Sony DSC-V1 VS Panasonic LC40
Всего 2 сообщ.
|
Показаны 1 - 2
Sony DSC-V1 VS Panasonic LC40
Конечно же обе эти камеры совсем не плохи, и даже, правильнее сказать, превосходные камеры. Но если их сравнить, так слегка. Конечно они немного в разных классах - V1 компактнее, а у LC40 объектив лучше из-за которого и размер больше. Но все же...
Re: Sony DSC-V1 VS Panasonic LC40
вот прочитайте про панас. Я бы на Г3 смотрел в вашем случае...
mage processing is less than robust and takes approx. 6 seconds between shots in single frame mode, this is rather slow when compared to its peers. Hair detail and skin tone reproduction in a head and shoulders flash portrait is less than satisfactory. We judge a camera's resolution by its ability to record the fine detail (or the lack of) of human hair. And of course everyone wants a camera that faithfully reproduces the proper skin tone colors. The LC40 consistently captures average Caucasian skin color with too much magenta, very reminiscent of the Nikon D1 (not D1X or D1H.) Outdoors in "fine" weather the colors of most subjects are very close to natural but it still makes people look a little too magenta. We saw more than the usual amount of "noise" in clear blue sky areas and there was noticeable shadow noise in the low contrast areas of the image. We also noticed that people's skin often appeared "blotchy" or even semi-solarized, something that is normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal range. The flash is small and rather underpowered and the exposure system was often "fooled" by strong "flash back" from light colored or highly reflective foreground objects.
06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion that the images just didn't "look" right. And then there were those that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that they thought the image quality was as good or better than other cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times, since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are "seeing" smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our 800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked "blotchy" or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000 printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for printing and they may just be right about this.
mage processing is less than robust and takes approx. 6 seconds between shots in single frame mode, this is rather slow when compared to its peers. Hair detail and skin tone reproduction in a head and shoulders flash portrait is less than satisfactory. We judge a camera's resolution by its ability to record the fine detail (or the lack of) of human hair. And of course everyone wants a camera that faithfully reproduces the proper skin tone colors. The LC40 consistently captures average Caucasian skin color with too much magenta, very reminiscent of the Nikon D1 (not D1X or D1H.) Outdoors in "fine" weather the colors of most subjects are very close to natural but it still makes people look a little too magenta. We saw more than the usual amount of "noise" in clear blue sky areas and there was noticeable shadow noise in the low contrast areas of the image. We also noticed that people's skin often appeared "blotchy" or even semi-solarized, something that is normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal range. The flash is small and rather underpowered and the exposure system was often "fooled" by strong "flash back" from light colored or highly reflective foreground objects.
06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion that the images just didn't "look" right. And then there were those that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that they thought the image quality was as good or better than other cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times, since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are "seeing" smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our 800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked "blotchy" or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000 printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for printing and they may just be right about this.
