Whats Wrong With This Camera

[GoSharks]

foveon is as good as dead.

 

[Macro2]

http://www.foveon.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021101foveonx3.asp

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3212.htm

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
Hey guys, I decided to buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ20. Its picture quality is better than the Konica and it has more of the features i was interested in. And its only 40 bucks more. Id like to thank you all for the help.

If you don't intend to use external flash and manual focus in favour of better battery time/slightly less noise/a lot smaller size/cheaper price/better shutter position, FZ5 would be your choice.

I have the FZ15.
Another feature the FZ20 has over the FZ5 is that it has a layer of Apochromatic ED Lens, that greatly cuts down on chromatic abberations.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
foveon is as good as dead.

:thumbsup:

Foveon was a good idea that turned out to be a disaster.

 

[Zepper]

. That FZ20 is a lot of camera!
One problem I see with it is the Li battery pack. There will come a time when you will wish it took standard AA NiMH... But you could rig up an external battery pack with 6 AA NiMH for backup.

.bh.

 

[Macro2]

RE:"Foveon was a good idea that turned out to be a disaster."

What happened?

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"Foveon was a good idea that turned out to be a disaster."

What happened?

Too much freaking noise even when it's used on Dslr cameras.

 

[gsellis]

Nothing wrong with it that I can see. I shot Konica 35mm SLR is the 70's and 80's along with Rolliflex (both recommended by a Leica-fanatical German photoshop owner). Minolta SLRs were kickbutt too. Steve's Digicams had only one negative that I saw (blanks finder between frames on progressive motor sequence.) Not a biggy for some.

 

[Bombastic Flasher]

i would recommend sony. i have had a real good experiance with my sony comera.

 

[kini62]

Originally posted by: toattett

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zepper
Minolta cameras almost always have above-average to excellent lenses so it's easy to see where most of the cost of the Z5 camera goes. Across the line, Sony doesn't have such a good rep for lens quality or for final picture quality.
. It is a lot easier to make a high quality normal range zoom lens (3 to 4x) so more of the cost can go into features and more MPs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. You can crop that 4x at 7MP pic down to the equivalent of a 12x at a bit over 2MP.

.b.h.

Are you saying Carl Zeiss lens doesn't have good rep??????????????????????
Hello?

Even product like DSC-F828, a high-end digital camera by Sony uses very reputable and expensive lens, however, it turns out to be a joke in picture quality especially for its price (slightly under $1000).

And you know this how? Do you own one? Didn't think so.

I have one, and given what else is out there in the "prosumer" area, non-interchangabel lense cameras, it's STILL the best overall camera in its class. I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

So unless you have quantitative evidence to back up your statements, stop spreading rumors and inuendos based on something you heard or read.

No facts = ignorant statements

 

[RanDum72]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"Foveon was a good idea that turned out to be a disaster."

What happened?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Too much freaking noise even when it's used on Dslr cameras

_________________________________________________________



The Foveon sensors are actually known to have LOW noise compared to a a typical CCD or CMOS sensor with the same megapixel rating. Thats because its like a 3-CCD sensor where it takes seperate Red, Green, Blue pictures and puts them together. The only instance where it has higher noise is when it takes long exposures ( night scenes) because it doesn'thave the typical noise reduction like in other sensors. The downside is that its probably more expensive and the cameras that uses it (Sigma) outputs in RAW only (no JPEG). Its good for quality but the files are huge and it takes a lot of computing horsepower. Also, the company who holds the rights to it hasn't been exactly very accomodating, kinda reminds me of Rambus.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: kini62

Originally posted by: toattett

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zepper
Minolta cameras almost always have above-average to excellent lenses so it's easy to see where most of the cost of the Z5 camera goes. Across the line, Sony doesn't have such a good rep for lens quality or for final picture quality.
. It is a lot easier to make a high quality normal range zoom lens (3 to 4x) so more of the cost can go into features and more MPs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. You can crop that 4x at 7MP pic down to the equivalent of a 12x at a bit over 2MP.

.b.h.

Are you saying Carl Zeiss lens doesn't have good rep??????????????????????
Hello?

Even product like DSC-F828, a high-end digital camera by Sony uses very reputable and expensive lens, however, it turns out to be a joke in picture quality especially for its price (slightly under $1000).

And you know this how? Do you own one? Didn't think so.

I have one, and given what else is out there in the "prosumer" area, non-interchangabel lense cameras, it's STILL the best overall camera in its class. I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

So unless you have quantitative evidence to back up your statements, stop spreading rumors and inuendos based on something you heard or read.

No facts = ignorant statements

Why would you buy one when you can get a digital rebel and lens for around the same price?