 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006DSLR lens(es) choice to match FZ30 zoom range?
I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all out and get a DSLR with suitable lenses. I am now in no doubt that based on handling, operational speed, viewfinder and sensor quality the DSLR is the way to go and I really am tempted by the Canon 30D but I am now really struggling to find lenses that review well and are sensibly priced. I don't want to carry round (or pay for) half a dozen lenses and I am really looking for two zooms to cover the range of the FZ30. I know the 18-55 kit lens gets slated and I guess that is to be expected. I want USM focusing definitely and I'd like IS, at least for the longer zoom. So I've been looking into the Canon 17-85 IS USM lens as an alternative to the standard kit lens. But looking at this review of the lens, costing ~£450, I am wondering what on earth I am supposed to do to get decent quality at a reasonable price..... http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm This lens costs more than the FZ30 on its own yet has a slower max aperture and far worse distortion at wide angles. I think to complement a 17-85mm I'd also want something like a 70-300. At least the review here.... http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm is more promising but the cost is once again ~£400 and the lens is a lot slower (f-stop) than the Leica lens on the FZ30. To summarise, FZ30 costs £350 and the only real performance drawbacks are sensor noise and slower AF (especially for tracking action). Lens seems excellent. Canon 30D body costs £750 - no complaints at all; Canon 17-85 IS USM costs £450 and has "terrible" distortion and soft corners, plus vignetting Canon 70-300 IS USM costs £400 and seems pretty good. But to spend £1600 on the DSLR solution for that mediocre wide zoom performance seems criminal to me when the FZ30 is less than a quarter of the cost. I'm happy to consider Sigma/Tamron options too but haven't seen any reviews that light my fire there either. Am I expecting the impossible? Is it that FZ30 reviewers set expectations lower when reviewing kit and lens reviews have far higher standards so the reviews appear damning when in reality the lenses are still far better than the Leica superzoom? In short, can I actually get a couple of decent zooms for sensible money to cover 35mm-420mm equivalent? <snip> > So I've been looking into the Canon 17-85 IS USM lens as an alternative to > the standard kit lens. But looking at this review of the lens, costing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This lens costs more than the FZ30 on its own yet has a slower max > aperture and far worse distortion at wide angles. <snip> Here's another review of this lens, and equally disappointing to read, especially at the price.... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1785EFS/page3.shtml What is a boy to do? > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a Panasonic > FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all out and get a [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > can I actually get a couple of decent zooms for sensible money to cover > 35mm-420mm equivalent? You do indeed have to pay for quality, and unfortunately, price seems non-linear up as quality increases. So you have to decide if the higher prices are worth the difference. The Fz cameras do very well indeed for their price. See this page of comparisons to DSLRs (click on the links to other people's moon images too. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1 The FZ lens does quite well, but the difference in image quality comes at the sensor. The larger pixels of the DSLR allow more processing to up-size the image to produce larger prints. The P&S cameras produce nice images (especially at low iso), but if you enlarge them higher than about 300 ppi, the noise and optical quality of the lens starts to become apparent. But you pay a lot for low noise (larger pixels) along with the lower shutter lag and better AF performance of the DSLR. Only you can decide if it is worth it. Roger <snip> >> To summarise, >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Roger Thanks for the comments, and the link to the moon shots. I'm no pro and don't ever expect to be but with most things in life I've always felt happier paying for quality (within reason) so that the only source of dissatisfaction should be with my own performance rather than the equipment. I'd rather pay once for something decent in the first place than pay once for something half-baked and then pay again for the thing I should have got in the first place. But I'm getting the feeling that to obtain "true quality" I'm going to have to pay a small fortune, which just seems silly, so I'm going to have to compromise somewhere. Another approach I've considered is to see how I go with the Canon 18-55 kit lens on the 30D (£800 for the whole kit) and supplement that with a Sigma 28-300 for around £180 so £980 in total. That's obviously far more attractive price-wise than £1,600 and I suspect 90% of the time I'd only ever use the longer zoom (perhaps I should forget the kit lens altogether and save another £50? But if I get those lenses I'm wondering if there is much point in spending so much on the body. Perhaps I should make do with the 350D as the lenses will be slower to focus (no USM) and the 5 FPS predictive AF of the 30D may well be wasted (I don't know if that's true or not). With e 350D kit and the 28-300 that will be around £655 but will the results be better than the FZ30 or actually worse overall? I'd be interested in opinions. I know nobody can tell me how much I should spend or what will make me happy but I'm really looking for value oriented lens recommendations that will give me optical quality at least equal to the FZ30 over an equivalent zoom range and allow me to enjoy all the other benefits of DSLR technology. I think up to £1,200 should be a reasonable amount to expect to pay for the body and two lenses. Beyond that I don't think I could justify more expense for my level of skill and interest. [] > I know nobody can tell me how much I should spend or what will make > me happy but I'm really looking for value oriented lens [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Beyond that I don't think I could justify more expense for my level > of skill and interest. A DSLR with the same image-stabilised zoom capabilities as the FZ30 is expensive, but it can produce better quality. One alternative I might suggest, is to pick up one of last year's Panasonic models, such as the FZ20 (f/2.8 Leica lens) or FZ5 (more compact, with an f/3.3 Leica lens), and see how you get on with it. Such models would probably cost no more than about £250 today, and by the time you've sold them second-hand you might recover £100, so you would be investing £150 to learn about the cameras and see if they could do the job you want. I used to have Nikon SLR equipment, but since I went digital I have had lots more fun with my photography, and for me the freedom offered by the lightweight Panasonic models more than outweighs the slightly higher noise, and loss of versatility from not having interchangeable lenses. I now carry the Panasonic FZ5 for normal use, and a Nikon 8400 for those times when I need the additional 24mm wide-angle capability. The whole lot weighs much less than my old SLR outfit, and is much more compact as well. David > A DSLR with the same image-stabilised zoom capabilities as the FZ30 is > expensive, but it can produce better quality. One alternative I might > suggest, is to pick up one of last year's Panasonic models, such as the > FZ20 (f/2.8 Leica lens) or FZ5 (more compact, with an f/3.3 Leica lens), > and see how you get on with it. Such models would probably cost no more > than about £250 today... You can get the FZ7 *new* for just a little over £250 if you shop around on the web - try Amazon or some of the (UK) digital camera specialists. So far, I'm very pleased with mine... >> A DSLR with the same image-stabilised zoom capabilities as the FZ30 is >> expensive, but it can produce better quality. One alternative I might [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on the web - try Amazon or some of the (UK) digital camera specialists. So > far, I'm very pleased with mine... Personally I'd recommend the FZ30 over the FZ7 for three reasons--RAW mode (postprocessing in Photoshop can sometimes do a much better job than the in-camera image processing you're stuck with with the FZ7--TIFF is not compressed but it's still processed), the flip out LCD (real blessing in low-angle shots and macro work), and the hot shoe (the Wein peanut slave works but it's another 40 bucks). OTOH, the FZ7 is smaller and costs less and might be quite adequate for the OP's needs.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> A DSLR with the same image-stabilised zoom capabilities as the FZ30 is >>> expensive, but it can produce better quality. One alternative I might [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > works but it's another 40 bucks). OTOH, the FZ7 is smaller and costs less > and might be quite adequate for the OP's needs. (OP here) The FZ30 is my target/benchmark camera and I'm quite happy with its price. To add to the advantages over the FZ7 listed above, I much prefer the manual zoom ring rather than little imprecise buttons. I am trying to establish whether I can come up with a viable alternative to the FZ30 via the DSLR route, which I know will give me many more options in the future and also smoother (sharper?) images. The problem with the DSLR route is how to match or exceed the capabilities of the FZ30 without spending (much) more than three times the money. It can be taken as read that in almost all areas the DSLR body will match or better the FZ30 but I am struggling to come up with a combination of lenses that will cover the 35mm-420mm equivalent and macro that the FZ30 has for the right sort of budget. I also appreciate that the FZ30 has a fast f2.8-3.7 lens and for the sort of money I'm talking about I would not expect that with a DSLR. So basically the purpose of this thread is to identify a pair of zoom lenses to partner with a DSLR that can do what the FZ30 Leica lens can manage for a total cost of under £600 for the lenses, preferably well under. If I can't manage to achieve that then for me the further expense is simply not worth it and I will get the FZ30 or wait to see what its successor offers. BTW, I just took a trip to the zoo today and for the vast majority of my shots I was having to resort to my camcorder to make use of the 10X optical zoom and often that was insufficient to get close enough. I took about a dozen photos with my Sony P200 and gave up with it as it just didn't have the range I needed to pull in the tight shots. Of course, although the camcorder has a 10X zoom I'm not sure what it is 10X of. I think it is definitely not as wide as 35mm equivalent, probably something like 42mm, which means spookily that at max zoom it will actually be equal to the 420mm equivalent of the FZ30. Maybe I need a DSLR after all with a 300mm at least at the top end to give me 480mm and the option to go higher if needed. Oh bum :-( >> A DSLR with the same image-stabilised zoom capabilities as the FZ30 >> is expensive, but it can produce better quality. One alternative I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > around on the web - try Amazon or some of the (UK) digital camera > specialists. So far, I'm very pleased with mine... Thanks, Peter. I wasn't trying to produce impressively low prices, but what you say probably means that the OP can get an FZ5 or FZ20 for just a couple of hundred pounds or less while saving for his DSLR. I did like the suggestion which someone made of getting the FZ camera for the things it could do well, and adding in a DSLR for the "parts which the FZ couldn't reach". Cheers, David The three main problems with most P&S cameras rank thus: Noise Dynamic range The Lens. Some have good enough lenses so they don't really factor in. But noise and dynamic range narrowness are the main ones. > The three main problems with most P&S cameras rank thus: > Noise [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some have good enough lenses so they don't really factor in. > But noise and dynamic range narrowness are the main ones. As with any tool, it pays to know the limitations of the tool when trying to get the best out of it. Cameras are no different. Noise can be largely overcome by keeping to a lower ISO, rather like keeping to Kodachrome 64. Dynamic range requires that you take a little more care with exposure, or bracket. Personally, I see the main advantages of the DSLR as higher sensitivity (because of its larger sensitive area), and the versatility of interchangeable lenses. You can take good pictures (and bad ones!) with either camera type. David > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a > Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Leica superzoom? In short, can I actually get a couple of decent zooms for > sensible money to cover 35mm-420mm equivalent? I've been struggling with the same question myself. It's a hard one. You're not going to get the full capability of the FZ out of a DSLR and 2 lenses. Just not gonna happen. Especially not at your price point. The FZ will spoil you. It does a tremendous lot in a tiny package for not much money. The things that I've hit that it doesn't do well are large prints, heavy crops, low light, extreme macros, middle-focal-length macros, and action involving small objects (it's hard as Hell to track a butterfly in flight with it for example). I've been looking to put together a DSLR system that fully duplicates its functionality and I keep coming up with $10-20K systems. I think it can be done with Nikon cheaper than with Canon, but most of the Nikon pieces seem to be on permanent backorder. I'm concluding that rather than try to duplicate the FZ, I might be better off to get the DSLR with the pieces to do the things the FZ doesn't do adequately that I want to do and use the FZ for everything else. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Given that a DSLR is likely to produce better results at ISO 1600 than the Panasonic will at ISO 400, all else being equal, I wouldn't start by assuming you need f2.8 and/or image stablization in order to match the Panasonic's performance. That is, a picture that requires ISO 400, f2.8, and IS on the Panasonic in order to be sharp may turn out to look better on the DSLR at ISO 1600 at f4 with no IS: just as sharp, but considerably less noisy, and better dynamic range to boot. You may well find that the kit lens combined with an inexpensive 70-300 zoom will actually outperform the Panasonic in virtually every way in practice. > FZ30 costs £350 and the only real performance drawbacks are sensor > noise and slower AF (especially for tracking action). Depends on how you define "performance". If you count "usability" in the sense of making it easy to get the sort of control you want over the shot, that's going to be a significant drawback as well, even after factoring the need to change lenses on the DSLR. > Is it that FZ30 reviewers set expectations lower when reviewing kit > and lens reviews have far higher standards so the reviews appear > damning when in reality the lenses are still far better than the Leica > superzoom? I suspect so, yes. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Given that a DSLR is likely to produce better results at ISO 1600 than > the Panasonic will at ISO 400, all else being equal, I wouldn't start by > assuming you need f2.8 and/or image stablization in order to match the > Panasonic's performance. If your goal is to _match_ it then just get the Panasonic. To be worth the cost differential the DSLR has to better it by a considerable margin. > That is, a picture that requires ISO 400, > f2.8, and IS on the Panasonic in order to be sharp may turn out to look > better on the DSLR at ISO 1600 at f4 with no IS: just as sharp, but > considerably less noisy, and better dynamic range to boot. You may well > find that the kit lens combined with an inexpensive 70-300 zoom will > actually outperform the Panasonic in virtually every way in practice. Where does one find an _inexpensive_ 70-300 zoom that can focus down to 3 feet at full zoom? And does the kit lens have macro capability at the other end? And will either produce markedly better results than the FZ30, considering that you have to run at least one ISO level higher to match the smaller aperture and 2-3 more to compensate for the lack of IS? >> FZ30 costs £350 and the only real performance drawbacks are sensor >> noise and slower AF (especially for tracking action). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shot, that's going to be a significant drawback as well, even after > factoring the need to change lenses on the DSLR. The FZ30 has control over ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and white balance and outputs RAW. What additional control would the DSLR provide you? >> Is it that FZ30 reviewers set expectations lower when reviewing kit >> and lens reviews have far higher standards so the reviews appear [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/ Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >The FZ30 has control over ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and white balance >and outputs RAW. What additional control would the DSLR provide you? The DSLR gives you control over noise, and therefore image quality. The noise from the tiny CCD in the Panasonic is severe, even at low ISO. At higher ISOs it is even worse. When it comes to noise, there is no real comparison between a point and shoot digicam using a tiny and very noisy chip and a digital SLR using an APS size sensor. It doesn't matter how many other features Panasonic adds to its point and shoot digicams, because they will always be limited by their high noise levels at all ISOs. However, there is an alternative. The Sony DSC-R1 is a digicam with a 10 MP APS size sensor. Its noise levels are comparable with digital SLRs. It has an outstanding Carl Zeiss lens with a wide maximum aperture and an excellent 5X zoom range. It costs a fraction of the price of a 10 MP digital SLR and a lens of equivalent quality. I would recommend that the OP tries a Sony DSC-R1 to see if it could meet his needs better than the Panasonic FZ-30. > However, there is an alternative. The Sony DSC-R1 is a digicam with a > 10 MP APS size sensor. Its noise levels are comparable with digital > SLRs. It has an outstanding Carl Zeiss lens with a wide maximum > aperture and an excellent 5X zoom range. It costs a fraction of the > price of a 10 MP digital SLR and a lens of equivalent quality. Hmm, I had not heard of that. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ > I would recommend that the OP tries a Sony DSC-R1 to see if it could > meet his needs better than the Panasonic FZ-30. >>The FZ30 has control over ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and white balance >>and outputs RAW. What additional control would the DSLR provide you? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I would recommend that the OP tries a Sony DSC-R1 to see if it could > meet his needs better than the Panasonic FZ-30. Thanks for the recommendation :-) I am aware of the DSC-R1 and have read review(s) and it does seem to be a very impressive package. Plenty of reviews referenced here..... http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/review_listing.cfm/hurl/id|1589 The problem for me is that the zoom range, at 5X, is rather limited compared to the FZ30's 12X and the 120mm equivalent at max telephoto falls far short of the 420mm of the FZ30. While I am looking for a good all round solution, including macro, my general emphasis is towards longer shots (wildlife portraits in particular) and I wouldn't find much use for the 24mm equivalent end. I see there is a 1.7X converter but that only extends the long end to 204mm equivalent so still just half the power of the FZ30. I know that with a quality 10MP image I could crop after shooting but to match the FZ30 would require the teleconverter and, after cropping, give me just 2.5MP pictures. I've already got a Sony camcorder and Sony P200 P&S so I'm not averse to the Sony brand but sadly the R1 is not for me. >Thanks for the recommendation :-) I am aware of the DSC-R1 and have read >review(s) and it does seem to be a very impressive package. Plenty of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I've already got a Sony camcorder and Sony P200 P&S so I'm not averse to the >Sony brand but sadly the R1 is not for me. OK, I understand why. But I repeat my strong warning about noise with the Panasonic. I have nothing against Panasonic as a brand but the CCDs in Panasonic point and shoot digital cameras have severe noise problems. You are obviously a keen photographer and I suggest that the Panasonic is therefore not for you. >>Thanks for the recommendation :-) I am aware of the DSC-R1 and have read >>review(s) and it does seem to be a very impressive package. Plenty of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > problems. You are obviously a keen photographer and I suggest that > the Panasonic is therefore not for you. The "severity" of the noise issue with Panasonic is much overstated IMO. If you want to say that in tests it shows more noise than competing models that's perfectly reasonable. But to go from there to "severe noise problems" is propagandizing. Yes, it's there. It limits the maximum usable ISO and the usable print size. Without knowing what size the OP intends to print, if he intends to at all, it's difficult to say whether this would be an issue for him. I wouldn't give up the other capabilities to get the larger sensor unless I was planning to print large enough for it to be an issue. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) It will also "blow out the whites" way more easily than a DSLR since it's small CCD cannot cope with wide dynamic ranges. This becomes very annoying because you are always having to chose between (on bright days) pitch-black shadows with no detail or blown out whites with no detail. > It will also "blow out the whites" way more easily than a DSLR since > it's small CCD [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with no detail > or blown out whites with no detail. I've never noticed this particular issue. It may be there, but again it's not as severe as you suggest. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> It will also "blow out the whites" way more easily than a DSLR since >> it's small CCD [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I've never noticed this particular issue. It may be there, but again it's >not as severe as you suggest. It seems that you are in denial about these problems, which are well known and well documented. But being wilfully blind is understandable if you have just invested $$$ in one of the affected cameras. ;-) >>> It will also "blow out the whites" way more easily than a DSLR since >>> it's small CCD [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > known and well documented.> But being wilfully blind is understandable > if you have just invested $$$ in one of the affected cameras. Or perhaps you prefer to call everything that falls short of perfection a "problem". In that case everything but a Fuji has a dynamic range problem so I guess we should all avoid those crappy Nikons and Canons. If you want to say the dynamic range on a Panasonic is less than on something else, be my guest. But to say that it's a "problem" and that you "always have to choose between pitch black shadows or blown out whites" is more propagandizing. You've never actually used one, have you? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >Or perhaps you prefer to call everything that falls short of perfection a >"problem". The majority of point and shoot digital cameras use a Sony CCD which has significantly lower noise than the Panasonic CCD. That significant difference is more than enough to describe the Pansonics' noise as a problem. If you choose to deny it is a problem, that is entirely up to you. >If you want to say the dynamic range on a Panasonic is less than on >something else, be my guest. But to say that it's a "problem" and that you >"always have to choose between pitch black shadows or blown out whites" is >more propagandizing. You are quoting someone else's text. Please feel free to reply to whoever posted it, not me. >You've never actually used one, have you? I have tested all the Panasonic point and shoot digital cameras with Leica lenses. The tests were commissioned by a camera store and the results are intended to help sales store to recommend the most suitable cameras for individual buyers. The Panasonic cameras have some great strengths. The lenses are excellent and the anti-shake system works well. But the images are noisy. No amount of bluster and BS from you is going to change that. ;-) >>Or perhaps you prefer to call everything that falls short of perfection a >>"problem". [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > results are intended to help sales store to recommend the most > suitable cameras for individual buyers. Testing in a laboratory is not the same as using. > The Panasonic cameras have some great strengths. The lenses are > excellent and the anti-shake system works well. But the images are > noisy. No amount of bluster and BS from you is going to change that. I have stipulated many times that the noise level in images recorded with Panasonic cameras is higher than with other models. My objection is to overstating this situation by calling it a "problem" and claiming that shots that I have no trouble obtaining cannot be made with such a camera. If you consider that to be "bluster and BS" you're entitled to your opinion, but that seems to be more hyperbole. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >Testing in a laboratory is not the same as using. Where did I say the tests were done in a laboratory? >>Testing in a laboratory is not the same as using. > > Where did I say the tests were done in a laboratory? So you tested it but didn't use any kind of laboratory? Then how did you achieve standardized conditions allowing a useful comparison? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>Testing in a laboratory is not the same as using. >> >> Where did I say the tests were done in a laboratory? > >So you tested it but didn't use any kind of laboratory? Then how did you >achieve standardized conditions allowing a useful comparison? Congratulations! You are truly the Dumbass of the Year. If you can find a way of testing a point and shoot digital camera with a non-removable lens on an optical test bench, camera testers around the world would just *love* to hear from you! And you are such mass of total contradictions. First you criticise tests that you assume were carried out in a laboratory because you think they are unrepresentative, then you say that only laboratory tests can give a useful comparison. You talk complete and utter nonsense. But by God, you are the funniest person to appear on this newsgroup for months, so don't go away! Talk some more of your total crap and entertain us, please?!? ;-) > You talk complete and utter nonsense. But by God, you are the funniest > person to appear on this newsgroup for months, so don't go away! Talk > some more of your total crap and entertain us, please?!? LOL! I had a great time letting Mr. Clarke humiliate himself a few years back and it was fun. He's easy to keep dancing. Just don't forget to pull his string from time to time. Rita >>>>Testing in a laboratory is not the same as using. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Congratulations! You are truly the Dumbass of the Year. Well, that's the second time that you've come back with an insult instead of a substantive response. <plonk> <Remainder of bullshit snipped.> Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >The "severity" of the noise issue with Panasonic is much overstated IMO. If >you want to say that in tests it shows more noise than competing models >that's perfectly reasonable. But to go from there to "severe noise >problems" is propagandizing. The noise is severe in comparison to any DSLR, and significantly worse than other point and shoot digital cameras, most of which use Sony CCDs which have intrinsically lower noise levels. Anyone who denies those facts is propagandizing. Brand loyalty is *so* touching, even when it is so wholly misplaced. ;-) [] > OK, I understand why. But I repeat my strong warning about noise with > the Panasonic. I have nothing against Panasonic as a brand but the > CCDs in Panasonic point and shoot digital cameras have severe noise > problems. You are obviously a keen photographer and I suggest that > the Panasonic is therefore not for you. As the owner of a Panasonic, and other small-sensor cameras, I do feel this noise problem is rather exaggerated. Yes, if you choose a higher ISO (e.g 200 or 400), the noise is noticeable and, yes, DSLRs would allow perhaps ISO 1600 or ISO 3200, but the basic images from a Panasonic FZ5 or Nikon 8400 at 50 - 100 ISO are perfectly usable at least up to A4 print size (about 11 inches by 8). Look back at images from film cameras, and there are many occasions when a little grain can give character to an image, so I do not consider noise as such something which must be avoided on all occasions at all costs. Of course, it could detract from the portrait of an attractive model. I would accept that you need to understand the limitations of small-sensor cameras, but I do not agree that they all "have severe noise problems". David "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: >As the owner of a Panasonic, and other small-sensor cameras, I do feel >this noise problem is rather exaggerated. Unfortunately, the small Panasonic CCD sensors seem to be very noisy compared to those from Sony, which are much more widely used. The moral of the story is to choose carefully. Choosing a Panasonic point and shoot camera offers the advantages of an excellent lens and a very useful anti-shake system. These advantages need to be weighed against the disadvantage of noisy images. They are significantly more noisy than those from Sony CCDs at all ISO speeds. Of course if you owned a DSLR - of any brand - you would realise just how severe the noise is with smaller sensors. Merely comparing point and shoot digicams with small sensors will not reveal the gulf in performance that exists between all of them and DSLRs. > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > compared to those from Sony, which are much more widely used. The > moral of the story is to choose carefully. Yes, there are differences, but the major difference is sensor size between small-sensor cameras and DSLRs, rather than between-brand small cameras sensors. > Choosing a Panasonic point and shoot camera offers the advantages of > an excellent lens and a very useful anti-shake system. These > advantages need to be weighed against the disadvantage of noisy > images. They are significantly more noisy than those from Sony CCDs > at all ISO speeds. I would welcome the chance to have a lower-noise, slightly larger sensor (e.g 5MP, 2/3-inch of the Nikon 5700) coupled with the Leica lens and IS system from the Panasonic FZ20, but until I build my own camera I have to stick with what I can buy! > Of course if you owned a DSLR - of any brand - you would realise just > how severe the noise is with smaller sensors. Merely comparing point > and shoot digicams with small sensors will not reveal the gulf in > performance that exists between all of them and DSLRs. In terms or producing a good A4 size (or 10 x 8 inch) image, without cropping, I do not think there is a large gulf in the quality of images which can be produced. Doubtless the DSLR would produce the slightly better image, and the DSLR can operate over a wider sensitivity range, and probably has a little more crop margin (for the same number of sensor elements). When I owned an SLR, with far less capability in lenses than the Panasonic FZ5 and Nikon 8400 I now carry, I found that I enjoyed my photography far less than today. The total system was so bulky and heavy that it didn't even get taken out some times! I'm still waiting for the DSLR with a 432mm equivalent IS lens weighing about 300g! Of course, this is a personal view, and that you choose differently doesn't surprise me at all. David "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: >> Unfortunately, the small Panasonic CCD sensors seem to be very noisy >> compared to those from Sony, which are much more widely used. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >between small-sensor cameras and DSLRs, rather than between-brand small >cameras sensors. The difference between Sony CCDs and Panasonic CCDs is significant. But if you wish to believe otherwise, that is entirely your choice. >> Choosing a Panasonic point and shoot camera offers the advantages of >> an excellent lens and a very useful anti-shake system. These [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >system from the Panasonic FZ20, but until I build my own camera I have to >stick with what I can buy! Earlier in the thread I recommended the Sony DSC-R1. It has an APS size sensor, 10 MP and an outstanding Carl Zeiss 24-120mm (35mm equivalent) zoom. There is no anti-shake, but in every other respect this is a fine camera. >> Of course if you owned a DSLR - of any brand - you would realise just >> how severe the noise is with smaller sensors. Merely comparing point [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cropping, I do not think there is a large gulf in the quality of images >which can be produced. Oh dear. You really should try a DSLR before making such a statement, because there is no way it can be supported. >Doubtless the DSLR would produce the slightly >better image, and the DSLR can operate over a wider sensitivity range, and >probably has a little more crop margin (for the same number of sensor >elements). "Slightly" is not the word. There is a deep and wide gulf between the performance of point and shoot digital cameras and digital SLRs, with the exception of the Sony DSC-R1. Maybe you personally don't need DSLR performance, but for the benefit of others reading this thread, please don't deny the huge advantages they have over point and shoot digital cameras. > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The difference between Sony CCDs and Panasonic CCDs is significant. > But if you wish to believe otherwise, that is entirely your choice. My point was that the difference in performance between DSLR and small-sensors was much greater the difference between individual small-sensors. I welcome any work which reduces noise in small-sensors. >>> Choosing a Panasonic point and shoot camera offers the advantages of >>> an excellent lens and a very useful anti-shake system. These [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > equivalent) zoom. There is no anti-shake, but in every other respect > this is a fine camera. The size and bulk of the camera, and its lack of long-lens image stabilisation would rule it out for me, but doubtless it has its place. >>> Of course if you owned a DSLR - of any brand - you would realise >>> just how severe the noise is with smaller sensors. Merely [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh dear. You really should try a DSLR before making such a statement, > because there is no way it can be supported. Image quality is subjective, so my opinion may differ from yours. >> Doubtless the DSLR would produce the slightly >> better image, and the DSLR can operate over a wider sensitivity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > please don't deny the huge advantages they have over point and shoot > digital cameras. DSLRs and small-sensor cameras offer a choice of the way you take your photographs. In some situations, DSLRs have advantages, in other situations the small-sensor camera wins. You pays your money, and makes your own choice of tools for the job in hand. David >> It doesn't matter how many other features Panasonic adds to its point >> and shoot digicams, because they will always be limited by their high >> noise levels at all ISOs. >... The problem for me is that the zoom range, at 5X, is rather limited >compared to the FZ30's 12X and the 120mm equivalent at max telephoto >falls far short of the 420mm of the FZ30. This, in a nutshell, is the advantage of a DSLR - you don't have to make that tradeoff. Interchangeable lenses are good things. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Given that a DSLR is likely to produce better results at ISO 1600 >> than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > worth the > cost differential the DSLR has to better it by a considerable margin. Not necessarily. The DSLR may only equal the image quality of the Panasonic in these minority of cases where you'd need ISO 400 and f2.8 on the Panasonic, but may provide huge advantages in other areas - image quality in less demanding situations, flexibility, usability, etc. >> You may well >> find that the kit lens combined with an inexpensive 70-300 zoom will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > feet at full zoom? And does the kit lens have macro capability at the > other end? I don't know the particulars on the FZ30's macro capabilities, but obviously, if you need this, you can get it for a DSLR, in any of several different ways. For my own limited needs, an inexpensive lens plus a close up lens (filter) is more than good enough. >> Depends on how you define "performance". If you count "usability" in >> the sense of making it easy to get the sort of control you want over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > balance > and outputs RAW. What additional control would the DSLR provide you? I said making it *easy* to get that sort of control. Add manual focus to that list. I haven't played with the FZ30, but the FZ20 was notably more awkward to use in most of those respects than most DSLR's. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> Given that a DSLR is likely to produce better results at ISO 1600 >>> than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > on the Panasonic, but may provide huge advantages in other areas - image > quality in less demanding situations, flexibility, usability, etc. Considering all the histrionics about noise I would hope that that is the circumstance where the DSLR trounces it completely. >>> You may well >>> find that the kit lens combined with an inexpensive 70-300 zoom will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > several different ways. For my own limited needs, an inexpensive lens > plus a close up lens (filter) is more than good enough. Yes, you can. And you will pay more than the price of the Panasonic for any of them except a cheap set of diopters. >>> Depends on how you define "performance". If you count "usability" in >>> the sense of making it easy to get the sort of control you want over [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to that list. I haven't played with the FZ30, but the FZ20 was notably > more awkward to use in most of those respects than most DSLR's. Push the "manual focus" button on top and move the thumbstick on the back. Not nearly as awkward as it sounds. Manual aperture and shutter you just set the selector to "M" and use the same stick. Takes a little getting used to if you're used to an SLR but it works better than I would have expected. > --------------- > Marc Sabatella [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/ Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> The DSLR may only equal the image quality of the >> Panasonic in these minority of cases where you'd need ISO 400 and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the > circumstance where the DSLR trounces it completely. Well, all else equal, the DSLR *will* trounce the FZ30 in terms of noise. But all else is *not* equal - the FZ30 has a fast lens and IS, meaning we're comparing the FZ30 at ISO 400 against the DSLR at 1600. The DSLR will still probably win in that department, but it will be close, I suspect. It's the FZ30's noise in the less demanding situations - times when the DSLR would be able to shoot at ISO 800 or 400 - that will be its downfall in this comparison. >>>> You may well >>>> find that the kit lens combined with an inexpensive 70-300 zoom [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for any > of them except a cheap set of diopters. Extension tubes aren't that expensive, and these or the diopters may well be all it takes to do the job. Also, while I did not directly address this before, note a 70-300 with 1:2 macro capability (which is better than that in 35mm equivalent) runs all of about $150. Again, I don't know what the FZ30 offers in the macro department, but it doesn't take *that* much money to get good results with a DSLR. >>> The FZ30 has control over ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and white >>> balance [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > used to if you're used to an SLR but it works better than I would have > expected. Better than expected isn't the same as better than a DSLR. Just how good is that optical viewfinder on the FZ30? --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >Well, all else equal, the DSLR *will* trounce the FZ30 in terms of >noise. But all else is *not* equal - the FZ30 has a fast lens and IS, >meaning we're comparing the FZ30 at ISO 400 against the DSLR at 1600. >The DSLR will still probably win in that department, but it will be >close, I suspect. Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta (Sony) and now Pentax all offer DSLRs with IS/VR/AntiShake. So why on earth would you try to compare the Panasonic FZ30 at ISO 400 with a DSLT at ISO 1600? You should be comparing them at exactly the same ISO. In addition, you should be comparing dynamic range, where all DSLRs beat point and shoot cameras by a massive margin. You should also compare depth of field, where the FZ-30 cannot be used to defocus a background because, even at maximum aperture, its depth of field is far too great. Noise is just one of the problems you get with point and shoot cameras. As I have shown, there are several more, and they are all significant problems. In the age of the digital camera, it is no longer possible to obtain from a point and shoot camera results that can be compared with those from an SLR, as was the case with film. The problems with point and shoot digital cameras are inherent in the manufacturers' choice of tiny sensors on grounds of cost. > Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta (Sony) and now Pentax all offer DSLRs > with IS/VR/AntiShake. So why on earth would you try to compare the > Panasonic FZ30 at ISO 400 with a DSLT at ISO 1600? Good point. I guess I didn't want to assume one would want to limit one's consideration to DSLR's with this feature. Especially since Canon/Nikon don't actually offer cameras with this feature (just individual lenses, which are rather expensive), KM is out of the business, and Pentax's model isn't actually out yet. > In addition, you should be comparing dynamic range, where all DSLRs > beat point and shoot cameras by a massive margin. You should also > compare depth of field, where the FZ-30 cannot be used to defocus a > background because, even at maximum aperture, its depth of field is > far too great. I believe I mentioned dynamic range in my previous post, and in any case, certainly meant that in referring to the ways a DSLR would surely win. The DOF issue was not something I was specifically thinking about, but of course you are right. > In the age of the digital camera, it is no longer possible to obtain > from a point and shoot camera results that can be compared with those > from an SLR, as was the case with film. The problems with point and > shoot digital cameras are inherent in the manufacturers' choice of > tiny sensors on grounds of cost. Actually, I wouldn't call this an inherent problem with P&S or even tiny sensors, although of course it happens to work out that way in practice today. But I can easily imagine the noise and dynamic range issue being address pretty well within a decade. That is, I have no problem believing that by 2016, a small P&S-sized sensor will be capable of very low noise, high dynamic range photos at ISO 3200 with a resolution of well over 10 MP. Granted, we aren't likely to see changes in optics that enable smaller cameras to get the same DOF options. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta (Sony) and now Pentax all offer DSLRs >> with IS/VR/AntiShake. So why on earth would you try to compare the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > win. The DOF issue was not something I was specifically thinking about, > but of course you are right. Well, he's sort of right. Depends on what you're doing. Take a look at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723%40N00/149198892/> and <http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723%40N00/149198891/> to get an idea of what is possible in telemacro mode. >> In the age of the digital camera, it is no longer possible to obtain >> from a point and shoot camera results that can be compared with those [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > well over 10 MP. Granted, we aren't likely to see changes in optics > that enable smaller cameras to get the same DOF options. Actually, small sensors that can do a usable 1600 are available, Fuji uses one in the F10 and F11. Their new F30 goes to 3200 but it remains to be seen whether it improves on the F10/F11 or whether they've managed to break it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>Actually, I wouldn't call this an inherent problem with P&S or even tiny >>sensors, although of course it happens to work out that way in practice [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > seen whether it improves on the F10/F11 or whether they've managed to break > it. Acquiring an image involves photons/second. A smaller sensor uses smaller lenses which collect fewer photons. Example: ISO 100 for a given exposure time, would get a maximum of 50,000 converted photons in a canon 20D camera with 6.4 micron pixels. A canon S60 with 2.8 micron pixels gets a maximum signal at iso 100 of only about 11,000 photons. An FZ30 has only 2.2 micron pixels, or about 62% of the area of an S60. Thus iso max signal is probably only about 6800 photons. At iso 1600 that drops to 6800/16 = 425 photons. But that is max signal. The 18% gray level is about 18% these values, or down to 425*0.18 =76 photons. The signal/noise is only 8.7. Don't ask about shadows: they will be a lot of noise. Compare that to the 20D at iso 1600 where the max signal is 3125 photons, the 18% gray level gets about 562 photons and a signal-to-noise ratio of 23.7, or 2.7 times higher. And this example assumes perfect electronics. The 20D is very good with read noise less than 4 electrons. Point and shoot cameras typically have higher read noise (above 10), further separating them from DSLRs. It is simple physics why larger sensors have better signal-to- noise ratios: they collect more photons. It will always be that way. Modern digital cameras are photon noise limited for their quantum efficiencies. That means that improving electronics won't help much. Each person must decide how much noise they will accept, and how much they will pay for the better sensors, and how much they are willing to lug around in that larger sensor. Related articles: The f/ratio Myth and Digital Cameras http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/f-ratio_myth Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise (the tables give data for various sensors) Roger >>>Actually, I wouldn't call this an inherent problem with P&S or even tiny >>>sensors, although of course it happens to work out that way in practice [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise > (the tables give data for various sensors) So you're saying that the Fuji F10 cannot exist? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>Actually, I wouldn't call this an inherent problem with P&S or even tiny >>>>sensors, although of course it happens to work out that way in practice [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > So you're saying that the Fuji F10 cannot exist? Obviously not. What all the above means is that smaller pixels collect fewer photons and whether that is important or not for your applications is up to you to decide. In some cases, fewer photons can still produce spectacular images. After all, we used to do it all the time with film! And some of us still do. (Film has a small fraction of the quantum efficiency of electronic sensors, so a square mm of film captures a smaller number of photons than electronic sensor does given the same scene, lens, f/stop and exposure time.) Roger >>>>>Actually, I wouldn't call this an inherent problem with P&S or even >>>>>tiny sensors, although of course it happens to work out that way in [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > of film captures a smaller number of photons than electronic > sensor does given the same scene, lens, f/stop and exposure time.) Precisely. What matters is the image, not the technology used to produce it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> ruminated: >It is simple physics why larger sensors have better signal-to- >noise ratios: they collect more photons. It will always be that >way. Modern digital cameras are photon noise limited for their >quantum efficiencies. You're absolutely correct. Given the current paradigm of one sensor, one lens, one exposure, where the camera outputs a representation of the photons that are hitting the sensor during the exposure, we're going to be stuck with similar noise levels as with today's cameras. However, ten years is a long time. It will take a significant technological leap and a shift in how people think of cameras, but I believe that in ten years our cameras will act more like the human eye. They'll have a greater amount of intelligence (brain-like, even) which can process out noise far better than today's algorithms and can make pictures look like how we perceive them in real life, even in the most challenging of conditions. An example of one of a big leap (though not related to noise) is described here: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/fourierphoto/ http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/ where researchers have developed a camera which can, in a single exposure, provide a photograph that can be focused after the picture has been taken. I'm pointing this out as an example where if you move away from the film-like digital camera and more towards the computer-like digital camera, you can make significant gains. Around ten years ago, I used the one of the first "affordable" consumer digital cameras, the Apple Quicktake. Since then, digital cameras have improved greatly, but I think that the rate of improvement is going to slow over the next few years, until someone makes the big leap that allows rapid improvement again. What will it be? A processor that wipes out noise the way your brain can? A camera that uses imagery from before and after your photo to resolve noise? A camera with a thousand tiny lenses and a thousand tiny sensors that are on all the time? Roger, I hope we can revisit this thread in ten years! Andrew *Date:* Sun, 4 Jun 2006 21:19:41 -0600 > Good point. I guess I didn't want to assume one would want to limit > one's consideration to DSLR's with this feature. Especially since > Canon/Nikon don't actually offer cameras with this feature (just > individual lenses, which are rather expensive), KM is out of the > business, and Pentax's model isn't actually out yet. Big assumption there. Anti-shake built into the camera sounds such a sure-fire winner until you realise that the equivalent lenses from Minolta without IS or VR are more expensive than the ones from Canon and Nikon *with* IS and VR! Then consider that the in-body anti-shake has to be a compromise in adaptation to particular focal lengths, whereas the systems built into lenses can be optimised for those lenses. So really it's a similar issue to in-body autofocus motors compared to in-lens motors, with similar tradeoffs. > Anti-shake built into the camera sounds such a sure-fire winner until > you realise that the equivalent lenses from Minolta without IS or VR are > more expensive than the ones from Canon and Nikon *with* IS and VR! But this is Minolta-specific (Or Sony-specific, by now.) Not inherent in the camera-based A/S concept as such. As long as you use third-party lenses, they are the same price for both platforms. The only snag there is that a given third-party lens might not be available in for a body with Anti-shake. > Then consider that the in-body anti-shake has to be a compromise in > adaptation to particular focal lengths, whereas the systems built into > lenses can be optimised for those lenses. There might be a third tradeoff, too. It would seem as if at least KM:s Anti-Shake system requires a bit longer shutter lag times than needed in other DSLR:s. Alan complained about this here, and there is quite a discussion about the "lazy eye syndrome" (the subject has time enough to blink between pre-flash and flash to create closed or closing eyes on the image) particularly when phitographing kids, with their quick reflexes, over at the KM DSLR forum at dprevew.com. It will be intressting to see whether Petnax's system, or Sony's supposedly improved version that will sit in their nea A100, will have the same drawback. Jan Böhme >>> The DSLR may only equal the image quality of the >>> Panasonic in these minority of cases where you'd need ISO 400 and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > noise. But all else is *not* equal - the FZ30 has a fast lens and IS, > meaning we're comparing the FZ30 at ISO 400 against the DSLR at 1600. How much the IS counts depends on the circumstances. Tripod mounted with a stationary subject it matters not one iota. > The DSLR will still probably win in that department, but it will be > close, I suspect. It's the FZ30's noise in the less demanding [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Extension tubes aren't that expensive, They are if you have enough of them to get to the equivalent of the tele macro on the Panasonic. > and these or the diopters may > well be all it takes to do the job. If you are making small prints or shooting for the web they're fine. > Also, while I did not directly > address this before, note a 70-300 with 1:2 macro capability (which is > better than that in 35mm equivalent) runs all of about $150. Add to that the converter, most telemacros don't get as close as the superzoom on the Panasonic. But if you are going to allow additional lenses on the DSLR, put a Noctilux on a Canon and it develops a considerable advantage in that low light situation you described above. Or you could if you can't afford f/1.0 spend the 80 bucks or so for an f/1.8 50mm. > Again, I > don't know what the FZ30 offers in the macro department, but it doesn't > take *that* much money to get good results with a DSLR. You might want to find out. It offers focusing to 3 feet at the equivalent of 400mm. That's what you have to match. >>>> The FZ30 has control over ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and white >>>> balance [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Better than expected isn't the same as better than a DSLR. It is if I expected it to be ten time as good as a DSLR. You're playing schoolboy word games now. > Just how > good is that optical viewfinder on the FZ30? That is one of its greatest weaknesses. It isn't "which is better". They're different. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >But if you are going to allow additional lenses on the DSLR, put a Noctilux >on a Canon and it develops a considerable advantage in that low light >situation you described above. Or you could if you can't afford f/1.0 >spend the 80 bucks or so for an f/1.8 50mm. There is no such thing as a Noctilux f/1.0 that will fit a Canon DSLR. The Leica Noctilux f/1.0 has a Leica M mount which cannot be adapted to fit the Canon EF mount. Even if it could be mounted, it would foul the reflex mirror. There was a Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 but it was never called Noctilux, which is a registered trade mark of Leica. The EF 50mm f/1.0 was not a great lens and was discontinued. >> Well, all else equal, the DSLR *will* trounce the FZ30 in terms of >> noise. But all else is *not* equal - the FZ30 has a fast lens and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a > stationary subject it matters not one iota. Indeed. Of course, you realize this just means the advantage of the DSLR is greater than I initially suggested - if you're using a tripod, the Panasonic's 2.8/IS combo won't help offset its disadvantage in other respects. >> Extension tubes aren't that expensive, > > They are if you have enough of them to get to the equivalent of the > tele > macro on the Panasonic. >> Also, while I did not directly >> address this before, note a 70-300 with 1:2 macro capability (which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Add to that the converter, most telemacros don't get as close as the > superzoom on the Panasonic. What converter? I'm not sure what you mean by "close" here. A 70-300 lens on most DSLR is slightly more telephoto than the FZ30, so I guess you mean focus distance. Just what *is* the effective magnification ratio on the FZ30 when focusing to 3 feet at maximum zoom? > But if you are going to allow additional lenses on the DSLR Of course I am. That's the whole point. Not "allowing" one to use additional lenses on the DSLR for the sake of comparison would be like not "allowing" one to use the IS on the Panasonic, > put a Noctilux > on a Canon and it develops a considerable advantage in that low light > situation you described above. Or you could if you can't afford f/1.0 > spend the 80 bucks or so for an f/1.8 50mm. But getting a 300mm lens that fast is pretty prohibitive for most people, both in terms of price but also convenience. That's why I brought up the ISO difference, because that's how must people will actually handle the situation. > You might want to find out. It offers focusing to 3 feet at the > equivalent > of 400mm. That's what you have to match. Sort of. I don't actually care about matching focus distance I care about matching magnification ratio, and I'm not sure how to make that calculation given the difference in sensor sizes. I'm just wondering if you really believe that that something like the $150 70-300 with 1:2 (that works out to better than that on an APS-sized sensor) is so drastically inferior to whatever the FZ30 offers that it would outweigh all the other advantages that clearly weight in favor of the DSLR. >> Better than expected isn't the same as better than a DSLR. > > It is if I expected it to be ten time as good as a DSLR. You're > playing > schoolboy word games now. No, I'm not. I'm just saying I found manual focusing on the FZ20 close to useless. The EVF was woefully inadequate to the task. It might be better than expected if you have really low expectations, but my expectations are that it work well enough to actually use on a regular basis. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a > Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all > out and get a DSLR with suitable lenses. ... I believe your best bet would be to get a SLR with picture stabilizing built into the body. Like Konica-Minolta or the new Sony Alpha, or the new Pentax. Then you won't need any expensive IS-lenses. /per >> I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a >> Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pentax. Then you won't need any expensive IS-lenses. > /per On balance that is probably the best solution to my conundrum. I'll wait and see how the reviews turn out for the new IS DSLRs. Thanks, Tim. > > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a > > Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all > > out and get a DSLR with suitable lenses. ... > > I believe your best bet would be to get a SLR with picture stabilizing built > into the body. Like Konica-Minolta or the new Sony Alpha, or the new Pentax. Do we really know that the new Sony Alpha is going to have KM:s Anti-shake system, or is this just a guess? All I have read from Sony themselves is that it is going to have the KM mount. Jan Böhme >> > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a >> > Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anti-shake system, or is this just a guess? All I have read from Sony > themselves is that it is going to have the KM mount. It's a guess but it would be very surprising if it did not. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Yes, we know all Sony Alpha SLR's will have the K-M antivibration system. We also know Sony will launch more than 20 new lenses within the first year. See e.g.: http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/interview2_02.html There will bee some fierce competition out there, and surely not all will survive. /per Do we really know that the new Sony Alpha is going to have KM:s Anti-shake system, or is this just a guess? All I have read from Sony themselves is that it is going to have the KM mount. Jan Böhme > Yes, we know all Sony Alpha SLR's will have the K-M antivibration system. > We also know Sony will launch more than 20 new lenses within the first year. > See e.g.: http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/interview2_02.html > There will bee some fierce competition out there, and surely not all will > survive. Ouch. Does Sony/Minolta take Nikon mount lenses? I didn't see anything there about 20 new lenses. > Do we really know that the new Sony Alpha is going to have KM:s > Anti-shake system, or is this just a guess? All I have read from Sony > themselves is that it is going to have the KM mount. "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: > Ouch. > Does Sony/Minolta take Nikon mount lenses? > I didn't see anything there about 20 new lenses. Well, it's here, in the sub title of this page: http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/interview1.html /per > > > I've been deliberating for a couple of weeks now whether to buy a > > > Panasonic FZ30 with its 35mm-420mm equivalent f2.8-3.7 zoom or to go all > > > out and get a DSLR with suitable lenses. ... get the Olympus Evolt-500. DSLR with 2 kit lenses. the EVF on the FZ30 is a turn off for me. I do like the tilting LCD. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.