I make it a point to try foods I know I don't like every so often.
Further philosophical musings on why I did this test below (1)
I and a couple of others here concluded from the dpreview test of the
TZ-1 that it's an also ran. (2)
I decided to test that conclusion for a few reasons. (3)
------------------------------
I downloaded some sample images from dpreview and looked/played with them.
First, an iso 1250 image of some coffee beans.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/pages/Coffee.htm
1. The original image - a pretty forgiving subject.
2. After PS - I can't see anything not to like at 7x9" on my screen.
3. Full pixel - A little noise and some lack of crisp detail, but will
it look good on an 8x10 or even 11x14 print?
Next, an iso 1250 image of some coins.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/pages/Coins.htm
1. Original image - Less forgiving, some noise obvious.
2. After Neatimage - Less noise, softer looking.
3. Add PS - Nice and crisp looking, almost no noticeable noise.
Then two full pixel samples of the coins, images in the same order.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/pages/Coinscr1.htm
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/pages/Coinscr2.htm
Neatimage does a nice job on the noise with little detail loss. After PS
work, I wouldn't necessarily use these samples full size, but as part of
a larger image, I don't think they pretty good.
Last, an iso 100 image with subtle fine hair detail.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/pages/Squirrel.htm
1. Full pixel crop - This is "ISO 1250 being pretty lousy .. best saved
for desperation.."?
2. The same crop after some PS processing - Is it just me, or does this
look pretty decent?
3. The original full image. For crop reference.
My personal conclusions so far, as to imaging quality only:
- It's no 5D, but it's also tiny and really inexpensive in comparison.
- It's no F30, but it covers 28-280 mm eq., compared to 36-108 mm.
- The stamp tests and text on dpreview make it seem much worse than it
really seems to be in practical use.
- The Venus III processing and it's "smeary" NR, at least in this
version respond fairly well to post processing to bring back detail and
crispness. Perhaps it actually smears less than it lowers edge contrast?
- With a little care, it is quite capable up to iso 1250 for full frame
web images.
- Great as the F30 is, a shot with the TZ-3 at 280 mm eq. is still
almost certain to be better than an F30 frame cropped to the same
subject area.
I remind myself that the issue isn't this IQ vs. something better, but
vs. no shot at all.
-------------------------------------------------------
Next step, prints.
Moose
(1) Reasons for spending so much time on this foolishness:
- I try to make it a personal practice to test the assumptions in my life.
- As I wrote recently, it's useful to test theory against practice.
- Through several decades of living, I have found that the more often I
revise my ideas and prejudices based on review of their accuracy and
usefulness, the better my life becomes. This applies to photo equipment
as well as the bigger issues of life.
- I really want an excuse to buy a new camera. :-)
- I'll do almost anything to avoid doing my and my late mother's taxes. :-)
-------------------------------------------------------
(2) ScottGee1 wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/
>>
>> Not as bad as it could have been, not as good as one would like.
>>
>> The size, feature, price mix is compelling for a casual use camera. I
>> wonder what that lens could do on a better sensor?
>>
> Thanks for the HU on this. One sentence summed it up for me: "And so
> then, the TZ3 is another fantastic Panasonic camera with a fantastic
> lens that struggles to impress if you look at the images too closely
> because of overblown noise reduction." DOH!
>
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I am sorry, but I think this camera is quite disappointing, besides
> the lack of a viewfinder. One nice part of the noise test is the
> postage stamp so you can see how aggressive the detail smearing is
> with the manufacturers post exposure processing. The gray patches
> don't show that and effectively give a false impression of low noise.
> This camera lacks detail even at base ISO and looks like other
> manufacturers high ISO examples that have been smoothed.
-------------------------------------------------------
(3) Some reasons I decided to do this test.
- I have been a big advocate of low noise for top image quality and I
have been very happy with the results of sticking to that criterion.
However, as in (1) above, I think it important to question my own
accepted knowledge once in a while.
- I think a camera much smaller than the 5D, but with a long zoom range,
would be very useful for me. But there isn't anything like that with
really low noise, especially at higher isos. So I wonder "How bad are they?"
- I've been looking at super-zooms, but really, every time I try them
out in person, I realize that they aren't really pocketable and wonder
how often I would really carry one when not out to take pics. when I
went out to brunch this morning, the F30 was in my jacket pocket. I
didn't happen to use it, but it was there. The TZ-1 packs a long enough
zoom range, and especially wide enough, into a pocketable package.
- Reviewers in general, and dpreview in particular, have been bashing
Panny for some time over the "watercolor" or "smeary" NR in their
digicams. But Panny keeps putting out new ones with similar imaging
quality. Why? What if the little guys whom I so admire for all the help
they provide me in evaluating what cameras to buy don't know everything?
What if the big guys spending lots of money to develop cameras they need
to sell in huge volume actually know something? What if they develop
based on prints and web image quality, rather than pixel peeping? What
if they aren't complete idiots?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|