Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 6, 2013, 2:29 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day fellas

Thankyou all for your replies
I won't enter into the debate(s) above ... !

All I will add - from a practical point of view - it that the 10" x 15" prints on my loungeroom wall suit me okay ~ no-one has ever commented upon 'pixellation' or 'lack of sharpness' etc etc even tho they're shot on the small-sensor cameras

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2013, 9:34 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
deadshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
Default

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Have a look at this site you can compare noise one camera against the other until you go nuts.
Looking at the comparison between the Nikon D 5200 and the Pana FZ200, it looks to me that the FZ at iso 400 is equal to the Nikons iso 3200.
It's an interesting site at least Dresource have a similar feature.
__________________
D5100 +18-200mVR Nikkor lens.
SB400 Flash, ML-L3 Remote.
SB 700 Flash
Holster + Shoulder Bag.
Beike carbon 4 section tripod/monopod
Gorillapod SLR Zoom + BH1 ball head
Panasonic FZ1000
Panasonic FZ200
Nissin D i40 Flash
+ SLR Gorillapod
deadshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2013, 9:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

I shoot both the Kx and the FZ150. What this discussion is missing is shutter speed. Sure, I can get my FZ to take a decent low light shot at ISO 3200 at f2.8, but at so slow a shutter speed, 1/8 or 1/4, as to be useless except for absolutely still subjects. In decent stage lights, I can get very usable ISO 1600 at 1/100 on the FZ, but at small sizes.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 8:45 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6
Default dSLR with long zoom vs Superzoom

Hello Deadshot,
Sorry to barge in on this topic, but I have a similar comparison question.
I see that you have a D5100 with the 18-200 zoom, and an FZ7, and you mention the FZ200.
I have an 18-200 Nikkor lens, and am debating between getting a 3200 (or 5200) body, or a superzoom (probably the Panasonic FZ200), since my Nikon P510 just died.
I am mostly interested in sharpness and noise (I do print large), but all the reviews I found of the D3200 or D5200 are with an optimal lens (50mm 1.4) not the 18-200 Nikkor I intend to use. So, am I cancelling the benefit of the larger sensor by using a long zoom (whose reviews are not as good as the 50mm 1.4)? If I am, then I would rather have a smaller/lighter camera.

Do you know of a comparison online, or have you done a similar comparison?

Thanks!
Alex

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadshot View Post
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Have a look at this site you can compare noise one camera against the other until you go nuts.
Looking at the comparison between the Nikon D 5200 and the Pana FZ200, it looks to me that the FZ at iso 400 is equal to the Nikons iso 3200.
It's an interesting site at least Dresource have a similar feature.
aludden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 12:39 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Whilst the 18-200 won't offer the optical quality of say a 50mm f/1.4 lens- it obviously outdoes it in the versatility department- and is still thoroughly decent,in my opinion.

If you compare the FZ200 images at equivalent focal lengths of the Nikon(3200/5200) with the 18-200 fitted, it will clearly outdo the Panny in all areas- noise,dynamic range,detail etc- and with the high resolution sensor on board you can crop quite a bit- effectively giving you some more zoom- and even if you were using high iso on either of the nikons, simply re-sizing the images to a more usual size would pretty much hide any noise anyway... not that they lack in that department.

That said- The Panny is lighter,has more zoom- with a brighter lens- and I'd say offers a more user friendly video capture also- and it's also less expensive...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 2:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The Nikon 18-200, or any jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none lens for that matter, isn't sharp enough to do justice to a 24MP APS-C image sensor. Whatever body you're using with it now, you're probably getting the best images you can expect to get with it, because the lens is the limiting factor with regard to image quality.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 5:42 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6
Default

Well, that would be an old D80.
How would D80 + Nikkor 18-200 compare with an FZ200 - which is also trying to be a jack-of-all-trades?

I do have a wonderful old 80-200 2.8 from pre-digital days, but lately I find myself not wanting to carry all that heavy stuff
aludden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 6:25 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Indeed aludden.... all of the above are "jack of all trades"...
I'd still bet on the D80/18-200 outdoing the FZ200 at equal focal lengths- though if you were to be shooting moving targets at the 200mm end,it would be interesting to see how they compare then,given the extra light coming in to the Panny's lens...(assuming you shot at f/2.8...)
The D80 would need a higher iso for equal shutter speeds- and would the AF be as effective with the reduced light coming in at the long end of the 18-200...?

Out of curiosity... are you happy with the output from the 18-200 on the D80...?
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 6:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The 10MP Nikon D80 has more than 2 stops less noise than the 12MP Panasonic FZ200.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 7:09 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for your reply, Simon.
I hadn't used the D80 in a while, but yes I was happy with the results except for the weird distortions.
However, I ditched all the weight for a Nikon P510. It lasted me 6 months and died. I am looking for a replacement, and the FZ200 seemed attractive.
Meanwhile I picked up my old D80 to go up to Yellowknife, Canada to shoot the aurora borealis, and I have to admit that the D80 feels a lot nicer to shoot with - it makes me smile, which the P510 never did.

So I'm really tossed between going heavy again or another superzoom...
I'm willing to go with a dSLR *with a single lens* if the extra weight and size are worth the image quality, but I don't want a camera bag with a bunch of lenses.
aludden is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:54 AM.