At 11:44 PM 2/4/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>I looked seriously at the FZ20 when it came out. Mighty attractive camera.
>
>You got the IS and the lens speed, about a 4.5 stop advantage. On the
>other hand, the FZ20 get real noisy real fast over iso 100.
It's interesting that you were actually considering one of these since
you'd already moved up to a D-SLR.
Yes, it's got typical digicam weaknesses. I have not shot above ISO 100
and don't really intend to or much need to with the IS feature.
I did mention the IS feature, didn't I? <g>
>Unfortunately, the dpreview reviews don't have comparable images for the
>2 cameras at higher isos. Looking at what they do have, I'd say the 300D
>is less noisy at iso 1600 than the FZ20 at 400, giving me back about 2.5
>stops, maybe more in a practical sense, as dpreview says "It is
>fortunate that the image stabilisation system and F2.8 lens mean you can
>stay away from ISO 400 most of the time when using the FZ20; this much
>noise is difficult to remove with even the most sophisticated software
>tools." 300D iso 1600 responds rather well to noise removal.
>Where the rubber meets the road at the long end, I think my combo is a
>bit better; should be, it cost more! Here's a comparison of a moon shot
>I happen to have taken a couple of months ago and the one dpreview used
>to illustrate a problem with the FZ20 at the long end. In some ways not
>a truly perfect comparison, as my shot was right at the horizon. You can
>see the atmospheric 'waves' along the edge and they likely reduce
>resolution of the surface. On the other hand, the fact that the
>distortions are clearly visible is an example of resolution in itself.
>Because of the higher number of pixels, the 300D image is a little
>bigger than the FX20, which is also an advantage
><http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/CRW_0788mont.jpg>.
Geesh, I wish you'd taken this challenge to heart, Moose. ;^)
Seriously, interesting photo comparison. Don't really know what to make of
it. You've got a gorgeous image there.
The FZ20 lens tends to beat up the digicam competition for sharpness, noise
be damned. Matsushita seems to have decided to deliver everything the lens
has got. I like that decision.
Things that I don't really like about the FZ20: 1) chinzy feel, especially
after using the upper end Oly dc's (but I'm getting over it), 2) no RAW
support, 3) TIFF always produces a low rez jpg too, which is annoying and
useless to me, though write times are very fast, 4) teleconverter add-ons
(by Leica I presume) cost as much as the camera, 5) no wireless remote and
wired remote is an accesssory (which I will need), and 6) no AE lock
(although manual mode is very easy and nice to use).
With this camera I'm able to capture images such as I have never been able
to capture before even with a tripod, which I have yet to use with
it. Here is one of my first images:
http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/UIHCtower.jpg
100% view:
http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/UIHCtower100.jpg
This is possible because of IS. I did mention that, didn't I? <gg>
There is some noise in the sky which is evident at 100%. It looks about
like the grain in a Velvia slide. I can live with it.
Enjoy your Tamron!
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
