Our DMC-LZ50 samples are now up, see:

http://dpnow.com/2836.html

We have also compared the new FZ50 with last year's DMC-LX1 to see if Panasonic's bold claims regarding improved image noise suppression thanks to the latest Venus Engine III image processor LSI are confirmed. We think the results are very interesting.

And we're very interested to know what you think, too - please post your comments here!

Ian

Panasonic Lumix DM- LZ50 image samples from DPNow

I am not an owner of a digital camera, but started vieiwing in 2000 too purchase for my daughters. First one purchased, Olympus 4040 in 2001. Second one was last year, a Kodak. Final decision was theirs. I have been learning from various web sites and still leaning towards the Pano for myself.

Now, I base my decision on clarity. The FZ50 at 400 is more pleasing to the eye than the LX1 at 400 ISO.

I disagree with your comment about the window slats. Just looking at the slats and balcony components as a whole, the FZ50 is much clearer, it is just the LX1 has a more deeper colour, but with more noise. I like the softer look with better detail of the FZ50.

Thanks to Andrew McP at dpreview forum, I now know about your web site. By the way, you call it a LZ50 instead of FZ50. Is that a typo?

Thanks.

Mico, you are welcome here at DPNow!

Youa re absolutely right; our error, it's FZ50, not 'LZ50' and this has now been corrected - sorry for any confusion!

Ian

Right on time! I am avidly checking cameras (dig). Have gotten it down to Fz 50 and K100 D Pentax. I realize these are two different systems and both are pre-production, but each seems to be the best in its field, price, etc. Your review is the only one I have seen on the FZ 50.

Hi Charles and welcome to DPNow!

I wouldn't say this is a review and to be honest it frustrates me to read what some other people are saying on other sites about the samples I have provided. I literally had one morning to use the FZ50 and this naturally limits the the repertoire of shots, hence the small gallery. But the conditions were most testing, with bright direct sunshine and shaded scenes.

The samples I provided are really only provided to add some additional material to the melting pot and are certainly not meant to be definitive.

One thing I am adamant about, though, is that folks should spend more time looking at printed results rather than pixel peep on a monitor screen.

As for the Pentax DSLR versus the FZ50; the former will always be bigger and bulkier, especially with an equivalent to a 35-420 zoom lens as fast as the FZ50's. Although the FZ50 has ten megapixels, I'm yet to be convinced you get ten megapixels worth of usable resolution, especially at the higher ISOs.

It's a tough call, but with the right lens fitted, the Pentax should produce the better images, but if you are mainly printing 6x4s or A4 (10x8 approx) max, there may not be a huge difference to speak of.

I'd be very keen to know what your eventual decision is

Ian

Ian,

> Youa re absolutely right; our error, it's FZ50, not 'LZ50'
> and this has now been corrected - sorry for any confusion!

Unfortunately, you've changed it to 'Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1' -- not FZ50.

Dick

> Ian,

> Unfortunately, you've changed it to 'Panasonic Lumix
> DMC-L1' -- not FZ50.

> Dick

Yes, it's been one of those days - now corrected (fingers crossed!).

Ian

On other discussion sites people still insist on pixel-peeping by examining
tiny areas of the image on-screen at 100% and, guess what, they don't like
what they see. This is why I decided to print the shots and view them that
way.

On a more interesting point, there was a comment that some of the shots had
a 'painted' feel to them which was attributed to the noise reduction. I
think this is a fair comment.

As I said in the article, going to ten megapixels is a strategy I would not
have voted for and I must say I wonder what a 6 megapixel FZ50 would be like
mated to the Venus Engine III.

Ian

Hi Ian,

> On other discussion sites people still insist on
> pixel-peeping by examining
> tiny areas of the image on-screen at 100% and, guess what,
> they don't like
> what they see. This is why I decided to print the shots
> and view them that
> way.

I appreciate your perspective, but unfortunately times have changed.

a) People print less. In the film days, printing was the only way to view your image, now I'd say most people view on a computer
b) People are less selective about composition nowadays. Most people seem to crop after the fact rather than take the time to compose properly so per pixel clarity may be very important. important.

Also,

c) Venus III was touted as being able to separate chroma NR and luminance NR. So far no indication that image quality has improved significantly since the last release. I wish they had included a separate chroma NR function and a separate luminance NR function.
I agree about your 6MP and Venuse III engine. Even if they stuck with the old 8MP sensor, I'm sure results would have been excellent.

I am not surprised that folks aren't happy.

George

Hi George,

> Hi Ian,

> I appreciate your perspective, but unfortunately times
> have changed.

> a) People print less. In the film days, printing was the
> only way to view your image, now I'd say most people view
> on a computer

I appreciate where you are coming from, but in this instance, the logic doesn't add up 100%. I accept the people print less. But no electronic viewing devices can do justice to the image content like a print can unless you view very selectively. My advice to anyone who doesn't print, try it and rediscover one's photography.

> b) People are less selective about composition nowadays.
> Most people seem to crop after the fact rather than take
> the time to compose properly so per pixel clarity may be
> very important. important.

I think that's less so with a camera like the FZ50, which is equipped with such a long (and stabilised) zoom lens. It doesn't take much to get out of the habit of poor framing when taking a photograph.

> Also,

> c) Venus III was touted as being able to separate chroma
> NR and luminance NR. So far no indication that image
> quality has improved significantly since the last release.

Well, there I must really disagree strongly. The printed image quality of the FZ50 versus the LX1 at ISO 400, for example, is very clearly superior in most departments, as far as I am concerned. Where the FZ30 was borderline usable at ISO 400 without post-processing, the FZ50 is very competent. I'd expect even better results with RAW file conversion.

> I wish they had included a separate chroma NR function and
> a separate luminance NR function.

That would have been nice, agreed.

> I agree about your 6MP and Venuse III engine. Even if they
> stuck with the old 8MP sensor, I'm sure results would have
> been excellent.

For me, even 8MP is over doing it at this size of CCD. But given that Panasonic chose this strategy, I'm reasonably impressed with what they have achieved.

> I am not surprised that folks aren't happy.

I think people are expecting too much from the sensor size. If one is really sensitive about absolute image quality in the way that many critics of the FZ50 samples seem to be, then they should be buying DSLRs instead.

> George

And by the way George, welcome to DPNow - hope we will hear from you more in the future

Ian

Hi Ian,
I like your idea and presentation of the printed versions of the samples. It does put more emphasis on the final products of out craft.....the print or the monitor screen....and I guess we could add projection, though I have never seen a projected digital image (I do have a friend that does that for undewater safety seminars, but I haven't seen one). Out of those three, the print will make the most use out of the resolution and image data at normal viewing sizes. All of the final product processes do tend to equalize the differences in various ways, so it is good to look there to see if an upgrade for image quality will deliver. Now, if you are upgrading for camera features and handling, that is another kind of fish.....
Bob

Hi Ian,

> I appreciate where you are coming from, but in this
> instance, the logic doesn't add up 100%. I accept the
> people print less. But no electronic viewing devices can
> do justice to the image content like a print can unless
> you view very selectively. My advice to anyone who doesn't
> print, try it and rediscover one's photography.

I don't disagree with that there's something special about having prints. My point is simply that the electronic medium is more dominant now than printed medium, so for manufacturers when making trade-offs, should keep that in mind.

> I think that's less so with a camera like the FZ50, which
> is equipped with such a long (and stabilised) zoom lens.
> It doesn't take much to get out of the habit of poor
> framing when taking a photograph.

I'm speaking to trends(bad habits) rather than limitations of the camera. How can anyone not fill the frame with the FZ50. When I had the UZI, each shot was up close and personal . I just don't understand why they would go with 10 MP then. If they stuck with 8 MP and just made each pixel better. It would have printed just as well and would have been more usable in a wider variety of scenarios. Bigger buffer. Quicker reponse (less processing per image). Less post production to reduce noise and etc.

> Well, there I must really disagree strongly. The printed
> image quality of the FZ50 versus the LX1 at ISO 400, for
> example, is very clearly superior in most departments, as
> far as I am concerned. Where the FZ30 was borderline
> usable at ISO 400 without post-processing, the FZ50 is
> very competent. I'd expect even better results with RAW
> file conversion.

I tried the FZ30 in Silkypix when the 30 came out and it was decent. I have yet to see the 50 in RAW so I will take you on your word that its better than the 30. I still think Venus III is getting a bad rap for a noisy sensor. That's too bad.

> That would have been nice, agreed.

> For me, even 8MP is over doing it at this size of CCD. But
> given that Panasonic chose this strategy, I'm reasonably
> impressed with what they have achieved.
> I think people are expecting too much from the sensor
> size. If one is really sensitive about absolute image
> quality in the way that many critics of the FZ50 samples
> seem to be, then they should be buying DSLRs instead.

While I think they did what they could with the sensor they chose, I don't like their choice to focus on the MP wars. I hope they end up releasing an FZ35, a little brother to the FZ50, kind of an FZ30 on steroids. I know that won't happen though.

> And by the way George, welcome to DPNow - hope we will
> hear from you more in the future

Thanks. Often times I don't have much to contribute, but if I do, you'll hear from me

George

Thank you very much for all these shots with FZ50. I am really impressed with Panasonic's effort to improve high ISO performance. Results of FZ50 are much much better than FZ30. Quite recently I was to recommend to my friend a digital camera. And I told him: "Panasonic was not on my short list because of its only one but very important shortcoming: noise. Everything in Panasonic cameras looks great but their's high ISO is one bad apple that spoils the whole barrel". Now I will write to him again saying that Panasonic finally made something with its Achilles' heel.
The only request to you: take some additional photos with FZ50 (when possible) in low light condintions. High ISO behaves often well in good light and bad in low.
Thanks again
Jacek Kwasniewski, Warsaw, Poland

Hi
Finally FZ50 and other Pana models were announced in our market as well today . Many were arguing here the introduction could be around the end of Aug or early Sept. I do not quite understand why with a few-day delay. IMHO it would be easier for me to understand when the announcement had been made either at the same time as other markets or, conversely, with a-few-month delay.
Maybe Pana have only several production models for presentation?
yoshi

Hi Jacek, I was able to visit the very nice city of Krakow last year - thoroughly enjoyed the place.

I get the feeling that opinion is split with people like yourself very pleased with the results the FZ50 is showing and others feeling that Panasonic has gone too far with the noise reduction, affecting fine details in the images.

I think it is fascinating that opinion has been polarised like this.

Ian

Hi Yoshi, I'd be very interested to know what the Japanese public feel about the various FZ50 image samples that are available (not just mine).

Ian

Hi Bob - interested to know what you think of the FZ50 image quality so far

Ian

I couldn't be more dissapointed. The ISO 200 pictures (see the forest background) seem like a watercolor paint. The same for the man trousers. I own an Oly-8080 (2/3" sensor, 8 MP) still with a decent ISO 50-400 range. It is a pity to see how the manufactures who aren't still able to improve the sensor performance, simply package more pixels... more *theoretical* pixels, because if you downsize the 10 megapixel ISO 400 picture down to 2 Megapixel, it is still bellow the 100 ISO counterpart in resolution terms. Needless to say that ISO 400-1600 pictures colour saturation is really poor (see the red areas, for example). In fact, even ISO 200 starts to decrease the colour saturation. It is impossible to reduce the chroma noise without afecting the colour information, were it venus III or venus XXX engine. I repeat... a disaster of camera. Even at ISO 100 the image is similar to Canon 350 at ISO 1600... Please Panasonic, why not a 4 *GOOD* megapixel camera? I saw pretty good FZ-10 pictures. That was a tiny sensor camera... FZ-50 sensor is bigger, and most persons which are each day far away from buying a FZ-xx would have changed their opinion if the image quality were improved (not destroyed) since FZ-10 times. I'm about to cry...

Talking for and against could be endless. I'll take these Ian's shots to my favourite lab to make really big prints, i.e. 16x24. In a few days I will be able to send to all of you my opinion based on what I can see on these prints.
Jacek Kwasniewski, Warsaw, Poland

Hi Carlos,

Do you use your Olympus C-8080 from JPEGs or via RAW? The 8080 has a sightly larger sensor than the 1/1.8 inch chip Panasonic uses, so the photosites in the FZ50 are going to be considerably smaller.

Also, have you only evaluated the FZ50 samples on-screen or have you tried printing them?

I'm very interested to know

Ian

I think the pixel peeping, as often called, isn't only to decide if this camera takes good shots but is away to compare it to its only direct competiton, the Fz30. I.e. is there a reason to upgrade or which of the two should be bought. I am in the latter boat myself. I.e one would hope the Fz50 can do better than its predecessor and so far from sample shots I would have to say the advantage lies with the FZ30. However the Fz30 is undergoing serious pricegouging as it is slowly sold out everywhere(unless you want a silver one heh.)

My take is that is is a sad day for the ulktrazooms as there isn't anything on the marketplace and may not be for awhile.

Why not the FZ30
My take on that is that photography for me is a hobby and thus it is for fun and personal enjoyment/taste so the color should be one you like, if it is available, at one time black was rofl. I.e. I would never pick between two competing products based on color, and only performance would matter. But if indeed between the same model/make of camera two colors are offered I certaintly would insist on the one I prefer in a hobby. Otherwise makes as much sense as buying something extravagant like a sports car in a color you don't like heh. Of course, the fact that black isn't availble from any reputable resellerratings compaines isn't the only reason, is also because of the price gouging that is occurring with the black model having jumped from 474 to 519 to 539. I simply am unwilling to pay "extra" for a year old model of camera if anything prices should have came down as paying an extra ammount should certaintly be reserved for those people that demand having a camera as soon as it comes out and of course not even then as paying extra should always be reserved for getting extra.

Why not the Fz50:
From the samples not just here but on the Panasonic sample page it looks like the Fz30 was a better camera than the Fz50 as far as picture quality. The price on it is listed as 650 and who wants to pay more for less?

The theorectical FZ50 good:
Picture Quality ..maybe:
Ten megapixel 1/1.8" CCD
Venus Engine III image processor

Outise of theorectival picture quality FZ50 good:
Better battery life... if its true heh

Fz30 Simply better because of the FZ50 having:
TIFF file format dropped (RAW remains)
Slower continuous shooting (from 3 to 2 fps, max images from 7 to 5 in standard) OUCH
Lower resolution LCD monitor (from 230,000 to 207,000 pixels) OUCH

I personally don't really care:
16:9 movie record mode (848 x 480 pixels)
Scene modes adjusted
Sensitivity up to ISO 1600 at full size, ISO 3200 (upsampled) ... usuable probably the same as Fz30
TTL Flash hot-shoe
Support for SDHC cards (SD greater than 2 GB)
'SilkyPix Developer Studio' for RAW conversion

If I seem foul mooded it is simply because my research was a waste of time heh. Unless the Fz50 does some turn around and can actually deliver considerable picture quality of the FZ30, then there isn't squat on the market IMHO.

Actually I'm a web designer and this type of camera does many things for my specific needs:

1. On a personal basis; if the prints are good then I'm a happy person.

2. I will be downsizing the photos for web work anyway, and have found with the examples that this works VERY well and produces great results (even the forest/flower picture mentioned earlier).

The only caveat is the lack of finite detail in the hair of the market vendor. This makes it seem more muddied than it should. But considering that I would need to spend the same amount of money for the BODY only version of a DSLR and then pay at least the same amount again for a comparable lense, I see a real value here.

To pay twice as much to get 25% better rendering makes no sense.

However, the real competition I see is the $250.00 more expensive (list) camera from Sony (Sony DSC-R1). Here you have a better lense/photo combination because of the larger sensor, but a less usable zoom range (5X vs. 12X). It depends on what level of quality you need vs. the zoom magnification.

Just my two cents....

Jonathan

Actually I'm a web designer and this type of camera does many things for my specific needs:
Right, but can other cameras and even do so better? For example what needs does the FZ50 fill that the FZ30 does not do so even better?

1. On a personal basis; if the prints are good then I'm a happy person.
To some degree that can be said for me, the end result is what it looks like when Acdsee resizes the photo to fit to my monitor and what what 8.5 x11 prints looks like. Of course the ability to print larger if the shot is exceptional is always nice.

2. I will be downsizing the photos for web work anyway, and have found with the examples that this works VERY well and produces great results (even the forest/flower picture mentioned earlier).
But does it do a better job than even cheaper or older cameras, if so then why it?

The only caveat is the lack of finite detail in the hair of the market vendor. This makes it seem more muddied than it should. But considering that I would need to spend the same amount of money for the BODY only version of a DSLR and then pay at least the same amount again for a comparable lense, I see a real value here.
Indeed getting 420 focal length for a dslr is going to be expensive.

To pay twice as much to get 25% better rendering makes no sense.
Exactly.

However, the real competition I see is the $250.00 more expensive (list) camera from Sony (Sony DSC-R1). Here you have a better lense/photo combination because of the larger sensor, but a less usable zoom range (5X vs. 12X). It depends on what level of quality you need vs. the zoom magnification.
Not competition in my book as I certaintly want the 420mm and will have to get an adapter on after that to have the ability to get more range. From my slr film days I learned the importance of tele.

great job .

How could you do this so fast ?

I just shocked how fast you guys could do it , to post this here .

Well I just appreciate it and decide to buy this FZ50? in sep in the US , right?

I was thinking of buying an available model now or waiting until I see this FZ50 , and now confirm to wait to sep.

Thanks alot for helping me decide it and this is a great site.

I came across this so called problem with the Panasonic FZ30 earlier this year while deciding on a superzoom or DSLR. Looking at either the FZ30 or FZ50`s pictures at 100% your first thought is `wow, that`s bad` but the FZ30 performs some sort of miracle because viewed normally at screen size it`s top notch and printed output is amazing, razor sharp with beautiful colour. The other superb thing about the FZ30 is that the prints contained NO jaggies at all. The edges of straight lines & curves were very clean and without any colour bleeding.
Viewing pictures at 100% from cameras can be a fatal mistake for judging a camera. I would certainly choose a camera that viewed bad at 100% and printed beautifully rather than vice versa. You may want to print those pictures one day in the future!
I can only conclude the FZ50 will have the same characteristics. Going from 8mp to 10mp is`nt really going to bring a noticable difference but it sounds better when you say it`s 10mp.
I went for a DSLR in the end because of cleaner high iso performance but the FZ30 is a mighty impressive camera as should be the FZ50.
Included link that shows what the FZ30 is capable of in the right hands. Approx 300 pics

http://http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/462956/1/53196603/Large&prev=/language_tools_br__br_Copy

There is a lot of difference in area from a 1/1.8" sensor (38 mm2) and a 2/3" one (58 mm2), as well as the fact of a 20% less resolution in the C-8080.

I must confess that I usually only saw my photos in the LCD (Dell FP2001). Some "average" print services show less dynamic range (more area in shadows or burnt) compared to a good quality LCD (many LCDs aren't good enough).

Note that Apple 30 inches LCD (and future ones will have even better resolution for an affordable price, it is a matter of time) allows to show 2560x1600 pixels (4 Megapixels). A 3840x2400 LCD (nowadays only prototipes) will have 9 Megapixels. In the future, pixels will matter and specially GOOD pixels at 100%; next SED display generation will in fact reach/outperform print quality, including in terms of colour gamut.

Note that for a 4x6" print a simple 2 megapixels crop from is enough. Small or medium prints don't explode the full potential... the better your photos appear at 100% in the monitor, the better they'll appear in the next devices. Print paper is not an ecological nor the best future high-quality media.

I prefer a 5 true megapixel camera with 5 good true megapixels, instead of a 10 megapixel camera plenty of noise and noise removal artifacts. I usually shot jpeg (C-8080 is slow in raw) but C-8080 jpeg files do have already a strong noise reduction in ISO 50 (if you compare a raw file converted with no noise reduction with dcraw, with a raw file converted with the same tool from a DSLR, the C-8080 ISO-50 is like ISO-400 on a Canon EOS). However, are pretty usable, even seen at 100% (except in the darkest areas). I prefer not to think how FZ-50 raw files will appear at ISO 100... (I insist: converted with dcraw -w, without noise reduction, the ONLY recommended test to compare sensor performance).

Needless to say the meaning of "true" resolution. The FZ cameras have a good optics (from the reviews) with an acceptable amount of aberrations in trade for their ambition.

If you compare a DSLR kit lense with a more expensive one, then you understand the meaning of "resolution". A 6 megapixel DSLR with a good lens clearly outperforms a 10 megapixel one with the kit lens. You see more detail indeed. Kit lenses may improve when stopped down, but some seem to need to be stopped down even beyond the recomended limits (the difraction limit).

Most consumer cameras with 8-10 megapixel have in fact less resolution than good 5-6 megapixel cameras (the fujifilm F10/30 is a clear example, probably the highest-resolution compact camera with only 6 megapixels -despite its strong purple fringing-). People is paying for the pixels... the same pixels that destroy the pictures (with noise and their artifacts) to get simply less "true" pixels.

Very annoying, indeed...

I am new to this forum, actually new to this site, but I am pretty well known on other boards. I am 54 years old, retired and was also a professional photographer for many years, it was not my profession, it was more of a serious hobby that I made a few extra dollars at doing. I bought a Sony FD71 a few years back, it was fine but I was waiting till digital caught up with film. It has not done so, but I am not that picky as I use to be. I almost went for a DSLR, but remember how much I have invested in the film system I have and lugging around lenses, I just did not want to go through all of that for my hobby now. I was about to purchase the FZ20 when the FZ30 was released so I opted for the black model FZ30. Professionals always pick black body models because I have see reflections come of the silver ones. Still after getting the FZ30, I loved the camera and that lens, what a perfect lens. I have taken many pictures with it. I did not notice that much noise at ISO 400 as some did, there are ways around all of that, but still my point is that when I read about the FZ50, I was amazed that Pana did not go for a larger sensor. The worked so hard to get the noise levels down on the 11/8" sensor and did apparently a pretty decent job, but to drop the pixel level on the LCD, take out TIFF and make it slower at rapid shooting, well I do not see that much of a difference that I would jump out and purchase the FZ50. To me they took out some important stuff that I like. I think they did a very good job at the noise reduction, it looks like to me that you can go to ISO 800 now with a pretty good picture and for those low lighters out there this will be good. I would not hesitate to buy the FZ50 if I did not have the FZ30, but I am perfectly satisfied with my FZ30. Neat image takes care of most problem noise levels I have encountered which were very few to be honest. I think the FZ series of cameras are the best for what they can do on the market. Yes, a DSLR is better but a lot more expensive just for the body, and then there are the lenses. I like the job you did on the comparisons of the ISO on the FZ50. I have to admit I looked at the L1 DSLR ISO comparisons with the larger sensor and I think the FZ50 actually compares nicely with it, in fact in some cases out does it. The both have the Venus III and yet the L1 did not do a better job than the FZ50. That is curious, but I really do not like the L1 at all, it looks like a old 1970's rangefinder 35mm camera. I know you should not go by looks but it is a boxy ugly camera and I would have not gone for the "live Image" which I find not that useful. Pana should have just used the FZ30/50 body and made it into a DSLR, but that is my personal preference. I enjoy your website,javascript:emoticon(':)');
(smile) and I enjoy reading the forums, you have a lot of very knowledgable people on here. I will be back. javascript:emoticon('t-up');
(thumbs up)

> Hi Bob - interested to know what you think of the FZ50
> image quality so far

> Ian
HI Ian,
Considering the itsy bitsy pixels, I think they have done quite amazing things. The noise issue aside, I expected to see the tonal and color gradients to be harsher than they appear and your samples from high contrast light were a good test of that. I suspect that as the photo sites get smaller, as in film with finer grain, we are looking at usefulness becoming limited to the lower ISOs.
One idea that I saw offered on another forum about the double digit MPs was to simply choose a lower resolution. The unanswered question is what the image quality does in each camera/sensor/processor when that is done. If you print no bigger than A4 or 10X8 and need only 5 or 6 MP to do it, will in-camera reduced resolution be as good or better than PP resizing? Where processing smears detail in NR, are there any work arounds?
Bob

> HI Ian,
> Considering the itsy bitsy pixels, I think they have done
> quite amazing things. The noise issue aside, I expected to
> see the tonal and color gradients to be harsher than they
> appear and your samples from high contrast light were a
> good test of that. I suspect that as the photo sites get
> smaller, as in film with finer grain, we are looking at
> usefulness becoming limited to the lower ISOs.
> One idea that I saw offered on another forum about the
> double digit MPs was to simply choose a lower resolution.
> The unanswered question is what the image quality does in
> each camera/sensor/processor when that is done. If you
> print no bigger than A4 or 10X8 and need only 5 or 6 MP to
> do it, will in-camera reduced resolution be as good or
> better than PP resizing? Where processing smears detail in
> NR, are there any work arounds?
> Bob

As a graphic artist, as well as an enthusiast, I rather reduce the larger photo down to whatever size I need. This will assure me of the greatest clarity and with judicious sharpening can actually improve a photograph (especially onscreen).

But theoretically it should allow better photographs as you are using more photosites on the sensor for more detail because of the reduced pixel count. That is if the firmware is smart enough to apply the 'extra' pixels to detail rendering operations.

Jonathan

I should have said that I would rather reduce the larger photograph that I had taken.... by using a graphics program RATHER than reduce resolution on the camera.

Forgive the ambiguity.

Jonathan

Johnathan,
I tend to agree with you, but as the MPs become double digit, it might be worth exploring. If the camera does the downsizing from the RAW file, it could be an interesting comparison. I don't think I'd do this for other than snap shots, but 10.2MP reduced to 5 or 6MPs would still have the juice to print A4 or 10" X 8", if desired. If this improved the noise profile at higher ISOs then it would be a good trade with less PP for those party shots....
Bob

Hi Ian,
The arguments here at some sites I looked into must be, I imagine, basically similar to other parts of the globe. Both pros and cons. The main issues are seemingly trade offs between slower fps and more MP and on top of that IQ at higher ISOs.

Apart from the discussions at those sites,
a typical news report, which is just general and not photographic oriented, focused on the 10.2 Mp size and said something like "Pana's first digicam with 10 Mp sensor". So the Mp size continuously attracts more attention and is an important feature when you want to be paid more attention in the mass market. That report does not mention other features at all.

From price viewpoint, some are suggesting that Pentax new DSLR K100D is more attractive than FZ50. Others are comparing FZ50 with Sony R1 which is more expensive. Maybe from today on, a new comparison between FZ50 and the coming Fujijilm S6000fd, will be added by some people.
yoshi

I too would be interested in THAT comparison, but until we have more info/pics it will have to wait. But if Fuji can do what they did with the f-series of compact cameras, then you will have not only a contender, but perhaps a new category defining camera to which to base all others on....

We will see.

Jonathan

Hi Jan and welcome to the DPNow forum!

I found your post very interesting - wish I could expect to be retired and comfortable at 54

The FZ50 does have an extra chip to assist the Venus Engine III processor that the L1 does not have. I don't know for sure, but I believe this takes care of the separate luminance and chroma noise reduction before the Venus Engine III processing in the image pipeline.

I hope you will find the L1 images less 'processed' looking than the FZ50.

If you would like to share any of your images with us here on the forum, you will be most welcome!

Ian

Hi Jonathan,
yes, we have to wait until the end of Aug or so until both FZ50 and S6500fd are phisically introduced around that time.

From a simple spec. comparison, iirc, S6500 has a slightly larger sensor and much less Mp (6.3Mp) and has the same sensor as F30, which looks to me enjoying a high reputation for good IQ at higher ISOs. Ian posted lots of world cup photos in another board with F30. The zoom range is however shorter than FZ50 and has no OIS.

Incidentally, I found a link to this Thailand's forum. It seems this Thai cameraman/journalist visted Panny's plants in Japan around 10 days ago or so and took those sample pics with newly introduced models including FZ50.
I think, the pic at ISO500 is nice in IQ, needless to say at ISO 100.

yoshi

http://www.shutterphoto.com/review/panasonic/fz50/panasonic_dmc_fz50_sample.html

I was talking to Anders Uschold, the well-known technical journalist and imaging scientist, the other day and he has found in his recent testing of ink jet printers that the fundamental true resolution of such printers is not usually more than 300ppi. This is interesting because the rule of thumb that is the result of plain experience in the industry is that 300ppi (printed) is about what you should aim for to get optimum results. FZ50 JPEGs are roughly 3600 pixels wide, so in theory you should be able to print 12x8 prints, without resizing the image at all, and get maximum quality results.

Usually, resizing is automaticaly performed by the host imaging application regardless of the file's default 'dpi' value.

Anyway, as I understand it, you wish to resize an image from 10MP to 5MP and then print (without any further resizing of the data)? Sounds interesting, I think I will try that just out of curiosity.

That would reduce the horizontal pixel count to about 2500, making a 300ppi print approximately 6x8 inches.

I'll let you know if I notice anything interesting

Ian

Hi Ian,
I haven't looked at the specs in a while, but some 10+MP cameras have size settings for 8MP & 5MP, so the 8MP notch might be good to use for the average 10" X 8" print at 300dpi. This is for those that say they like the features, but who needs 10MP and I suppose for those who forget their extra memory cards....
With my 5 & 6MP cameras I don't use this feature except for E-mail memo shots occationally and even then I tend to downsize in the computer. You now have the Sony 10MP units, so you can play around and see if differences shows up on a print. 300dpi is 150 lp/i or 5.9 lp/mm, so while that may our average vision limits, it also equalizes/levels original image resolution to some extent in normal sized prints. Wanrning: This is not a good idea if you shoot for Bill Boards...
Bob

See Panasonic's own sample images at:

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/gallery/models/fz50.html

Sample images from FZ50

Hi Sterling,

What do you think of Panasonic's own samples?

How do they compare with mine here on DPNow?

I'll keep what I think to later - don't want to colour your opinion!

Ian

TRhey should use Fuji's Super CCD's that do so well in e.g. the Fuji F30, or improve their own sensors a whole lot. Compared to the competition, the Panasonic chips are stil the worst. I saw the LX2 samples on a Chinese website and I was agashed. Really bad at already 400ISO, all painterly, smudged, etc.

Dear Ian, Dear All,
As I promised earlier, I took your photos and made prints of many sizes at all ISO levels. Next the prints were scanned at 300 dpi and 100% crops are presented and commented on my website
http://jacek.kwasniewski.eu.org/gallery/album97
You are welcome to watch and read.
General conclusion: FZ50 produces unexpectedly good big prints at relatively high ISO levels. Together with OIS you can made jumbo sized prints. Next: watching prints and watching photos on screen can give quite different impressions. See my "test" on website. The short summary of my work see below

Panasonic FZ50 ISO performance. Prints - how big can be made. Based on Ian' photos.

size
ISO 4x6 8x12 12x18 16x24
100 yes yes yes yes
200 yes yes yes yes
400 yes yes yes poor
800 yes yes poor no
1600 yes no no no
Jacek Kwasniewski, Warsaw, Poland
jacek952@gmail.com

Thanks a lot, Jacek, for your interesting comparison!
Very well done.
Looks like the FZ50 would not be that "noisy" as many posters in different forums feared (or hoped!!)...
Best regards
Werner

> Thanks a lot, Jacek, for your interesting comparison!
> Very well done.
> Looks like the FZ50 would not be that "noisy" as
> many posters in different forums feared (or hoped!!)...
> Best regards
> Werner

Yes, FZ50 has a chance to be on the short buying list of many people. But remember, Fuji is the main contender. If it releases a camera like the recent Fujifilm FinePix S6500fd but with OIS it will collect all prizes and chunky market share. But now Panasonic proved to be able to improve its weak points in compacts.
But with L1 it is probably in blind alley. L1 is beautiful, full of everything, with great lenses but costly and noisy - a simple recipe for defeat. The people responsible in Panasonic for the choice of 4/3 sensor should be fired. It was the strategic mistake. Now they are handicapped on the start line in comparison with the rest of the world using APS sensors.
Jacek Kwasniewski, Warsaw, Poland
jacek952@gmail.com

> What do you think of Panasonic's own samples?

> Ian

First, I would have to say that the leading image on their site (P1000228) is a peculiar choice. Not only does it exhibit the greatest evidence of processing artifacts, but it is also a strange use of the camera and an unflattering picture of the model. It's a strange use of the camera because one would not normally choose to take a portrait at wide angle. If I had taken this shot it would never have seen the light of day.

I think the three telephoto shots look very good at "actual pixel" resolution on my computer monitor, and they represent the way I would likely use the camera if I choose to buy it - telephoto shots of discrete subjects, primarily nature shots, making use of the OIS to gain a couple of stops at the optimum ISO equivalency rating. These samples please me enough that I am leaning quite favourable towards this camera.

To return to the portrait, however: This particular image is the only one of the four to be shot at wide angle. The lens was wide open, and the sutter speed relatively low (1/50th) compared to the other images on their site - though 1/50th should be no challenge at all to this camera, given the OIS lens and the wide angle of the zoom. I am very puzzled why these settings produce the significant amount of processing artifacts that they do in this image. The model's ear, lips, neck and eyelashes look quite "painted" to me. Given the conditions, why does this one look so artifical, compared with the others on Panasonic's site? It would have been interesting to compare a RAW image for this shot.

Also, if I had taken this photo, I would have underexposed by at least 2/3 stop so as not to lose so much highlight detail in the flowers. That would require some post-processing to lighten the rest of the image, but that's how I shoot almost all the time with a digital camera, since they're so unforgiving in the highlights. (Will we ever get a CCD with a "shoulder" like we have with film?)

I'm having trouble figuring out what it is that triggers the camera's processor to over-compensate. Ian, your shot of the souvenir seller (P1020020) is a good example - the hats on the ground are perfect, but the man's blue jeans look quite artificial, and even his face is somewhat processed-looking. Do you think it's because the plane of focus was on the hats? Is the camera's processor having trouble distinguishing between fuzziness due to plane of focus, vs. the noise that it's supposed to be eliminating? (BTW, you haven't lost much, if any, shadow detail in that photo - the data is there, and you can see it if you process the image to lighten the shadows.) The most "painted" part of your Gaudi museum shot are the out-of-focus rock wall in the lower left and trees in the background. The background of your wide angle sample looks like an impressionist water colour (what happened to the depth of field? I would have thought f7.1 would have been sufficient.) But this hypothesis doesn't seem to work for Panasonic's sample portrait, where the "painted" parts don't look to me like they're out of the plane of focus.

All in all, I'd rather have less processing in the camera and let my computer's filter take care of more of the noise.

Finally, I would have to agree that looking at the shots on the computer monitor using "actual pixel" resolution is probably not a real-world test for most photos, and that print resolution is probably a fairer test. But every once in a while I find a section of a photo that I paid insufficient attention to when framing the shot, that I want to zoom in on. So I'll continue to expect miracles from my cameras.

Thanks for the FZ50 samples -- the first I've seen apart fom those on the Panasonic jp site. Thanks, because having been tempted by the range of specs on paper there's now no way I'm buying this camera. Instead I'll be rushing out to get one of the last FZ30s while they're still around. The reason: like (some) others I'm dismayed by the crude results of the noise elimination and the way it smudges (a kind word for what's going on) detail. Wet, impressionistic, painting-like ... it's horrible. I've spent much of the day looking at FZ30 images and infinitely prefer them. I'll be happy to pay £150 less and fix the noise myself -- if it's necessary!

In the course of reading up on the FZ range I've come across a great deal about the noise problem, along with speculation about how Panasonic might fix it with the FZ50. Dismal is the answer. Poor Leica!

romillyh

I'm kind of pulled in two directions as, yes, I believe it was unnecessary to go to 10 megapixels - indeed 5 or 6 megapixels would have been right in my opinion.

But at the same time, I don't think the quality is as bad as some people think. If you make prints, the look surprisingly OK after viewing them on screen originally. This was the whole motivation behind my recent editorial here:

http://dpnow.com/2871.html

Ian

Photo appreciation

I now have an FZ30 and am very happy with it (apart from the noise!) so far. For what it's worth I've put up some of my own samples and an amateur stab at a review here:

http://www.godsownclay.com/scrapbookp.8.html

btw, the FZ50 sample pages on the dpnow site load but with no images. Is that my browser or something else?

romillyh

Hi, thanks for that - the sample images are stored on a different server to the main site and we have had some problems with the hosting company there. Last month they suspended our account for apparently not paying, yet the payment is automatic and had been sent as usual. They did apologise, but it's not good enough. Thanks for pointing this out to me - I'll investigate straight away.

Ian

Our images server is back online again, so the samples pages should be working now.

Once again our hosting company froze the server for no reason or explanation.

Looks like we'll have to move to a new hosting company.

Ian

Great. I've rephrased the link.

romillyh

Thanks for all the information on the FZ50 so far. I am seriously looking to buy one of these as my first venture into digital. Up until now, apart from occasionally using my daughter's 3yo PAS 2 megapixel Fuji, I have always used film-based SLRs.

The cost of a full blown DSLR is prohibitive for me. Whilst body prices are very reasonable, when you factor in the extra cost of standard plus zoom, plus wide angle, the numbers soon climb. Plus I am concerned what I read about dust on CCDs with interchangeable lenses.

An SLR-type digital like the FZ50 looks ideal and also seems to be very attractive pricewise. I take on board what people have been saying about the pixel-stuffing on a CCD that is too small to be flooded with that amount of information. I too would be much happier if the camera were 6-8 megapixels in this respect.

My question relates to this in that I wonder if you can use the camera at lower resolutions (I don't know if you can), would this mean less pixels are captured or just less image data is saved?

Peter

I can't really comment on the FZ50, but with many digital cameras you can save photos at more than one "resolution". So although my FZ30 will save 8 Mpx photos, I use the 5 Mpx setting as it's quite enough for my purposes! The FZ30 will also save at 3, 2 and 1 Mpx, so doubtless the 50 will do all these plus 10 Mpx if you really want that!

A further comment after using my camera for about 1,000 pics now. The ccd is seriously noisy in some types of pic (even at 80 ISO). These are pics where there are large areas of plain colour or rather dark areas. I also don't like some of the results with flash, when the sensor heavily oversaturates reds and browns. I do not know of course if this applies to the FZ50. It certainly didn't happen with my Nikon Coolpix 4300.

Some more FZ30 samples and comments on the two pages on my site starting here:

http://www.godsownclay.com/scrapbookp.11.html

It's a marvellous camera to use though and much like having an SLR, but better. Overall I'm very happy with it. The zoom is incredible. For the price (£360 basic) the FZ30 is great value, but in 3-4 years I shall definitely looking to move away from the FZ series if they don't greatly improve the sensor.

romillyh

I have noticed under-saturated results on some older Nikon compacts when using flash. I must say I'd prefer an over-saturated result that can be desaturated later to an image orighinally lacking in saturation.

Ian

Thanks Romillyh for your response and examples from your website. Apologies for the time taken to respond, but I managed to mess up my login to the forum, but am grateful to Ian in admin for sorting it out for me.

So when you save to a smaller pixel resolution does that also reduce noise when shooting at the same ISO rating? If it did, then I think that would be a strong indication that the CCD is used more efficiently at lower resolutions and therefore less noise is created.

I doubt this is the case though as I have never seen this as a workaround for increased noise levels, so I expect the full quota of megapixels are still captured, irrespective of how many are saved.

This would seem to be born out by the fact that subsequent to posting this question I have read that the maximum optical zoom is rated higher when saving in lower resolutions. Reportedly, this gives you up to 21x for 3-megapixel image recording, 17.1x for 5-megapixel and 13.4x for 8-megapixel recording.

This must mean that even at lower resolution saves, the full 10 quota of 10 megapixels are being captured and the camera is just cropping from the centre of the CCD, i.e. effectively using a smaller CCD but with the same density of data.

Yesterday evening I checked out the documented size of the Panasonic FZ50 CCD. It is reported as 1/1.8" which compared to more expensive DSLRs is considerably smaller, at least as I understand measurements because the specs I found for DSLRs were reported in millimetres in two dimensions. I assume the single measurement is taken diagonally?

Of course, the more you pay for the more you get, but for example with a Canon EOS 300D which is not a great deal more at about £200 or so more, its CCD is reported as being 22.7 x 15.1 mm. By my reckoning that would make it about 1" compared to the Panasonic's 1/1.8" (0.55"?), or over 4 times as big - assuming my maths are correct!

That said, all super-zoom digitals like the FZ50 seem to have similar CCD sizes so comparing like for like is fairer. I see the 9 megapixel Fuji Finepix S9500 is reported to have a 1/1.6" CCD. Has anyone compared the performance of this model with the FZ50?

In conclusion, from my limited understanding it would seem that this pixel stuffing in super-zooms is the major factor in their under performance compared to what they could do if there wasn't such a pre-occupation with high megapixel ratings. The same of course happens with digital camcorders where manufacturers love to blag on about 560x digital zooms as though that was a major reason to buy one against another. For the gullible maybe. Squeezing 10 megapixels on to a FZ50 CCD when compared to 6 megapixels being recorded on an EOS 300D CCD which is 4 times bigger seem nonsensical.

However, in my assessment above I may have got the whole thing wrong, so would be pleased to receive feedback to correct my thoughts/opinions on this.

Peter

Crikes, Peter, I'm going to leave most of these points to other more expert members of the forum! It would be useful to have some comments on these speculations.

What I can say though is that with the FZ30 you get the rated 12x zoom at the full 8 Mpx, 15.3x at 5 Mpx (what I use), and 19.1 at 3 Mpx. These do appear to be optical magnifications, btw. I'm not aware of the 5 Mpx size giving cropped down images relative to the biggest size. I must look out for that one!

Wish you best of luck with whatever you buy in the end, and glad to have helped a little. All I can say (again!) is the 30 is a very nice camera to use, so hang the noise - in many situations it isn't that obtrusive.

romillyh

Thanks for the image samples and comments, Ian. I read that and the Forum posts a few weeks ago but haven’t had time to post until now.

I agree with your position that the important criteria for assessing the images is what you can print them to. I think a lot of people these days see digital cameras as semi-disposable electronic toys that can make all their decisions for them. To my mind the real test is what you can get through the whole photographic process. That used to involve the chemical darkroom. These days it involves Photoshop and the digital darkroom, with greater repeatability and improved quality.

I've had an FZ20 for about 20 months, using it primarily to takes photos of Blues bands. At first I thought that 400ISO was unusable but as my processing capabilities improved I found I could get quite good results even with underexposed 400ISO images. My workflow includes Photoshop CS2 (RGB and LAB), PK Sharpener and Neat Image, with a significant amount of individual processing for each image and at least potentially resulting in A3+ prints.

I didn't go for the FZ30 because it was slower than the FZ20 but the FZ50 is another matter. I now have an FZ50 and have taken shots with it at a couple of gigs. At first I was disconcerted by the noise at 1600ISO but after considering it for a while I am not so bothered. I think it is about equivalent to the 400ISO noise from the FZ20 and mainly applying to shadow noise so that it will be easier to control for images exposed to a “correct” histogram. On that basis I think it will remain effectively true that the FZ50 is one and a quarter stops faster than the FZ20 with the additional benefits of a larger sensor and 50% greater resolution. This latter is important because I think it is easier to control noise than it is to manufacture detail.

And then there is the 3200ISO setting. It does come with built-in tonal dropout and reduced resolution and that's OK if it lets you get a shot that was otherwise unobtainable - You just have to recognise it for what it is, perhaps as a starting point for further manipulation, and I don’t think the scorn of the empirical pixel-peepers is necessarily relevant. After all, in practical terms there is no objective reality in a photograph even where a perception of reality is a point of reference. What is more disappointing though is that it is only a scene mode so that the only possible control over what it does would be exposure compensation (I haven't checked but I presume that would still be active).

For the moment I'm not tempted by a DSLR. I'd probably have to spend 5 times the price of the FZ50 to get a technically superior DSLR of equivalent low-light and zoom capability. My main vehicle for landscape photography is a 6x17 panorama camera but no doubt I'll also be checking out what the FZ50 can do in the lower ISO ranges, especially by combining bracketed images.

Regards,
Murray

Postscript: With my first look at SilkyPix as a RAW Developer I was inclined to dismiss it. Partly since RAW development for the FZ50 is not yet available in ACR and Lightroom, I decided to give it another go – if only to see what bypassing the Venus 3 engine would do (at least I presume there’s no noise reduction in RAW). I processed an image I had already dealt with from a Jpeg and was alarmed to see the degree of noise that was presented. However, this effect was very much reduced with the file imported to Photoshop so apparently that’s just a weird artefact of SilkyPix presentation. Not that noise was absent, it was just exaggerated in SilkyPix.

RAW processing can presumably produce an extended tonal range but this wasn’t really relevant for this sort of image. I found it difficult to get the two versions exactly comparable, partly because the processes were different and partly because I didn’t save a curves definition file of what I did in LAB to the first image. The perception of noise is also affected by colour balance, contrast and luminosity. Still, in Photoshop the image from RAW had both more noise and more detail; it was more of a problem to control but I think had more potential and a slightly better result.

Hi Murray,

That was a very impressive take on the FZ50 - thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

This forum will be frozen soon as we are moving to a new one (it's open for testing now - see: http://dpnow.com/forum2/) - would you do me a big favour and register there and re-post your message there in the Compact camera board (this encompasses non-DSLR chat).

Or I can do it and create an account for you - but perhaps better if you did it yourself?

It would be a shame if your post were be missed by many because of the forum change.

Ian

One comment about FZ50 RAW and noise. My understanding is that first stage noise reduction is applied to the off-chip signal before it is saved, with luminance and colour channels processed separately. So you should be seeing better noise in RAW compared to the FZ30. I confess I haven't verified this, but that was my understanding.

It certainly is odd that you see noise emphasised in SilkyPix.

Ian

OK. Done.

Hi,
After much research, and initially buying the FZ30, I finally got the FZ50. I've had it for over a week now, and I'm very pleased. I'm getting back into photography after my Canon A1 days of twenty-odd years ago, and thus I'm not a digital expert in the least.

So, heres my (likely stupid) question: If everyone is so worried about noise with 10 megapixels working off the small sensor (which isn't a problem for me as I don't intend to do highway billboards),can they not just take pictures at the 6 or 8 megapixel setting (which the camera allows for, of course), thereby creating the ultimate camera you've discussed?