 |
 | 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 / ZLR Cameras / May 2005Want a new camera.... But....
I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS and that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go out on a shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots that it's hard to justify the next step up in technology. I think I'll wait for the FZ-25 before making my move. Ed > I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS > and that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go > out on a shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots > that it's hard to justify the next step up in technology. I think > I'll wait for the FZ-25 before making my move. > Ed Well, it seems to me that the FZ5 is the next step following the FZ20, and it has dropped the manual focus ring. Panasonic are supposedly entering the DSLR market with the 4/3 system at some point in the future, to they may not want to instrodfuce models which conflict with a low-end DSLR. You would find the IS a big boon, so you have a choice of the heavier FZ20 with manual focus, or the lighter FZ5 with no maunal focu or hot shoe. The rest of the specs are in the same class as your C-750, but adding the IS greatly increases the usability of the longer end of the zoom. The range (36 - 432mm) is slightly greater as well. If you really must wait, I'd suggest that having a swivel LCD finder, perhaps a bigger sensor than the 1/2.5 inches, and perhaps a better EVF were worth having. Some might want better video as well. Cheers, David > Well, it seems to me that the FZ5 is the next step following the FZ20, and > it has dropped the manual focus ring. No, the FZ5 is aimed at a lower point in the market than the FZ20. Its relationship to the FZ20 is similar to the Konica-Minolta Z series' relationship to the A series, IMHO. The Zs and the FZ4/5 are good cameras, but the As and the FZ10/15/20 are nicer all round. pete  Signaturepete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'" > David J Taylor > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > pete Part of my point was with a DSLR potentially coming, Panasonic may want to move away slightly from the higher-end cameras like the FZ20. Having used and compared both the FZ20 and FZ5, there is little, if any, difference in quality, just a slight difference in facilities (f/3.3 instead of f/2.8 lens at maximum zoom) and no flash hot-shoe or manual focus. There is less difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 than between the A and Z Minolta - I was disappointed to see the excellent A2 viewfinder had been dropped even from the A200. David > Part of my point was with a DSLR potentially coming, Panasonic may want to > move away slightly from the higher-end cameras like the FZ20. Ah, I see what you mean - you think the 20 might be the last in that particular line. > Having used and compared both the FZ20 and FZ5, there is little, if any, > difference in quality, just a slight difference in facilities (f/3.3 > instead of f/2.8 lens at maximum zoom) and no flash hot-shoe or manual > focus. There is less difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 than between the > A and Z Minolta - I was disappointed to see the excellent A2 viewfinder > had been dropped even from the A200. I find the 5 feels rather flimsy - the 10 and 20 are very close to Canon build quality; you can feel that corners have been cut on assembly and materials! That said, I'm sure you can get images as good as a 20 from a 5, under most circumstances. ;) pete Signaturepete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'" > David J Taylor > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah, I see what you mean - you think the 20 might be the last in that > particular line. Just a possibility, although I thought that the release of the FZ5 might also be a hint. [] > I find the 5 feels rather flimsy - the 10 and 20 are very close to > Canon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > pete Yes, there is certainly a difference in the feel - whether the FZ5 is actually any less robust I wouldn't like to say. You pays your money and takes your choice! Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >David > Are we not getting near to the description of the Canon S2? > >>If you really must wait, I'd suggest that having a swivel LCD finder, >>perhaps a bigger sensor than the 1/2.5 inches, and perhaps a better EVF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Are we not getting near to the description of the Canon S2? Slap a flash hotshoe onto the Canon S2, and I wouldn't find much else to long for in a non-DSLR. Probably only a better EVF with an instantaneous refresh rate. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. Anyone know if the Canon S2 shows all of the menu information in the EVF like the Z5? I like that feature. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. > I don't know, but I also value that feature on my C-750. Sometimes you just have to use the EVF in bright sun to set menu items. I think its one of the secret (and overlooked)advantages of having a camera with an EVF over one with an optical viewfinder. Ed > Anyone know if the Canon S2 shows all of the menu information in the EVF > like the Z5? I like that feature. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. > >Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. > Anyone know if the Canon S2 shows all of the menu information in the > EVF like the Z5? I like that feature. I would suggest that you take a look at some reviews of the Canon S1. That camera does show all the menu information in the EVF, and I imagine that the Canon S2 will be quite similar in that regard. I am looking forward to reading the reviews of the Canon S2 IS when they are published; it seems like a nice camera in its market slot. -- Witold. Anyone have an idea when tne S2 will be in the stores? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Witold. > http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/101-e.html Might answer some questions. > I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS and > that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go out on a > shoot with my Olympus C-750, I am so pleased with my shots that it's hard to > justify the next step up in technology. I think I'll wait for the FZ-25 > before making my move. > Ed It's a hard road to find the perfect camera. I love my FZ20's BIG Leica lens and IS, the manual focus and zoom control knob are so-so and I miss my pervious Canon S1-IS's swiveling viewfinder. I guess you line them up side-by-side at DPreview and keep your wallet zipped until something comes on the market that has everything. Signature....NewsDroid Yea, I wouldn't get a camera without Manual Focus and I think the ring is a great idea. I know its much easier to manually focus than my C-750. I also would always want the hot shoe as I have really gotten good use out of my Promaster 5750DX flash on the Olympus. Its fully automatic TTL on the Olympus and I guess I'd be giving that up with the FZ-20, but that's something I can live with. I'd sell the Promaster and get a less expensive manual flash for the Panasonic. I still hope the next model of the FZ would have a swivel EVF, maybe more resolution in the EVF, better movie mode (even though I'm not sure I'd use it), and hopefully, faster operation with lower power just by the fact that new should be faster and lower power. 7 or 8 mp wouldn't be bad either, but like some have said, that would put it into the $800 to $1000 range like the A2. Ed > > I keep yearning for a new camera like the Panasonic FZ-20. I want IS and > > that nice manual focus ring....but...seems like every time I go out on a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I guess you line them up side-by-side at DPreview and keep your wallet > zipped until something comes on the market that has everything. [] > I still hope the next model of the FZ would have a swivel EVF, maybe > more resolution in the EVF, better movie mode (even though I'm not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ed D P Now is running a survey on what features you want in future cameras for Panasonic, so you can have your say! http://www.dpnow.com I do agree about the swivel LCD and better EVF. I haven't found speed and power as much of a problem. David In article <WXWie.35120$G8.18434@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: > I do agree about the swivel LCD and better EVF. I haven't found speed and > power as much of a problem. One problem I have had with the FZ20 is the somewhat limited dynamic range. Loss of shadow detail and blown highlights, often in the same photo. Maybe it's the intense light we tend to get in New Zealand. Certainly I'm forever having to hunt around for the right combination of sun on the clouds or snow or something, half press the shutter to lock the reading, then frame up for the shot. Do other digicams have the same battle? Signature....NewsDroid > In article <WXWie.35120$G8.18434@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do other digicams have the same battle? Digicams are nearer to slide film than print film in exposure tolerance - need to get it right first time and ensure highlights aren't clipped! DSLRs have a better dynamic range, and working in RAW can help. I tend to use the FZ5 fixed at ISO 80 (except for some night shots), if that makes any difference to the dynamic range issue. One trick I have used in the past with film cameras is contrast reduction by stretching a few hairs over the lens opening. You may also want to check that your display is correctly calibrated: http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >DSLRs have a better dynamic range, and working in RAW can help. I tend to >use the FZ5 fixed at ISO 80 (except for some night shots), Is that because to the higher noise level above ISO80? >if that makes >any difference to the dynamic range issue. One trick I have used in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [] >> Digicams are nearer to slide film than print film in exposure >> tolerance - need to get it right first time and ensure highlights [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is that because to the higher noise level above ISO80? Partially, yes. It's also because, compared to the Nikon 8400 the Panasonic FZ5 changes to a higher ISO earlier than I would prefer. David >In article <WXWie.35120$G8.18434@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Do other digicams have the same battle? > If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise level looks in your enlargements. [] > If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise > level looks in your enlargements. It looks noisier, but acceptable to me for the type of shot! It's a subjective thing, I suggest you look at the sample shots on the various review sites. David >[] >> If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >subjective thing, I suggest you look at the sample shots on the various >review sites. Now that the OP has beaten this noise horse to death maybe we should tell him/her that there's software that removes noise very nicely in most cases. :-) >> [] >>> If you shoot much at higher ISO ie 200 and 400 tell me how the noise [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tell him/her that there's software that removes noise very nicely in > most cases. :-) Indeed, yes. I use Paint Shop Pro 9 which can also remove geometric distortions and reduce so-called "chromatic aberration". The OP could also try out the cameras for him/herself to determine what is, or is not, acceptable. Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >him/her that there's software that removes noise very nicely in most cases. :-) > Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces (not eliminates) noise is does compromise other things in the picture like sharpness. [] > Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces > (not eliminates) noise is does compromise other things in the picture > like sharpness. I don't think that Photoshop has a specific digital camera noise reduction function, unlike Paint Shop Pro which has DCNR, and you might also like to try out NeatImage (free version available). These programs employ special algorithms to retain sharpness while reducing noise. Cheers, David Also, try out Noiseware Pro. That's my favorite. Fast, easy to use. There is also a free version. Ed > [] > > Photoshop is supposed to be the best but I find that while it reduces [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > All of the sample shots I find are ISO80. I would like to see the same shot at ISO 80,200,400. [] > All of the sample shots I find are ISO80. I would like to see the > same shot at ISO 80,200,400. I suggest you borrow a camera from a photo store and take pictures for yourself, as we seem to have established that the camera is basically OK for you. Also be aware that as already mentioned you can reduce the effect of noise in an image with programs like Neat Image, Paint Shop Pro etc. I really wouldn't get hung up on this - if you want low noise from a small sensor camera stick with low ISO, and if you need low noise and high ISO, buy a DSLR. Cheers, David When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop 1. How effective is it in reducing noise? 2. What are the undesireable things it does when noise it reduced? >[] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I often shoot theater productions at ISO 400 and get plenty of noise. I batch run the files through Noiseware Pro and that makes a huge improvement. It subtracts color and luminance noise without reducing sharpness. The adjustments let you determine how smooth you want the noisy areas to be before it starts to look plastic and phoney. I think these noise programs are invaluable with typical digital camera noise. Ed > When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Cheers, > >David >> When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed I'd second what Ed said - although I used to use NeatImage and now use Paint Shop Pro. The programs are very effective reducing noise and retaining sharpness. If you overdo the noise reduction, large areas of the image cam become the same colour, resulting in a sort of "plastic" appearance, which you may have seen in multiple-generation analog video-tape copies. Cheers, David measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mEale.1684$rY6.1596 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com: > When you reduce the effect of noise in a program like photoshop > > 1. How effective is it in reducing noise? > 2. What are the undesireable things it does when noise it reduced? I would say that the effectiveness of noise reduction varies from image to image. For example, if the main subject is reasonably well illuminated, its intrinsic noise levels will likely be low. If the background is darker, then that's where the noise is likely to show up. If the background is out-of-focus, then applying noise reduction to it will not disturb much detail, so the noise reduction will be fairly "invisible" but effective. If the entire image is noisy, then it may fundamentally already have less detail as a result of the noise. Hence, applying noise reduction may reduce the details even further, and also affect the tonal transitions, to make the end result look a bit "plasticky". To some degree, the undesirable effects of noise reduction are a subjective assessment that depends on the print size and the image quality desired by the photographer. It may be instructive to investigate the effects of noise reduction on images for yourself. That way you can readily gain some first hand experience. There are a number of demo or freeware versions of noise reduction software that can be installed on your computer. Then, it is possible to download some images from the digicam review sites that have specifically been taken with varying ISO values and therefore varying degrees of noise present. Apply the the noise reduction and see what you get, and you should then be able to reach a judgement as to how important noise might be for your purposes. Keep in mind that using a ZLR at ISO 200 or ISO 400 will result in images that are quite a bit noisier than those from a DSLR at the same or even higher ISOs. -- Witold. |
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
|
©2008 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.