Panasonic FZ-20 Owners

Hi David,

 > As soon as you resample pictures you will change the
 > characteristics of the image,

Sure. Still, the fact remains that the A2 pictures resampled to 5MP looked
in my comparison noticeably better than the FZ20 5MP images (with the
additional bonus that the A2 produces 8MP images).

 > and because the zoom is less on the A2 you would actually
 > need to crop to match the zoom of the FZ20.

Even with a lot of cropping it would be difficult for the A2 to match
FZ20's longest end. If my calculations are correct, one would need to crop
an A2 8MP picture taken at its longest end (200mm equiv.) down to 1,81MP
to match FZ20's 420mm equiv. On the other hand, A2's wide end (28mm
equiv.) cannot be matched by FZ20's 36mm, with or without cropping.

But this is not actually the subject under discussion: since here we are
just trying to compare the image quality of both cameras, it is reasonable
to compare pictures taken at similar focal distance, which was the case
with the chosen samples.

 > I agree that with a smaller sensitive area the FZ20 will
 > be a little noisier than the A2, but can you see that noise
 > when taking real pictures in real circumstances? Do the
 > noise matter?

Well, how much noise matters is a rather subjective issue: my only point
is that the FZ20 is noticeably noisier than the A2, noise being an
important image quality related issue.

 > Doesn't it add some character to low-light shots?

Hummm... a very bad character, I would say!

 > My own comparison showed that the FZ20 brought out detail
 > not visible on the A2 (taking tripod shots of the same scene),
 > and that the very nasty JPEG artefacts present on the A2 on
 > certain shots were completely absent on the FZ20. Other
 > reviewers have also found the JPEG artefacts on the A2
 > and even on its predecessor, the A1.

I respect your comparison, and for sure it went into much deeper detail
than mine, which was limited to the three shots taken from DPRC I have
previously refered to.

Still, within the limits of my own comparison, I could find lots of
artifacts (which to my eyes look like typical sharpening and compression
artifacts) in FZ20 samples in places where A2 samples are completely
clean. See for instance around the branches behind Chinatown's gate and
around the Cathay House sun-blind yellow letters.

 > Couldn't Minolta be bothered to fix the fault?

I would hope so, but maybe they simply think it adds some character to
compressed shots!

 > We discussed this on rec.photo.digital some months ago,
 > and David Kilpatrick noted that he could only tolerate the A2
 > in RAW mode (where the PC RAW to JPEG converter software does
 > /not/ suffer for artefact production like the camera's own
 > firmware). For me, being forced into RAW was not an option.

Here is another image quality related department where the A2 has an edge
over the FZ20: its ability to produce RAW files (although the FZ20 has an
uncompressed TIFF mode).

But the need for better or less compressed JPEG files straight from the
camera should indeed not be overlooked by manufacturers. It is a problem
with Kodak 6490, for instance. KM Z2 is not bad, although it could be
better. HP945 is the best I know of as far as artifacts are concerned,
without even a shadow of an artifact even in the normal (below best)
setting.

 > I did buy the A2, but returned it as unusable for my purposes.

That's what all these discussions boil to in the end: what is suitable to
one's purposes (and to one's budget, I would add).

Now, talking about to real pictures and real circumstances, I'm joyfully
going back to my KM Z2 & HP945, as I cannot (or don't try too much to)
find fault in their pictures for my own maybe limited present purposes!

Thanks for the nice chat, and happy holidays for all,

Julio.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[]
  >> I agree that with a smaller sensitive area the FZ20 will
  >> be a little noisier than the A2, but can you see that noise
  >> when taking real pictures in real circumstances? Do the
  >> noise matter?
 >
 > Well, how much noise matters is a rather subjective issue: my only
 > point is that the FZ20 is noticeably noisier than the A2, noise being
 > an important image quality related issue.
 >
  >> Doesn't it add some character to low-light shots?
 >
 > Hummm... a very bad character, I would say!

Well, it probably depends on the image, but grain has been used very
effectively in the past as part of the character of a shot. I think that
today's fashion to have everything completely noise-free may pass.

[]>> Couldn't Minolta be bothered to fix the fault?
 >
 > I would hope so, but maybe they simply think it adds some character to
 > compressed shots!

No - the fault I'm speaking of is the arithmetic overflow (perhaps) which
turned an edge into a harsh mottled line. To me it made the camera
usuasble.
[]

 > Now, talking about to real pictures and real circumstances, I'm
 > joyfully going back to my KM Z2 & HP945, as I cannot (or don't try
 > too much to) find fault in their pictures for my own maybe limited
 > present purposes!
 > Thanks for the nice chat, and happy holidays for all,
 >
 > Julio.

Thanks,
David<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->