Another "Which camera"? but more specific...

[PikClicker]

Hey all,

New member here and I was hoping for some feedback.

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ7 (6MP) and do mostly abstract and street B&W, some snapshots of family and post-process with Ps CS3. It is obviously time to upgrade cameras and am looking at 2 different styles of cameras. I have done a lot of research over the last 2 weeks but have questions.

I am looking at the Olympus XZ1 to start with. DPReview has excellent comparison pics and the image quality rivals $2000 DSLRs (at least to my eyes), but only in JPEG format. RAW kinda sucks, especially at higher ISO. The XZ1's noise cancellation and other processing makes exceptional JPEGS. On the other hand, the mid-range DSLRs have as good image quality in both JPEG and much better in RAW. Here's my question:

Should I look for the camera that give the best image quality in RAW? (I have never used or processed RAW files so that is new to me). Or is the JPEG output the determining factor?

Is processing RAW files difficult or time consuming? Should I be satisfied with the camera's JPEG output or start learning how to deal with RAW files. I am using mostly DPReview's image quality samples as a guide.

Basically I am looking for the camera that gives me the best image QUALITY for the least price and I would like to go with a compact camera. I don't care for lugging around a DSLR. The XZ1s images in JPEG, its compactness, fast Zuiko lens and high rez OLED screen are selling points for me. Down sides are the smaller sensor, lower power flash and non-interchangeable lens. My budget is about $1K (I know the 60D is way out of this range) so if you have any other camera recommendations please share!

I should add that I print on an HP Photosmart Premium printer and therefore am limited to 8X10 unless I print using an ouside service. Also, my work is mostly private, no galleries or showing.

Thanks ahead of time for the input!

 

[enzodm]

I am looking at the Olympus XZ1 to start with. DPReview has excellent comparison pics and the image quality rivals $2000 DSLRs (at least to my eyes), but only in JPEG format. RAW kinda sucks, especially at higher ISO. The XZ1's noise cancellation and other processing makes exceptional JPEGS. On the other hand, the mid-range DSLRs have as good image quality in both JPEG and much better in RAW.

JPEG is derived from RAW, so even with exceptional processing, what is not present in RAW cannot be present in JPEG. With the difference that shooting in RAW you may personalize processing per each image, instead of accepting what the camera proposes when shooting JPEG.
I've quickly read the review, and in no parts it says that is better than dSLR (however is a very good camera).
However, if your are fine with that quality, why not take it? Only thing would stop me is the price, in line with an entry level dSLR. EDIT: To have more quality with something smaller than dSLR I would go for micro 4/3 or NEX.

Some excerpt:
"At ISO 800 the fine detail suddenly disappears under a blanket of noise reduction but color is well maintained and the results are still very usable."

"The image quality is exactly in line with what we'd expect from a camera with a sensor of this size - considerably better than most compacts other than its immediate peers."

 

[PikClicker]

Thanks for the input. I am definately aware of the sensor size being relative to image quality and do balk at a camera that has a sensor about the same size as I have now. (although twice the number of pixels).

I think I understand your answer to mean pick the camera that gives the best results in RAW format and do the processing myself?

What I have done is go to the DPReview's comparison page for the XZ1 with the studio shot (champagne bottle, playing card, etc), and then load other cameras that they have reviewed into the other comparison windows and observe the differences. This page also lets you move the magnification window to other parts of the scene. I am especially impressed by the detail in the pile of paper clips near the lower left of the scene. To my eyes, very few of the other reviewed cameras (save the high end DSLRs) render this area with the same detail and color accuracy as the XZ1. Other areas of the scene show like results but in varying degrees.

If you have time please check it out and share your opinions.

 

[enzodm]

To my eyes, very few of the other reviewed cameras (save the high end DSLRs) render this area with the same detail and color accuracy as the XZ1. Other areas of the scene show like results but in varying degrees.

If you have time please check it out and share your opinions.

checked. I do not think paper clips are the most detailed part, although they are rather impressive, perhaps because less ruined by noise reduction.
Look at statue face, ISO400 (ISO100 is easier also for small sensors). Compare with Canon 1000D (cheap dSLR) and Olympus PEN E-PL2 (micro 4/3). Here you see the effect of noise reduction on detail.

Anyway, due to the fast lens, is an interesting camera. It has is own strength and limits, and if you want max quality, you perhaps should go with some larger sensor. However if you do not need high ISO, and the quality you perceive is good for you, why not.

 

[KmH]

a camera that has a sensor about the same size as I have now. (although twice the number of pixels).

Which is a large part of the problem, because each pixle has to be smaller. A lot smaller since twice as many of them are packed into the same small space.

A smaller pixel records less light relative to shot noise. In other words smaller pixels have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) meaning image noise is more difficult to control.

If you want to do long exposures the low SNR also translates into more thermal noise being added to the shot noise that is already there.