Comparison - Pany FZ82 v Pany G80 in low light.

[Crotal Bell]

So for this test I chose Aperture priority with the ISO set to auto on both cameras. Just after 8pm this evening, cloudy and dull.

I was interested to see what ISO the cameras chose and how the pictures came out. All other settings are standard and the camera was handheld using the rear screens for all the images.
Aperture was set as low as possible - G80 had the 12-60mm lens on.

This may account for the blurred brick image from the FZ82 as it doesn't have the same level of stabilisation, sorry about that.

I don't know if this is important, but the FZ82 are JPEG from the camera, the G80 are raw that were straight saved to JPEG in Faststone editor with no adjustment.

I'll let you decide if there's much difference and again sorry for the blurred bricks on the FZ82 shot. My thoughts at the bottom.

FZ82 From 12 feet I zoomed to get the close shot. Aperture rose to 5.5, ISO went to 1600, and shutter speed went to 1/10


G80. Full 60mm and had to walk forward a bit. Aperture went to 5.6, ISO to 3200, ad SS to 1/15



FZ82 The zoom was slightly out at 74mm and I walked in. Aperture 5.6, ISO to 1600 and the SS went down to 1/8
A bit soft, maybe thats the lack of the better stabilisation?




G80 The lens was at 60mm and walked in. Aperture 5.6, the ISO went to 3200 and the SS 1/20


FZ82 No zoom just moved in. F2.8, ISO went to 1250 and SS 1/60


G80 I had the lens out full at 60mm so maybe not a fair comparison on this one. Aperture to 5.6, ISO went to 3200, and SS to 1/50


FZ82 No zoom so F2,8 the ISO went to 1250 and the SS to 1/60


G80 The file says F4.9 at 30mm so maybe the lens was a fraction out, I didn't mean it to be. ISO to 3200 and SS to 1/60


The more I learn the two cameras the less difference I see. Possibly stabilisation with the G80, there's no doubt that helps, and the flippy screen on awkward macros.
On the other hand, the FZ82 takes nice scenic shots and with a quick zoom I'm catching wildlife and aircraft in the sky etc.
I'll have to take the FZ82 for a dusk walk and see what I think when the ISO goes up on the scenic landscapes in low light.

 

[Sangoma]

Interesting, however it probably indicates the moment rather than the cameras.

I have done many comparison shots, and I have found the only way to get a meaningful comparison of actual performance is to have exactly the same conditions for each shot.
Manual exposure, with the same settings on both, reference points to get the zoom right so that the same (or as near as) frame is captured in both, and a tripod with delayed release or remote.
And of course the lighting has to be constant, not changing clouds.

I think the comparison is interesting to see which camera might give you the better results on certain subjects under certain conditions, but there are too many variations (the bird feeders have the two cameras focussed at different points as well) to make an overall comparison of the two cameras.

On landscapes or similar where you don't crop, or cropping is minimal, and the shot is not going to be viewed enlarged, any slight "imperfections" will not show up so much, and noise won't be as noticeable on a tree from a distance as it would be on a leaf close up.

 

[Nod]

As above, meaningful comparisons need the "contestants" to be set exactly the same on the same subject within as few seconds as possible (in natural light).

 

[Crotal Bell]

Interesting, however it probably indicates the moment rather than the cameras.

I have done many comparison shots, and I have found the only way to get a meaningful comparison of actual performance is to have exactly the same conditions for each shot.
Manual exposure, with the same settings on both, reference points to get the zoom right so that the same (or as near as) frame is captured in both, and a tripod with delayed release or remote.
And of course the lighting has to be constant, not changing clouds.

I think the comparison is interesting to see which camera might give you the better results on certain subjects under certain conditions, but there are too many variations (the bird feeders have the two cameras focussed at different points as well) to make an overall comparison of the two cameras.

On landscapes or similar where you don't crop, or cropping is minimal, and the shot is not going to be viewed enlarged, any slight "imperfections" will not show up so much, and noise won't be as noticeable on a tree from a distance as it would be on a leaf close up.

Thanks Steve

I found it tricky to do and maybe a bit naive of me not to put more thought into the set up.

 

[Sangoma]

Thanks Steve

I found it tricky to do and maybe a bit naive of me not to put more thought into the set up.

Not at all. I think it was useful for you to see which one does a better job for you in those circumstances of the moment.

 

[woof woof]

The theory should be that the G80 should give the better image as it has (I think) a much larger sensor. The G80 may show more noise in a raw as the FZ82 is creating JPEGs presumably with more processing such as noise reduction and sharpening as compared to the G80 raws. The G80 should however give better results after processing.

And please don't take this the wrong way Keith as this is meant as constructive and helpful rather than as a criticism. You've posted some very nice pictures on this site and you obviously have an eye for a subject and a composition but I do think that they could be even better with a little more processing. Perhaps now that you're getting to grips with the kit and the settings you could next look to improve the final picture even more by tweaking your processing techniques?

 

[Crotal Bell]

The theory should be that the G80 should give the better image as it has (I think) a much larger sensor. The G80 may show more noise in a raw as the FZ82 is creating JPEGs presumably with more processing such as noise reduction and sharpening as compared to the G80 raws. The G80 should however give better results after processing.

And please don't take this the wrong way Keith as this is meant as constructive and helpful rather than as a criticism. You've posted some very nice pictures on this site and you obviously have an eye for a subject and a composition but I do think that they could be even better with a little more processing. Perhaps now that you're getting to grips with the kit and the settings you could next look to improve the final picture even more by tweaking your processing techniques?

Thanks Alan, and some food for thought in regards the post edit. Perhaps I would benefit from a better editor than Faststone free edition.

 

[woof woof]

Thanks Alan, and some food for thought in regards the post edit. Perhaps I would benefit from a better editor than Faststone free edition.

There are some free ones you could try. If you're interested I'm sure people will be able to recommend something.