Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 7 Jul 2010 04:00 On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise >reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than >an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take >some noise, good looking noise over that any day. The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors. And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise excellent products.
From: SMS on 7 Jul 2010 10:42 On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise >> reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than >> an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take >> some noise, good looking noise over that any day. > > > The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no > noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all > the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors. > > And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used > their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels > intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise > excellent products. That's always been Panasonic's problem unfortunately. Compelling products based on the specs and features, but you have to put up with very high noise. Either you destroy the image with excessive noise reduction, or live with the noise.
From: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 11:08 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:42:59 -0700, in <4c349269$0$22132$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise >>> reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than >>> an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take >>> some noise, good looking noise over that any day. >> >> The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no >> noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all >> the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors. >> >> And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used >> their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels >> intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise >> excellent products. > >That's always been Panasonic's problem unfortunately. Compelling >products based on the specs and features, but you have to put up with >very high noise. Either you destroy the image with excessive noise >reduction, or live with the noise. Simply not true, as you might know if you had any actual experience with such cameras, but you don't, just bashing by misinterpreting what you manage to find on the Internet. So where are your great noise-free photos, Steven? Enquiring minds want to know. ;) -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: whisky-dave on 7 Jul 2010 11:39 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c349269$0$22132$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >, but you have to put up with very high noise. Either you destroy the image >with excessive noise reduction, or live with the noise. Reminds me of a friend and his beautiful bride. I should have brought him earplugs as a wedding present :-) >
From: Rich on 7 Jul 2010 17:08
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in news:4c349269$0$22132 $742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise >>> reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than >>> an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take >>> some noise, good looking noise over that any day. >> >> >> The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no >> noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all >> the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors. >> >> And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used >> their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels >> intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise >> excellent products. > > That's always been Panasonic's problem unfortunately. Compelling > products based on the specs and features, but you have to put up with > very high noise. Either you destroy the image with excessive noise > reduction, or live with the noise. > > Be interesting to see some of the lesser, noise-reduced in-camera images versus the Panasonic's before and after the application of software-based NR. IMO, the Panasonic images would be superior. The in-camera NR shown in those models is ham-fisted, to say the least. |