How good is good enough?

Ron said:

At 8 Mega pixels the optical Zoom is 12X However the FZ30 has an Extended Optical Zoom feature.? If you the camera? to 5M pixels the Maximum optical zoom is 15.3.? If you set the camera to 3M the maximum optical zoom is 19.1.? Of course if desired one could use up to 4X digital zoom on top of that.? I normally have the camera set for 5 mega pixels and use the 8M for special shots that I might want to make a larger print.

I think sometime back Jerry posted a series of pictures using the different settings.? I believe it would be possible for Jerry to Zoom in on the light house so only the upper red section of the light house is in view.? ?

The FZ30 end up may being the most versatile camera I have owned and I have owned some great cameras.? I plan to sell one of my Nikons on E-Bay and the other my oldest son wants so I will give it to him.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, Ron. The only way this could happen is if the center section resulting from the cropping were then somehow expanded back to the extent of the full sized CCD. For the center section to have the same effective resolution, it would have to somehow wind up having the same exact pixel strength as before the zoom. That's what an optical zoom does vs. a digital zoom. And I don't see how this could be the case.

Here's a quote from Jeff Keller, Founder/Editor of Digital Camera Resource in his review of the FZ30.

Quote:
Here's what's happening. When extended optical zoom is activated and the resolution is lowered, the camera uses a smaller area of the CCD sensor. This translates to a narrower angle of view (see the chart above), which increases the focal length. The full area of the sensor is used at 8MP, a smaller area at 5MP, and an even smaller area at 3MP (going lower doesn't give you any more zoom). So, at wide-angle the focal length is 35 mm at 8MP, 44 mm at 5MP, and 55 mm at 3MP. At the tele end those numbers are 420 mm, 535 mm, and 668 mm respectively.

If it sounds like the camera is just cropping the center of the 8MP image to do this, you're correct -- it's basically the same concept. You can do exactly the same thing in Photoshop with the same end result -- this just saves you a step. UNQuote

For the entire review, check this site. The segment of Extended Optical Zoom is about half way down. It includes a diagram showing exactly what is actually happening.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/index.shtml

That's what I said in not so many words.  It's not magic, it's marketspeak.

Thanks for that link Bob. The diagrams illustrate what I felt intuitively but couldn't explain.

Same goes for the FZ7, except the numbers are different.

Ned said:

That's what I said in not so many words.? It's not magic, it's marketspeak.

Click to expand...

Yep, you have always been a man of few, and wise, words, Ned. When you speak, I take notes.

Tom said:

Thanks for that link Bob. The diagrams illustrate what I felt intuitively but couldn't explain.

Same goes for the FZ7, except the numbers are different.

Click to expand...

Glad that helped, Tom. Have always liked his reviews -- especially the easy to understand diagrams.

Here's some thoughts I had about cropping in the VF vs. w/SW. It appears that the FZ30 or 7 would give the same number of pixels if using the EOZ feature -- but when "would" it be best to crop, for example a shot such as Jerry's Light House, in the VF or with SW.

If the shooter crops in the camera by using EOZ, AND outputs a JPEG -- it will be compressed. It they decide to wait until later w/their SW, AND the output is still a JPEG -- when they crop with the SW, a save will now compress again. My point is that by staying with the JPEG, one should be careful not to be compressing the image twice -- as each time it will lose quality. It would seem a better scenario to shoot in TIFF or RAW. Now it doesn't matter where you crop - you will wind up with the same quality image.

If it were me, on a long shot that I knew was special -- I would shoot at the max of my optical zoom and shoot in RAW or TIFF. It doesn't appear that SW comes w/the FZ30 or 7 to convert RAW -- so I would go with TIFF to give me a digital Negative. Any edits such as cropping I would save to another file - or copy the TIFF for edits. Never change the digital negative.

Now when I crop, I can crop several ways until I get exactly what I want, and I always have my digital negative with all the quality available at the time of shooting to work from. OTOH, if not such a special shot and just doing snapshots that would be going from card to printer -- cropping in the VF when using EOZ would save having to mess with darkroom SW.

Carl Lundquist said:

'Twas a joke Bob, just a joke.? ?Obviously went over like a lead balloon.

Sheesh!? ?I have a pair of signed Adams 8x10 contact prints hanging on the wall.? Yosemite and Half Dome in Winter, and Jeffery Pine.? ?Time to up check the insurance estimates.? ?I bought them in 1960 at the Yosemite shop for $25 each.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't take that the wrong way at all, Carl. Now, the Ghost of Ansel does still lurk around Yosemite and along the CA coast so am not sure how he took it. ???

If anyone does not know what a contact sheet is -- it's placing print paper directly under the negative/s. So if the negative itself is 8x10" to begin with, one has a print of exactly the same resolution as the negative as opposed to having an enlarger project that image from a much smaller negative up to an 8x10" print.

Have you looked on eBay or elsewhere for similar signed prints? There may be a super new RV in your future. The cheapest I have found reproductions have been Posters for about $35.00. But anyone can blow up a downloaded image such as those I found and make a poster. However, having access to a print from an original Ansel Adams negative is another story.

Bob Buchanan said:

My point is that by staying with the JPEG, one should be careful not to be compressing the image twice -- as each time it will lose quality.

Click to expand...

Understood Bob. I cropped in software for quite a few years, but now realize I was cropping and re-saving .jpg images. Although I always preserved the "original", I invariably ended up with a double loss because the original was a .jpg.

...on a long shot that I knew was special -- I would shoot at the max of my optical zoom and shoot in RAW or TIFF.

Click to expand...

That's going to take some discipline for me to change my habits, but I need to stop and save in .tiff when I see those special shots.

Karl Kolbus,

If you still have it can you repost your analysis in this thread of optical zoom and extended optical zoom based on the stamen of the flower photo that I sent you?

JerryF

: Just a thought? I don't think ANY of us consider ourselves to be professional photographer's who go out taking pictures for profit. I am sure we all like to take as good a picture as we can? But surely. The aim of taking a photograph is to record where we have been and what we have done? For ourselves and to share with other's? Am I right? Cheap and simple does it for MOST of us average, everyday people. IMH&HO.  :

What you pointed out is true Bob,  However, I normally use 5M setting so effectively at 5M setting I have zoom capability of 15.3 times.  When I do use 8M then I only have 12X.  If I want to get a closer view of the subject using 3M gives 19.1 for a closer look.  Personally I like the options of being able to crop when shooting and this feature gives me that option.  True I can do the same in the digital darkroom but why take the additional step?

My printer has the feature of being able to print directly from the memory and being able to crop through the lens does offer an advantage when using this feature on the printer. 

I read that or a similar review before I purchased the FZ30.

I don't think ANY of us consider ourselves to be professional photographer's

Click to expand...

John,

We have a wide spectrum of photographers here. Some either do it professionally or have done so in the past, some are very discerning amateurs and then there's the basic 'ignore the tech stuff and record the fun' folks. I fall squarely into the latter category. But reading some of the posts of the more advanced photographers and seeing first hand some of their outstanding results has made me want to study the technical aspects of photography. That is making me wonder if I'll regret not moving up to the superior FZ30 camera or even a DSLR with my latest camera purchase and it's one reason I started this discussion.

I'm on day 8 of my 15 day window for returning the FZ7 I bought  ;D

Hi Ron:

>> However, I normally use 5M setting so effectively at 5M setting I have zoom capability of 15.3 times.  When I do use 8M then I only have 12X.  If I want to get a closer view of the subject using 3M gives 19.1 for a closer look.
====
Actually, I was responding to how you stated that in your previous note that seemed to imply a longer optical zoom than 12x by changing the output pixel size of the image.

Ron >> At 8 Mega pixels the optical Zoom is 12X However the FZ30 has an Extended Optical Zoom feature.  If you the camera  to 5M pixels the Maximum optical zoom is 15.3.  If you set the camera to 3M the maximum optical zoom is 19.1.  Of course if desired one could use up to 4X digital zoom on top of that.

The thread had gotten into the advantages of cropping in the VF vs. the darkroom. Definitely an advantage with film. Reason being that cropping in the darkroom crops resolution, whereas cropping in the VF leaves the size of film and corresponding resolution intact. Cropping in the VF of a digital has the same advantage for the same reasons -- up to the maximum optical zoom ability. After that, cropping in the VF has nothing to do with saving resolution. It "is" a very nice convenience thing, plus gives the shooter a closer look at various cross sections of the center of what the maximum optical zoom sees. I can see why you like that.

>> True I can do the same in the digital darkroom but why take the additional step?
====
As mentioned in my post to Tom, on a print that you feel may become a more special print, you may want to go to TIFF or RAW and save the max optical zoom as a digital negative. Saving and then printing directly from a JPEG reduces the quality from what the CCD records. Prior to recording a digital negative, you could preview the image via the digital zoom -- and then have the ability to adjust the crop when you get to the darkroom. If you stay with the digital zoom crop, that's it. No adjusting available later from the higher quality captured by the CCD. Of course, if in RAW, you can change settings used at the time of shooting as well.

>> My printer has the feature of being able to print directly from the memory and being able to crop through the lens does offer an advantage when using this feature on the printer.
====
Great feature for snapshot stuff.

Tom said:

I'm on day 8 of my 15 day window for returning the FZ7 I bought? ;D

Click to expand...

I understand that Tom. We all want to try and do better in whatever we do. But to me it always appears to be 'mine's bigger and better than your's'. I apologise if I offend anyone. I just live life as it comes. ;D

JohnSandyWhite said:

... to me it always appears to be 'mine's bigger and better than your's'.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's any one-upmanship going on in this discussion John, although it might occasionally appear otherwise. All the folks who've responded to this topic have done so with a genuine sense of wanting to be helpful.

Hello John:

>> Just a thought? I don't think ANY of us consider ourselves to be professional photographer's who go out taking pictures for profit.
====
Actually some here do, or have done that.

>> I am sure we all like to take as good a picture as we can? But surely. The aim of taking a photograph is to record where we have been and what we have done? For ourselves and to share with other's? Am I right?
====
No. For some here that is the case. For others, taking a photograph may have nothing to do with recording where they have been or what they have done.

>>? Cheap and simple does it for MOST of us average, everyday people. IMH&HO.? :
====
Have to disagree again, John -- but in a nice way, of course.? You seem to be implying that some of us here, because we have the sense to evaluate a camera prior to purchase, are less than average, everyday people. MOST are the good folk, and then there are the rest of us ???? Hmmmm . . .

My understanding of the purpose of this thread was to respond to the authors questions regarding a camera purchase decision. He has implied that he is receiveing the respones he requested. It is not a thread asking to evaluate the people involved in the thread.

>> I understand that Tom. We all want to try and do better in whatever we do. But to me it always appears to be 'mine's bigger and better than your's'.

John, I must respond again -- and disagree again. But still in the vain of friendship. 

Tom is trying to decide between two cameras. He realizes that one IS bigger. His question, is, "Is it also better?" -- or is it that much better?  I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, sometimes bigger is not as good.

Be it a camera, or any item of purchase concerned with my RV -- I want to hear from those that think theirs is better than anyone else's.

>> I just live life as it comes.
====
Good for you. 

Everyone:

What this thread has done in addition to giving me the itch for a new camera is to make me much more aware of how little of the capabilities of my point-and-shoot Olympus C-740 3.2mp I use now!

As I have listened to those that have spent the time to understand all the nuances of professional photography I had to dig out the manual to find that I had much of the same capability in the old Oly. We are in the Black Hills so panoramas, light settings, and the 10X optical  zoom of the C-740 have gotton a workout. I'm not sure anything I've taken deserves Tiff size files yet but the SHQ option is close enough. I have 4 gig of bison, elk, and badland scenery this week!

I have done enough to realize that my camera requires an expensive adapter just to use 55mm filters so I do not intend  to spend any more cash on it.

What would be a great help is a resource for a simple discussion of F-Stop settings and their effect when using the zoom function of the camera and tricks for light control (Olympus allows me to move the light target around-is this of any practical value?)

When I figure out what I will do (if anything) with some of these features I will be in much better shape to decide which camera to buy. ??? ???

Bob,
Yes, I had my own darkroom, and yes, the red (amber for color) light was on a lot. Durst M605 dichroic enlarger.

I do recall the process of longer exposure and the C-41 process -- tho never experimented with it to that degree. Help me refresh my memory tho. Didn't the longer exposure cause more latent texture in the lighter areas of the negative vs. the darker, and that's what made it work?

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, if we're talking about the lighter areas as those being the darker areas of the subject - shadow detail and overall greater color saturation. The incident light has to pass through to 3 filter emulsion layers; first the blue, then the red, and finally the yellow. These contain the color couplers, which are activated by the photons hitting them. Without enough exposure, the number of photons getting through to the red and yellow layers is not enough to completely actcivate them, and they will tend to degrade almost immediately after exposure. The longer you wait to develop, the more apparent this degradation is.

Jerry,

I'll look for it, but maybe that was in a PM to you? I'll check. 

Jerry,

Here it is:

I cropped out a small portion of both pictures, expanded them to 1000%, and counted the pixels that comprised a small section - the stamens. The 12X  one  sized out at 33x22 (HxW) while the 19.1 was 46x30 for the same area. That comes out to 726 pixels and 1380 pixels respectively, or the larger  magnification used almost double (1.900) the pixels to resolve the same area.  This corresponds almost exactly with the difference in the full frame picture sizes of 726kB and 1410kB (1.41MB) respectively. That says to me that the camera is cropping the optical image at 19.1 internally and then expanding it to cover a larger portion of the CCD RGB layers. However it does it seems to work well, as I can see no degradation in image quality!

Click to expand...

Karl,

Thank you for finding it.  I looked among my stuff and the forum and couldn't find it.  You know what, I find the telephoto (15.3 X) at 5MP and the image stabilization are probably the two most used features of my FX-30!  Of course I like all the other features too.

JerryF