• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

More Micro four Thirds lens manufacturers (1 Viewer)

Had superzooms continued to improve in iso instead of in pixels, then I would have upgraded to a newer superzoom instead of going for GH2 + 100-300. Imagine if the FZ18 had been improved 3-4 stops, staying at 8 mpix? I would have bought one. But I guess the strategy of Pana paid off, I am moving to their more expensive option.
3 or 4 stops? Is that really possible?

I'm not very familiar with the FZ series (had an FZ30, good controls, not very impressed with IQ). Is the FZ100 the lastest? It has about 50MP/cm2 vs about 30 for the FX18. I suppose that means noise should increase about 70% if they use the same style of sensor? If they've managed to keep it the same, does that mean they could have decreased it by 70% if they'd stayed at 8MP? How many stops is that?

I'm just guessing, I don't know how to compare these things. Even one stop would be very welcome.

Looking at the still life images at ISO 1600 for these two models at http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM, I'd say they didn't manage to keep the noise levels the same.

I've often wondered if it would be practical to simply have a much faster lens on a compact camera, rather than try to allow higher ISO. Those suitable for bird photography are really only about 150mm or less, so f3.5 or even f2.8 would be heavy, but not monsters. But they've never sell enough for them to be practical, especially if they were optimised for best IQ at the long end, so we're stuck with having to use interchangeable lens formats like 4/3 and Micro 4/3, and even bigger lenses to get the speed.
 
3 or 4 stops? Is that really possible?

I really don't know, I only know it would have been very welcome

I cannot be bothered with going back and check, but I think the review said that the Olympus E5 had managed to improve >1 stop over the predescessor using basically the same sensor.

Niels
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top