see a lot more of the building details in the brighter FZ20 shot. In answer to Igor's original question, this might not even be the kind of "low light" shot that people are discussing when they talk about "low light" shots. Rather, I think the questions are usually like "How does it perform in a nightclub or a concert?" or "Can I shoot my son's night football games?" I'd think the FZ20 and C765 would be comparable, though the FZ20 has an AF illuminator for short-range illumination; I don't think the C765 does? (could be wrong) The FZ20 would give better low-light performance with its stabilizer function as well.

Igor
10-13-2004, 08:13 AM
:)
Thanks...
I hope that is the true...
Becouse it can be Paradox. :(
...

John_Reed
10-13-2004, 10:03 AM
:)
Thanks...
I hope that is the true...
Becouse it can be Paradox. :(
...http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/konicaminolta7d_preview/pict0233.jpg
Hold out for one of the new Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D cameras. The above shot was included in the dpreview preview gallery, shot at 1/50 of a second, ISO 1600! Do you see any noise there? I don't. This camera promises anti-shake correction with any lens you want to add, of which you'll need a few to match, for example, the zoom range and f2.8 aperture of the FZ20. But no fixed-lens camera can touch that kind of noise performance at that "film speed;" and your "paradox" will always be present unless you forget about budget and compactness.

D70FAN
10-13-2004, 10:38 AM
Hold out for one of the new Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D cameras. The above shot was included in the dpreview preview gallery, shot at 1/50 of a second, ISO 1600! Do you see any noise there? I don't. This camera promises anti-shake correction with any lens you want to add, of which you'll need a few to match, for example, the zoom range and f2.8 aperture of the FZ20. But no fixed-lens camera can touch that kind of noise performance at that "film speed;" and your "paradox" will always be present unless you forget about budget and compactness.

Good shot. Es macht mir zehr durstig. 1/50 sec. is not that slow, but the lack of noise at ISO 1600 is certainly impressive.

My hope is that the 7D has the impact of greatly reducing the cost of IS type lenses (are you listening Nikon?). Currently, a lens with IS/VR is about 2 times the cost of a non-IS/VR lens.

It will take me a while to trust the reliability of a sensor mount AS system in a non-sealed environment. Don't get me wrong, if it works long term, then it's the greatest idea since...uh... IS lenses. As for noise, hey, for the price difference, I can live with Noise Ninja. A product that continues to amaze me.

John_Reed
10-13-2004, 11:12 AM
Good shot. Es macht mir zehr durstig. 1/50 sec. is not that slow, but the lack of noise at ISO 1600 is certainly impressive.
You may think 1/50 is "not that slow," but to take the same shot with my FZ10 at ISO 50, I think I'd have to be shooting ~1/2 second, which is a bit of a stretch, handheld. Even at ISO 400, with a little noise thrown in to spice up the scene a bit, I'd have been hand-holding at ~1/15, which would easily be do-able at that focal length, though not anywhere near as clean as the original image.

D70FAN
10-13-2004, 11:33 AM
You may think 1/50 is "not that slow," but to take the same shot with my FZ10 at ISO 50, I think I'd have to be shooting ~1/2 second, which is a bit of a stretch, handheld. Even at ISO 400, with a little noise thrown in to spice up the scene a bit, I'd have been hand-holding at ~1/15, which would easily be do-able at that focal length, though not anywhere near as clean as the original image.

See how spoiled dSLR users get? I don't even think of that anymore. I'm not being a WA (wise-ass) here John. I seriously have started forgetting about ISO, aperture and shutter speed limits. When shutter speed drops to 1/15 sec. I just go to the next ISO setting.

Yes, eventually I run out of ISO range. Then I have to resort to the very nice, built-in, iTTL speedlight, or to a tripod/monopod. One of these days I might spring for the 24-120 VR lens, or (gulp!) the 70-200 f2.8 VR ($1700!!! :eek: ). So far I haven't really needed them....well maybe a couple of times.

Anyway thanks for the reminder of why I'm eating dog food to afford a dSLR. :). Some day when I know what I'm doing, I might even make a living at this.

Igor
10-13-2004, 03:33 PM
Hi all! :)
I looked at the description of this camera, that is done on a site

I compared photos with photos done by a camera Olympus 770, and it seems to me that the photos done with camera Olympus are best.
Why on the photos of Olympus water is visible, and it is invisible on the photos of Panasonic (pitch-dark). Is it mean that the Olympus is good in low light photo, then Panasonic?
Thank you

BUT WHAT ABOUT COLORS???

http://west.net.ua/~kravets/oly765.jpg
OLYMPUS 765

http://west.net.ua/~kravets/panz20.jpg
PANASONIC Z20

http://west.net.ua/~kravets/panz10.jpg
PANASONIC Z10

judge9847
10-13-2004, 03:36 PM
... I'm eating dog food to afford a dSLR. :). Some day when I know what I'm doing, I might even make a living at this.
I'm sure you could do that George but be careful you don't "woof" your food down or you could end up barking up the wrong tree ... ;)

zookeeper
10-14-2004, 08:35 PM
I've been watching Jeff Kellers reviews and downloaded many similar shots (same subjects) for comparisons before I bought my FZ20. The thing that you have to consider, and this is very important when comparing pics, WAS the pics taken AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME DAY?????? Lighting, i.e. morning, high noon, late afternoon and early evening sunlight will give you many various results. Even the atmosphere conditions will affect your comparisons. Night shots can be affected by moonlight, time of night, fog/haze etc. You have to look at more than just color, brightness, etc. for a comparison. The only way you can judge pic results and quality over a long period of time with different cameras is to use a controlled 'studio' test method. Jeffs macro "Mickey" shots are a good example. I believe DPREVIEW also uses some studio shots that are repeatable time after time.
Even the photog using the cameras can affect the pic quality......Sorry, not picking on you Jeff.......................You do GOOD........ :)
I don't know if this info will help or confuse.......Jerry G.........the Zookeeper.

Payne
10-18-2004, 07:28 PM
I've been watching Jeff Kellers reviews and downloaded many similar shots (same subjects) for comparisons before I bought my FZ20. The thing that you have to consider, and this is very important when comparing pics, WAS the pics taken AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME DAY?????? Lighting, i.e. morning, high noon, late afternoon and early evening sunlight will give you many various results. Even the atmosphere conditions will affect your comparisons. Night shots can be affected by moonlight, time of night, fog/haze etc. You have to look at more than just color, brightness, etc. for a comparison. The only way you can judge pic results and quality over a long period of time with different cameras is to use a controlled 'studio' test method. Jeffs macro "Mickey" shots are a good example. I believe DPREVIEW also uses some studio shots that are repeatable time after time.
Even the photog using the cameras can affect the pic quality......Sorry, not picking on you Jeff.......................You do GOOD........ :)
I don't know if this info will help or confuse.......Jerry G.........the Zookeeper.

You are rigth zookeeper, the best way to compare shots taken with different digital cameras is using a studio because of the lighting conditions...but I also think that outdoor shots are valuable since they shows the DC performance under different weather conditions. In fact, steve has the same review method.

Anyway, after comparing several shots I drew a conclusion: The Panasonic FZ line is the wise option.