AG Schnozz wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>
>> Can you indicate an example of an ISO 100 capture that gives you
>> said pain?
>>
>
> I just looked over the samples on deep pee review. There definitely
> is some serious smearing going on. However, let's put a few things
> into perspective.
>
And a slightly different perspective:
400D & Tam 18-250 FZ50
WA 29 35 mm
Tele 400 420 mm
Tele/WA 14 12 x
Wt. Inc. battery 986 734 g
Width 127 141 mm
Height 94 86 mm
Depth 149 142 mm
WxHxD 1,779 1,722 sq. mm
Price 1,250 525 $
This new Tamron got raves in the PopPhoto review.
To my mind, there are two things wrong with the FZ50, IQ and size. For
essentially the same size and 250g more, one may get much higher IQ,
faster operation and decent WA.
Yes, it costs more than twice as much, but you also get all the other
advantages of a real DLSR. You can add a real WA, for example, or a real
macro lens, etc. the viewfinder differences wil boil down to personal
taste. Certainly even a modest SLR viewfinder is better than any EVF yet
made, but live view has some advantage. If you already have a few gb of
CF cards, aas many of us do, you save on card costs, too.
And what about IS? I haven't had time to check, but I'm betting the IQ
of the 400D @ iso 800 is better than the FZ50 @ iso 100, so both have
about the equivalent effective "IS" of three stops or so, but the 400D
"IS" stops subject motion as well as camera motion.
> 1. Final Print. In the final print of almost any REASONABLE print
> size, will you see the smearing? Noise? Probably not. If you crank
> it up to ISO 1600 and shoot in-camera JPEG will a 5x7 print still be
> acceptable? Absolutely.
>
How about iso 1600 and 16x20?
> 2. 10MP Pixel Peeping. Folks, we're pixel-peeping 10MP images. What
> if you downsize the image to 5MP--now compare the noise-smearing to a
> comparable 6MP camera. Chances are, the smearing still yields as
> good if not better images as a native 5MP file. And as related to
> point #1, a 5MP file will enlarge very big.
>
Hmmmm.... Is 10 nice clean mps better than 5 not so clean mps?
> 3. This ain't no substitute for a proper high-end DSLR. If I need to
> shoot a wedding reception at ISO 1600, the FZ50 wouldn't be my first
> choice in cameras as a professional photographer.
>
I suspect a 400D would do the job fairly well, and much better than an FZ50.
> 4. If you are wanting to achieve the best possible image quality on
> the cheep/light, you'd be shooting RAW anyway. Disregard everything
> you see about the in-camera JPEG engine.
>
Ditto, although you certainly could use 400D JPEGs without anywhere near
the compromises - and its RAW is faster.
Not trying to sell anybody on anything, just putting a different
perspective/comparison on it.
For someone concerned with IQ and with a proper allowance and/or a
professional need, the FZ50 - and the Fuji S6000/6500fd - are just too
big and heavy for their other compromises.
I used a C compact DSLR here, rather than an N or ?, simply because I
know more about them, but I assume the comparison would be similar.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|