 |
| Feeding time at the zoo. I chose this photo as it presents the camera with quite a challenge. There is very large subject brightness range, weird color balance with the mixed light sources, low light inside and lots of detail. Camera held overhead, FZ80, ISO 1000, RAW capture, Adobe Camera Raw. |
The FZ80is one of a group of compact and superzoom cameras which use the very small, smartphone sized sensor which measures 6.17 x 4.55mm with a diagonal of 7.67mm and an area of 28 square millimetres.
This is very small relative to the size of the camera and also relative to the sensor in any interchangeable lens camera.
These small sensors score very low at DXO Mark, in the 37-44 range. In the DXO system 15 RAW sensor points is equivalent to 1 stop or 1 EV step.
So a small sensor model scoring 40 gives up 2 stops of sensor performance to the FZ2000 which scores 70. This means that the FZ2000 would have about the same amount of luminance noise at ISO 400 as the small sensor camera would have at ISO 100. My tests show the advantage to the FZ2000(25000) is actually a bit less than 2 stops.
The small sensors also have lower color depth and lower dynamic range which is the ability of the sensor to deliver highlight and shadow detail when subject brightness range is high.
(DXO has not yet scored the FZ80)
If numbers told the whole story I guess these small sensor cameras might not have much appeal.
But I have been using them for several years and I find that current models produce picture quality good enough for my purposes and I am quite fussy about picture quality.
I also like to print up to A2+ size, about 410 x 540mm and I find that if my photo is well exposed and focussed to start with that printing to this size presents no problems and the results look good on the wall.
In fact I have come to the view that most cameras these days have more imaging capability than most users can exploit.
In reviews and on user forums I read incessant discussion about the finer points of whether camera A has better image quality than camera B, the implication being I suppose that the one with the better image quality would be preferred for purchase.
All this may make sense to those who make and sell cameras because the markup on high price gear is greater than on budget equipment. So there is a strong incentive for the makers, sellers and promoters (a.k.a. paid reviewers) of camera gear to upsell the consumer as far as possible.
But I think that for many camera users these people are asking the wrong question.
The more relevant question for a potential camera buyer is “can this camera make pictures good enough for my requirements”.
If “my requirements” includes 10 meter billboards the FZ80 is probably not the first place to look, but would not be the last place either.
If “my requirements” includes professional sports photography for publication in glossy magazines and posters I doubt the FZ80 would be the best camera for the job. But I have made lots of sport/action photos with the FZ80 requiring follow focus on fast moving subjects including birds in flight.
A decently high percentage of these has turned out rather well and would be quite suitable for publication in a more demanding environment than this blog.
I would not choose the FZ80 if I was a full time professional landscape photographer. The modest color depth and dynamic range make it less than optimal for this type of assignment.
But if the FZ80 is the only camera to hand and I want to make a landscape photo it can do a pretty good job with careful subject selection and exposure management, RAW capture and post processing.
I notice that many reviewers have put out a “review” of the FZ80 using JPG capture without experimenting with Photo Style settings and without exploring the options available with RAW capture and careful RAW conversion.
Having done a half baked evaluation, the reviewers do not much like what they see, dismiss the FZ80 as a snapshooter’s plaything and move on to the next assignment.
In my view a more considered assessment is that the user has to work harder to get good image quality from any small sensor camera than a larger sensor model but it can be done.
For me, that is actually one of the FZ80’s more appealing characteristics. I enjoy the challenge of using good technique, practice and thoughtful engagement with the equipment to get decently good results from a budget model.
 |
| FZ80 Big depth of focus with the small sensor camera, very useful for street and documentary style photography |
Depth of focus
What has depth of focus got to do with picture quality ?
At the same equivalent focal length a full frame camera (24 x 36 mm sensor) needs to close the lens aperture down 4 stops more than a small sensor model to achieve about the same depth of focus.
See dofmaster.com for lots of information about this.
This means that the small sensor model can be operating at f2.8 to give the same depth of focus as the full frame model at f16. This in turn means that the full frame model needs an ISO setting 4 stops faster if the same d.o.f is required.
Now look at DXO Mark for full frame camera sensor ratings. These range around about 90 so let’s use that figure. This is 50 points or 3.3 stops better than the small sensor camera.
I don't know if the FZ80 at ISO 100 is just as good as a Canon EOS 5D (4) at ISO 1600 but I doubt it would be a thousand miles away.
The small sensor does have advantages which in practice serve to counterbalance the disadvantages to a significant extent.