Pretty interesting test.
However I was a bit disappointed how they only tested landscape shots. There were not too many scenes to show the dynamic range. There was no portraiture done, and the only shot that had a main was the bird, which was poorly done since the bird was much farther away on the FZ30.
Anyways, I'd be interested seeing them compare the FZ30 to a budget DSLR and a cheap tamron/sigma 28-300mm zoom lens, which is equivalent to 45-480mm on a 35mm.
The DSLR with the superzoom would cost about $750.
It's all about the light. Here's a JPG photo (pretty much "straight out of the camera") I took of the Waimea Valley when I was in Kauai in 2004 with my FZ10. (Used Manual exposure, no filters, to get desired color contrasts) I invite comparisons to any of the similar scenery shots posted in the "shootout" to either the FZ30 or 20D, Adobe Camera RAW or JPG:
That's a very interesting article to read, and thanks for the post. I think it was a high honor for the FZ30 to be used in such a comparison, pretty well vindicating it for those of us who value the camera as the "best of the bunch."
Thats a nice photo John and shows what the cameras are capable of, and while I get some like that, its pretty much a hit and / or miss thing with me.
I need to study more.
But it may have to do with trying to teach old dogs new tricks.
Thats a nice photo John and shows what the cameras are capable of, and while I get some like that, its pretty much a hit and / or miss thing with me.
I need to study more.
But it may have to do with trying to teach old dogs new tricks.
...But I wasn't really trying to show how great the FZ10 is, just that if you catch the light in a good mood, you can grab a shot that's comparable if not preferable to the same scene shot with that $5400 worth of Canon gear, or the FZ30 either. I printed that shot at 11X17 on a nice sheet of Ilford Pearl paper, framed it and gave it as a gift. It was WELL received! But if I'd been standing alongside that guy with his 20D/FZ30 stuff in the same light HE had, I don't think I'd have come away with as much.
I'm a huge fan of the FZ line, especially the FZ20, but that article was a joke. I will save it for future laughs.
The photographer needs to learn about exposure and how to process a RAW image.
The FZ30 has a great lens on it but doesn't compare as much as they explain.
In bright light shooting, the two cameras will be at the closests that they ever will be. Reduce the lighting to dusk and that's where the dslr shines. Fast focusing like sports the dslr will also excell.
The photog used different apertures and exposures, so of coarse the cameras will have different looks. He made little attempts to get the same field of view, this would help with getting an equal exposure.
The comment about not being able to go over f/8 becuase of diffraction, which will cause blurriness is pure rubbish. A dslr can shoot at f/16 with no notable image degradation.
He complains about not having enough depth of field when shooting a macro shot of a lizard but uses f/2.8!!??
It's like a soldier complaining that his enemies aren't dying because he's using rubber bullets.
I wouldn't dare go below f/8 for a macro shot. F/10 is what I usually use, and I never see any 'artifacts from image degradation', or whatever he said.
He also keeps mentioning the 5400 dollar package. The 20D is 1300, and the 350D could have been used to give the same results. He should use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for 1500, making a 2300, then throw in a 1.4TC for a hundred dollars to get the 448mm field of view. Using the 400 f/5.6 was unecessary, as it's a slow lens with ugly bokeh. I have used it on my 20D and it's basically a bird photographer's cheapest option.
Throw in some extension tubes to use with the 70-200 f/2.8IS L and 1.4TC and you get a nice macro option that will give 1:2 or so.
He used a wide angle 20mm, I assume it's sigma' 20mm lens.
This package should have been at most, 2800 dollars with filters, a cf card that could be used on both cameras, a 1.4TC, 70-200, 50 f/1.8, and a wide angle lens.
I have been looking for a good deal on a used fz20, once I get the camera I will be happy to do a controlled test. The fz20 will always shine because of the portability, super zoom lens, and small weight. The 350D with a 18-200 is not a bad combo either, though. With the 1.6x crop it puts the 350D at the 28-320 fov.
A 400mm F/5.6 will destroy a 70-200mm F2.8L with a 1.4xTC
Zooms don't come anywhere near prime telephotos, that's why they cost so much more - especially when you use a telecoverter, that really just kills the quality.
That said, the FZ30 may seem impressive with F/2.8, but at ISO50, you're about as much light as a DSLR at F/6.7 at ISO200. Not to mention the DSLR will still have lower noise at ISO200 than the FZ30 at ISO50.
Don't get me wrong, I love my FZ15, but it just doesn't come anywhere close to a DSLR in most cases.
Thanks for posting the link to that article. It was indeed a very interesting and informative article. I posted a question to the author about using the FZ30 at ISO 400 in full daylight. I copy it here for you, John and others who may, from your experiences, have an answer:
"Can you tell me/us if you took any shots of the F/A-18's with the
FZ30 set at ISO 400? If so,what were the results?
The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0. I wonder what increase in clarity one
might get if you shot at f/8.0, 1/2000 and ISO 400.
A similar question crossed my mind of your comparative shots of the
Red Crested Cardinal on Monday. Could the FZ30's sharpness have
been increased by shooting at ISO 400, at higher shutter speed and
with a tighter aperture?
Thanks for posting the link to that article. It was indeed a very interesting and informative article. I posted a question to the author about using the FZ30 at ISO 400 in full daylight. I copy it here for you, John and others who may, from your experiences, have an answer:
"Can you tell me/us if you took any shots of the F/A-18's with the
FZ30 set at ISO 400? If so,what were the results?
The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0. I wonder what increase in clarity one
might get if you shot at f/8.0, 1/2000 and ISO 400.
A similar question crossed my mind of your comparative shots of the
Red Crested Cardinal on Monday. Could the FZ30's sharpness have
been increased by shooting at ISO 400, at higher shutter speed and
with a tighter aperture?
What did you find?"
I think the reviewer was indeed limiting the FZ30's capabilities in those instances. But on the other hand, a friend of mine took her FZ30 to the Blue Angels show, in P mode, with everything on auto, and got this stunning shot, and a whole lot more, at ISO 80:
About the Cardinal, the lighting conditions weren't really great for that shot, though it struck me that he could've selected ISO 100 or 200 and done better. (He had made the executive decision to stick to ISO 80 to limit noise) The shutterspeed was so slow, the bird's head moved during the shot, so no sharpness. in better light, those Cardinals come out very nicely:
I think the reviewer was indeed limiting the FZ30's capabilities in those instances. But on the other hand, a friend of mine took her FZ30 to the Blue Angels show, in P mode, with everything on auto, and got this stunning shot, and a whole lot more, at ISO 80:
About the Cardinal, the lighting conditions weren't really great for that shot, though it struck me that he could've selected ISO 100 or 200 and done better. (He had made the executive decision to stick to ISO 80 to limit noise) The shutterspeed was so slow, the bird's head moved during the shot, so no sharpness. in better light, those Cardinals come out very nicely:
Like I said earlier, it's all about the light!
While very nice John, I wouldn't put those 2 photos up against the 20D for noise or actual sharpness. If you look closely at the sky, scrolling it up and down, you'll plainly see some dust and telltale ISO noise. I'm not sure why at ISO 80, but it's there. Did you post-process and push up the exposure or sharpening? Also; the tail and edges are just slightly soft. Granted, a dSLR can have the same softness at that magnification and hand held like that, but I don't think that photo would survive an 11x17 blow-up too well.
The cardinal shot you see the same "dust" in the background. Just a teeny tiny bit, nothing bad. Is the in-camera sharpening boosted? I looks a little similar to overdoing the USM in Photoshop - the computer glops pixels together everywhere making it look a little noisy.
I bring this up with the friendliest of intentions - its just that I don't see what you see.
Your earlier post however was pretty stunning.
Its just that owning a 20D gets one spoiled to the noise factor (or absense). I'm happy to see some great P&S's around, and those with IS will probably have a high % of keepers than my non-IS 20D, but with the larger sensor, better glass, etc. it will offer an inherently better capture. Given proper care and technique, as ObiJuan was pointing out, there is just no way to seriously argue an equivilant result.
My opinion and response to the opinion that the FZ20 or FZ30 offers nearly equal results to the 20D is this. Of course, the camera is only half the equation, but given a budget of $2000 for lenses, well, even in the most ideal of lighting, there is just some sterling quality that a lense like the 85L, 135L, 35L, etc contain. Even a zoom like 70-200 f2.8L just offer that extra 10% that maybe an amature just can't see. You could use the 20D poorly (wrong f-stop, wrong lighting, poor technique, etc) to produce poorer results, but the max potential will always surpass the FZ's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frumious
The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0.
What did you find?"
Also; "frumious" mentioned that high ISO wouldn't show noise in high light, but its more evident at low light. Can anyone concur? I had presumed that ISO simply establishes the pixel gain (amplification). True, a base ISO of say 200 is a match to the shutter/apeture settings for ISO 200 film, but as you increase and decrease from there ON THE SAME CAMERA doesnn't the noise decrease/increase respectively? After all, by definition, the shutter speed and apeture width will shed the exact light needed to expose that "film" correctly.
Am I sounding confusing? For example:
ISO 100 shutter 500 apeture 5.6.
ISO 200 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6 - exactly doublethe light
ISO 400 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6 - exactly half the light
now in double the source light
ISO 100 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6
ISO 200 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6
ISO 400 shutter 4000 apeture 5.6
So, the sensor always get (by definition) the same light at ISO 400 and therefore the same noise.
I have not experimented and honestly don't know the correct answer to this. I'm using reasoning and logic, but am I misinformed?
A very good read.... Camera Clash: Digital SLR (20D) vs All-in-One (FZ30)
Proving once again...
be your umbrella!
Linear Mode
