> 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
