You are right in thinking that the higher the iso setting, the more noise is generated and the more the in camera processing will apply noise reduction removing detatail. Panasonic cmareas with the Venus III processor like the FZ50 are pretty agressive in this respect producing watercolour like smearing of detail and introducing digital artifacts..
With a DSLR, noise levels at iso400 should be extremely low to start with so detail can be preserved without agressive noise reduction. It will also have better dynamic range giving you scope to reduce the iso value and push it later like you have done with the FZ2 but preserving more details. You can also shoot in raw which also allows better extraction of shadow area details if you are pushing the iso settings. To some extent, the output from the DSLR is dependent on the quality of the lens fitted. The lens on the FZ50 is supposed to be very good, but I am not sure how it rates against comparable DSLR lenses, all I can say is buy the best that you can afford..
There are some very good bargains about for end of run DSLRs at the moment, many can be had with kit lens for under 300. A 6MP DSLR like the Pentax K100D produces almost no noise at iso400..
Malcy.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/setshttp://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome..
You might want to look at other digicams (other than Panasonic) before committing to make the big jump to a DSLR. For serious high-ISO work there are the Fuji F10, F11, F30, F31fd, and now F40fd cameras, but almost ANY other brand would probably give you much better results at high ISO than a Panasonic will...
To answer you questions ( hopefully ) :.
(1) In general it seems that ( on non-DSLRs ) higher pixel count seems to mean higher noise. There are exceptions to every rule of course, but the manufacturers are pushing the sensors to pack more pixels in without waiting for technology improvements to make that practical..
(2) Under all conditions an DSLR sensor will outperform a non-DSLR sensor by a wide margin. This is true regardless of which DSLR you name - the noisiest DSLR is better than the best non-DSLR. As a result of this and other higher quality optical aspects of the DSLR images are cleaner..
Some of the cameras you mention which are not DSLRs do have a RAW mode. You can exploit RAW mode a little by a variation on the technique you yourself described. You keep ISO as low as practical, shoot at a reasonable shutter speed and brighten the image using levels or curves in post processing. Using RAW will give access to more detailed tone curves to start from and sometimes helps produce a better image. If you use RAW you should also use something like NeatImage or NoiseNinja to reduce noise, as RAW image have not had noise removal done in camera as JPEGs do..
IS is a both a pro and a con, as it allows longer shutter speeds in low light, which does not, in itself, produce better images. In the subjects are moving they will blur anyway..
For High ISO work ideally use a DSLR. If you must use a non-DSLR then try either a Fuji F30 ( or F31 ) or Fuji S6000/6500. These cameras have the best sensors for this kind of work..
StephenG.
Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..
Adwb wrote:.
I have a old Panasonic FZ2 wich on a very dull day like today if Ishoot at max zoom =12 times on full auto a tree trunk the camera goesfor iso400/ 2.8 @ 1/8.
I have found that if I fix the ISO at 200 using the sameshutter/speed that the image is much sharper detailed if I zoom in onthe image on the pc than the ISo400 one. The fact that the ISO200image is darker can be rectified later and ther is less noise at ISO200 than at 400. tis detail difference I assume is due to the cameratrying to process out the noise at ISO400.
I think you will find that when you bring the ISO200 shot up to normal brightness in post processing you will end up with about the same noise as taking it at ISO400. That has been my experience..
My questions are :-.
1 if I change to a Panasonic fz30 or 50 [and I only use thesemake/models due to the stabiliser to keep the comparison the same]with the higher pixel count and if I use the same method as abovewill the image detail be any better due to the higher pixels ? .
Using the dpreview data the FZ3 (also 3Mp like your FZ2) had absolute horizontal and vertical LPH of 1200 & 1250 respectively with extinction at 1350 & 1400. The FZ50 has absolute of 1850 & 1800 with extinction at 2400 & 2300 LPH. So the FZ50 will obviously resolve more detail..
The FZ30 and 50 have the advantage of raw. That doesnt lower the noise but bypasses the in-camera noise reduction. With a noise reduction plug-in for a good image editor you can do a lot better job than the cameras noise reduction..
They stuffed too many pixels in a small sensor for current technology for both cameras IMO. That is exacerbated by Panasonics stubbornness in using their own Matsushita sensors, which seem noisier than most. Displayed or printed at the same size as your FZ3 images I dont think you would see much noise difference. If you view them 100% where you have to scroll around to see the picture you will see more noise in the higher pixel cameras. Part of that is because you are effectively blowing up the image along with the noise compared to a lower pixel shot. The other part is that there is more noise..
2 If I change to a stabilised dslr like the pentax k100d with themuch higher pixel count and higher ISO range with the standardsupplied lens if I enlarge the a image of the same tree trunk to thesame size as the Panasonic at full zoom will the detail be as good ordo I need a similar size lens on the DSLR to compaire.?.
The K100D is 6Mp. If you use 2X digital zoom or crop so you get the same area you are using only 1.5Mp of the sensor. You obviously lose detail. You are always better off with an optical telephoto than trying to get the same frame with cropping..
You will get better handheld photos of your tree trunk with stabilization that with high ISO using a Fuji. Simon is reporting 3 stops for the more effective stabilization systems in his reviews and I find that fairly close. So the shot you can handhold at ISO400 with stabilization requires ISO3200 without stabilization. I think you will find the ISO400 shot more satisfactory with most cameras. Of course high ISO blows stabilization away when shooting something in motion...
Adwb wrote:.
Morning, I have a couple of questions that have been bothering me andI can't seem to find a answer in the previous postings on forums..
I have a old Panasonic FZ2 wich on a very dull day like today if Ishoot at max zoom =12 times on full auto a tree trunk the camera goesfor iso400/ 2.8 @ 1/8.
I have found that if I fix the ISO at 200 using the sameshutter/speed that the image is much sharper detailed if I zoom in onthe image on the pc than the ISo400 one. The fact that the ISO200image is darker can be rectified later and ther is less noise at ISO200 than at 400. tis detail difference I assume is due to the cameratrying to process out the noise at ISO400.
My questions are :-.
1 if I change to a Panasonic fz30 or 50 [and I only use thesemake/models due to the stabiliser to keep the comparison the same]with the higher pixel count and if I use the same method as abovewill the image detail be any better due to the higher pixels ? .
2 If I change to a stabilised dslr like the pentax k100d with themuch higher pixel count and higher ISO range with the standardsupplied lens if I enlarge the a image of the same tree trunk to thesame size as the Panasonic at full zoom will the detail be as good ordo I need a similar size lens on the DSLR to compaire.?.
I hope this makes sense to you..
Well, I hate to say, but it doesn't. That leads me to conclude you don't have a clue about cameras. That's fine and is what this Forum is for..
Your confusion is a result of camera manufacturers not wanting you to know TOO much. Confused buyers make financially happy vendors..
Mostly, what they don't want you to know is that the most important factor to achieve high IQ is having big photosites. Photosites is probably not a term you use much. A photosite is a single, tiny spot on a sensor that detects light and converts it to an electrical signal. A 3 mega-pixel sensor has about 3,000,000 of these photosites. There are two ways to get big photosites: 1) make the entire sensor BIG and 2) divide the sensor into fewer photosites..
If you exaggerate these approaches, #1 gives you a HUGE, EXPENSIVE camera and #2 gives you a single pixel with awesome IQ! So, these need to be applied with reason and restraint..
These two factors are NOT mutually exclusive, so it's possible and desirable to apply both rules simultaneously. What you want is:.
1. As big a sensor as you can afford...2. Divided into as few pixels as you can stand....
Some generalized facts:Panasonic = Matsushita = NMOS sensors = high noise..
Fuji = SuperCCD sensors = low noise. Not all Fuji cams use Fuji SuperCCD sensosr.Small sensor = more noise.Any small sensor camera that appears to have low noise has NR applied.Big MP = more noise..
Any big MP camera that appears to have lower noise than an equivalent small MP camera has NR applied.Big sensors cost more than big MP and NR...combined..
The K100D will produce better pix than the FZ30/50. Not even a close contest. The K100D has a sensor that is about 8X larger and it has 68% more pixels (FZ50), thus the photosites are about 13.5X bigger..
HTH....
Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..
Short answer - the larger the sensor size the better the image quality..
There is such a large gap between P & S sensor size and DSLRs that there is no contest between the two even comparing the best P & S and the worst DSLR..
In perfect conditions you will get a very acceptable A4 print from a P & S but in anything less the difference between the P & S and DSLR will be readily discernable.Chris Elliott.
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..
Chuxter wrote:.
Adwb wrote:.
Morning, I have a couple of questions that have been bothering me andI can't seem to find a answer in the previous postings on forums..
I have a old Panasonic FZ2 wich on a very dull day like today if Ishoot at max zoom =12 times on full auto a tree trunk the camera goesfor iso400/ 2.8 @ 1/8.
I have found that if I fix the ISO at 200 using the sameshutter/speed that the image is much sharper detailed if I zoom in onthe image on the pc than the ISo400 one. The fact that the ISO200image is darker can be rectified later and ther is less noise at ISO200 than at 400. tis detail difference I assume is due to the cameratrying to process out the noise at ISO400.
My questions are :-.
1 if I change to a Panasonic fz30 or 50 [and I only use thesemake/models due to the stabiliser to keep the comparison the same]with the higher pixel count and if I use the same method as abovewill the image detail be any better due to the higher pixels ? .
2 If I change to a stabilised dslr like the pentax k100d with themuch higher pixel count and higher ISO range with the standardsupplied lens if I enlarge the a image of the same tree trunk to thesame size as the Panasonic at full zoom will the detail be as good ordo I need a similar size lens on the DSLR to compaire.?.
I hope this makes sense to you..
Well, I hate to say, but it doesn't. That leads me to conclude youdon't have a clue about cameras. That's fine and is what this Forumis for..
Your confusion is a result of camera manufacturers not wanting you toknow TOO much. Confused buyers make financially happy vendors..
Mostly, what they don't want you to know is that the most importantfactor to achieve high IQ is having big photosites. Photosites isprobably not a term you use much. A photosite is a single, tiny spoton a sensor that detects light and converts it to an electricalsignal. A 3 mega-pixel sensor has about 3,000,000 of thesephotosites. There are two ways to get big photosites: 1) make theentire sensor BIG and 2) divide the sensor into fewer photosites..
If you exaggerate these approaches, #1 gives you a HUGE, EXPENSIVEcamera and #2 gives you a single pixel with awesome IQ! So, theseneed to be applied with reason and restraint..
These two factors are NOT mutually exclusive, so it's possible anddesirable to apply both rules simultaneously. What you want is:.
1. As big a sensor as you can afford...2. Divided into as few pixels as you can stand....
Some generalized facts:Panasonic = Matsushita = NMOS sensors = high noise..
Actually nMOS is the 4/3rds chip and relatively low noise.
What you are probably struggling to describe is the Panasonic CCD that is used in the superzoom cameras.
Fuji = SuperCCD sensors = low noise. Not all Fuji cams use FujiSuperCCD sensosr.Small sensor = more noise.Any small sensor camera that appears to have low noise has NR applied.Big MP = more noise.Any big MP camera that appears to have lower noise than an equivalentsmall MP camera has NR applied.Big sensors cost more than big MP and NR...combined..
The K100D will produce better pix than the FZ30/50. Not even a closecontest. The K100D has a sensor that is about 8X larger and it has68% more pixels (FZ50), thus the photosites are about 13.5X bigger..
HTH....
Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/.
Riley.
I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..
Rriley wrote:.
Chuxter wrote:.
Panasonic = Matsushita = NMOS sensors = high noise..
Actually nMOS is the 4/3rds chip and relatively low noisewhat you are probably struggling to describe is the Panasonic CCDthat is used in the superzoom cameras.
I didn't struggle as much as you supposed. I was just confused and wrong..
Ar my age, "Confused Happens...".
Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..