 |
|
|
|
Next: Newbie question: Contax i4R, SD memory cards
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 114
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:09 pm
Post subject: better detail or just different settings?
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
i'm comparing two cameras i just got,,,lumix fz30 and minolta a200.
it appears quite clearly that the minolta kicks @ss on MY criteria(i am
shooting artwork). amongst other things, it is sharper BY FAR than the
fz30 and this is surprising. so i thought maybe if i played around with
color/contrast etc, certain things might be accentuated and sharp
detail might get better. i've tried changing both the fz30 image AND
the a200 image in order to "level the playing field", but there just
seems to be certain things the a200 can catch that the fz30,,,,and i'm
talking detail related to brushstroke(this is how i test camera
details), not color etc(as in one camera emphasizing a hue might show
more detail than the other)
i am almost quite sure the a200 is just doing a better job of
detailing, but the diff between the two is so,,,so noticeable, i'm
wondering if i'm missing something.
which brings me to the reason for this post...is there a site or
whatever i can share some comparison images for you all learned
photographers to check out to give me a definitive reply? even emailing
the i ages would be ok by me,,,actually prefered because i don't really
want to share publicly online. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2006
Posts: 96
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:53 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
bruin70 DeleteThis @mail.com wrote:
> i'm comparing two cameras i just got,,,lumix fz30 and minolta a200.
>
> it appears quite clearly that the minolta kicks @ss on MY criteria(i am
> shooting artwork). amongst other things, it is sharper BY FAR than the
> fz30 and this is surprising. so i thought maybe if i played around with
> color/contrast etc, certain things might be accentuated and sharp
> detail might get better. i've tried changing both the fz30 image AND
> the a200 image in order to "level the playing field", but there just
> seems to be certain things the a200 can catch that the fz30,,,,and i'm
> talking detail related to brushstroke(this is how i test camera
> details), not color etc(as in one camera emphasizing a hue might show
> more detail than the other)
>
> i am almost quite sure the a200 is just doing a better job of
> detailing, but the diff between the two is so,,,so noticeable, i'm
> wondering if i'm missing something.
>
> which brings me to the reason for this post...is there a site or
> whatever i can share some comparison images for you all learned
> photographers to check out to give me a definitive reply? even emailing
> the i ages would be ok by me,,,actually prefered because i don't really
> want to share publicly online.
DPReview gives a direct comparison of the FZ30 with the
A200 in their review of the FZ30, pages 9 and 10. The
summary says that the FZ30 images are sharper and capture
slightly more detail, but have significantly more noise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 114
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Tiny Tim wrote:
> But an important point about the FZ30 - It is supposed to have a great lens
> and with 8MP should capture a lot of detail but unless you are using the
> lowest ISO setting you will probably be suffering from smearing of detail
> from the noise suppression algorithms so make sure your subject is well
> illuminated and use ISO 80 or whatever the FZ30 has as its lowest option.
> You also need to think about your aperture as too wide can lead to softness
> and too small can be even worse due to diffraction. You should probably go
> for somewhere between f5.6-f8 depending on whether you are towards the wide
> or tele end of the zoom.
this is why i'm surprised at the results. on it's own, the fz is great,
but compared to the a200, it's not close.....
i use both at their lowest iso,,,fz30 = 100, a200 = 80. i am using A at
around f9 or f11 on both. while the a200 is also contrastier, it's not
contrasty,,,and the transitions seem smooth not pixilated the way
contrasting an image will do. the fz is noisier. i am aware of these
things so i try to look beyond them. on a flat red area of paint, the
a200 is picking up cleaner brushstroke.
i don't know, maybe instead of searching for an explanation i should
accept what is. >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2006
Posts: 96
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:03 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
brui....DeleteThis@mail.com wrote:
> this is why i'm surprised at the results. on it's own, the fz is great,
> but compared to the a200, it's not close.....
>
> i use both at their lowest iso,,,fz30 = 100, a200 = 80. i am using A at
> around f9 or f11 on both. while the a200 is also contrastier, it's not
> contrasty,,,and the transitions seem smooth not pixilated the way
> contrasting an image will do. the fz is noisier. i am aware of these
> things so i try to look beyond them. on a flat red area of paint, the
> a200 is picking up cleaner brushstroke.
>
> i don't know, maybe instead of searching for an explanation i should
> accept what is.
Maybe it has to do with the particular cameras you have
and not with the models or your settings ? >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 114
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:34 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 08, 2006
Posts: 54
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:52 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<bruin70 DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote in message
news:1156885757.417161.217460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> i'm comparing two cameras i just got,,,lumix fz30 and minolta a200.
>
> it appears quite clearly that the minolta kicks @ss on MY criteria(i am
> shooting artwork). amongst other things, it is sharper BY FAR than the
> fz30 and this is surprising. so i thought maybe if i played around with
> color/contrast etc, certain things might be accentuated and sharp
> detail might get better. i've tried changing both the fz30 image AND
> the a200 image in order to "level the playing field", but there just
> seems to be certain things the a200 can catch that the fz30,,,,and i'm
> talking detail related to brushstroke(this is how i test camera
> details), not color etc(as in one camera emphasizing a hue might show
> more detail than the other)
>
> i am almost quite sure the a200 is just doing a better job of
> detailing, but the diff between the two is so,,,so noticeable, i'm
> wondering if i'm missing something.
>
> which brings me to the reason for this post...is there a site or
> whatever i can share some comparison images for you all learned
> photographers to check out to give me a definitive reply? even emailing
> the i ages would be ok by me,,,actually prefered because i don't really
> want to share publicly online.
>
If you're satisfied with what it can do and like it otherwise (ergonomics
and other aesthetics), don't second guess yourself, buy the camera that you
find superior. If these cameras can't shoot RAW, and you will fret the
question you're asking here concerning the camera settings, you might want
to look to cameras that do shoot in RAW mode. That's where you level the
playing field, as you say--camera settings are recorded, but in opening RAW
you can edit them as though there were no camera settings, or in addition to
them, if you like.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:26 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
bruin70.DeleteThis@mail.com wrote:
> i'm comparing two cameras i just got,,,lumix fz30 and minolta a200.
>
> it appears quite clearly that the minolta kicks @ss on MY criteria(i
> am shooting artwork). amongst other things, it is sharper BY FAR than
> the fz30 and this is surprising. so i thought maybe if i played
> around with color/contrast etc, certain things might be accentuated
> and sharp detail might get better. i've tried changing both the fz30
> image AND the a200 image in order to "level the playing field", but
> there just seems to be certain things the a200 can catch that the
> fz30,,,,and i'm talking detail related to brushstroke(this is how i
> test camera details), not color etc(as in one camera emphasizing a
> hue might show more detail than the other)
>
> i am almost quite sure the a200 is just doing a better job of
> detailing, but the diff between the two is so,,,so noticeable, i'm
> wondering if i'm missing something.
>
> which brings me to the reason for this post...is there a site or
> whatever i can share some comparison images for you all learned
> photographers to check out to give me a definitive reply? even
> emailing the i ages would be ok by me,,,actually prefered because i
> don't really want to share publicly online.
I'm not sure about the best place to post full original images for free but
you can look at sample results from other people's FZ30s here -
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/panasonic/lumix_dmc_fz30 and of course the test
photos taken on the various review websites such as DPReview and Steve's
Digicams. When I want to post a couple of full rez photos I jsut ftp them to
my website and point people there.
But an important point about the FZ30 - It is supposed to have a great lens
and with 8MP should capture a lot of detail but unless you are using the
lowest ISO setting you will probably be suffering from smearing of detail
from the noise suppression algorithms so make sure your subject is well
illuminated and use ISO 80 or whatever the FZ30 has as its lowest option.
You also need to think about your aperture as too wide can lead to softness
and too small can be even worse due to diffraction. You should probably go
for somewhere between f5.6-f8 depending on whether you are towards the wide
or tele end of the zoom. >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:10 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
bruin70 DeleteThis @mail.com wrote:
> Tiny Tim wrote:
>> But an important point about the FZ30 - It is supposed to have a
>> great lens and with 8MP should capture a lot of detail but unless
>> you are using the lowest ISO setting you will probably be suffering
>> from smearing of detail from the noise suppression algorithms so
>> make sure your subject is well illuminated and use ISO 80 or
>> whatever the FZ30 has as its lowest option. You also need to think
>> about your aperture as too wide can lead to softness and too small
>> can be even worse due to diffraction. You should probably go for
>> somewhere between f5.6-f8 depending on whether you are towards the
>> wide or tele end of the zoom.
>
> this is why i'm surprised at the results. on it's own, the fz is
> great, but compared to the a200, it's not close.....
>
> i use both at their lowest iso,,,fz30 = 100, a200 = 80. i am using A
> at around f9 or f11 on both. while the a200 is also contrastier, it's
> not contrasty,,,and the transitions seem smooth not pixilated the way
> contrasting an image will do. the fz is noisier. i am aware of these
> things so i try to look beyond them. on a flat red area of paint, the
> a200 is picking up cleaner brushstroke.
>
> i don't know, maybe instead of searching for an explanation i should
> accept what is.
According to the review here....
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U21D218AD
or this long version, which will wrap and probably get in a mess....
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-FZ30-vs-Fujif...-FinePi
the FZ30 should go to 80 ISO and that ought to improve on noise. You might
also look at the settings for noise suppression to see if they can be
minimised or turned off completely. >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 157
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:13 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:52:27 -0400
"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y.DeleteThis@buzz.off> wrote:
> <bruin70.DeleteThis@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156885757.417161.217460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > i'm comparing two cameras i just got,,,lumix fz30 and minolta a200.
> >
> > it appears quite clearly that the minolta kicks @ss on MY
> > criteria(i am shooting artwork). amongst other things, it is
> > sharper BY FAR than the fz30 and this is surprising. so i thought
> > maybe if i played around with color/contrast etc, certain things
> > might be accentuated and sharp detail might get better. i've tried
> > changing both the fz30 image AND the a200 image in order to "level
> > the playing field", but there just seems to be certain things the
> > a200 can catch that the fz30,,,,and i'm talking detail related to
> > brushstroke(this is how i test camera details), not color etc(as in
> > one camera emphasizing a hue might show more detail than the other)
> >
> > i am almost quite sure the a200 is just doing a better job of
> > detailing, but the diff between the two is so,,,so noticeable, i'm
> > wondering if i'm missing something.
> >
> > which brings me to the reason for this post...is there a site or
> > whatever i can share some comparison images for you all learned
> > photographers to check out to give me a definitive reply? even
> > emailing the i ages would be ok by me,,,actually prefered because i
> > don't really want to share publicly online.
> >
>
> If you're satisfied with what it can do and like it otherwise
> (ergonomics and other aesthetics), don't second guess yourself, buy
> the camera that you find superior. If these cameras can't shoot RAW,
> and you will fret the question you're asking here concerning the
> camera settings, you might want to look to cameras that do shoot in
> RAW mode. That's where you level the playing field, as you
> say--camera settings are recorded, but in opening RAW you can edit
> them as though there were no camera settings, or in addition to them,
> if you like.
The FZ30 does have a RAW mode. On the other hand, a lot of the images
I've taken with mine look soft. I've just discovered that this camera
is diffraction limited at apertures smaller than f/4. If I entered the
numbers into the applet right, the Airy disk is many times the pixel
size at f/16. The OP might want to try some test shots at f/4 and
larger just to see if the sharpness improves. And please let us know
what you find out.
Paul Allen >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 157
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:38 pm
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 29 Aug 2006 14:55:26 -0700
bruin70.RemoveThis@mail.com wrote:
>
> Tiny Tim wrote:
> > But an important point about the FZ30 - It is supposed to have a
> > great lens and with 8MP should capture a lot of detail but unless
> > you are using the lowest ISO setting you will probably be suffering
> > from smearing of detail from the noise suppression algorithms so
> > make sure your subject is well illuminated and use ISO 80 or
> > whatever the FZ30 has as its lowest option. You also need to think
> > about your aperture as too wide can lead to softness and too small
> > can be even worse due to diffraction. You should probably go for
> > somewhere between f5.6-f8 depending on whether you are towards the
> > wide or tele end of the zoom.
>
> this is why i'm surprised at the results. on it's own, the fz is
> great, but compared to the a200, it's not close.....
>
> i use both at their lowest iso,,,fz30 = 100, a200 = 80. i am using A
> at around f9 or f11 on both. while the a200 is also contrastier, it's
> not contrasty,,,and the transitions seem smooth not pixilated the way
> contrasting an image will do. the fz is noisier. i am aware of these
> things so i try to look beyond them. on a flat red area of paint, the
> a200 is picking up cleaner brushstroke.
According to the calculator here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
both of these cameras will be suffering from diffraction effects at
f/9 or f/11. The 2/3 sensor on the Minolta will do slightly better
than the 1/1.8 on the Panasonic, but they'll both be hurting. Try
comparing them at f/4.
> i don't know, maybe instead of searching for an explanation i should
> accept what is.
Nothing wrong with searching for explanations. That's how we got
all of our understanding of what is. The latest news from molecular
biology is that hippopotomi are closer relatives to whales than to
any other creature, for example. Who would have thought it? And it
all comes from that endless curiosity.
Paul Allen >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 02, 2005
Posts: 3974
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: better detail or just different settings? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 29 Aug 2006 14:55:26 -0700, bruin70.RemoveThis@mail.com wrote:
> this is why i'm surprised at the results. on it's own, the fz is great,
> but compared to the a200, it's not close.....
>
> i use both at their lowest iso,,,fz30 = 100, a200 = 80. i am using A at
> around f9 or f11 on both. while the a200 is also contrastier, it's not
> contrasty,,,and the transitions seem smooth not pixilated the way
> contrasting an image will do. the fz is noisier. i am aware of these
> things so i try to look beyond them. on a flat red area of paint, the
> a200 is picking up cleaner brushstroke.
>
Have you checked the FZ30 to make sure that it focuses accurately?
If not, try rotating a painting slightly so that one side is nearer
and one side further from the camera. Focus on the center, and see
if the brushstroke detail is sharpest in the center or towards one
of the sides of the painting. >> Stay informed about: better detail or just different settings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
