|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 319
|
![]()
I'm considering moving up from a 2004 3x zoom ... upcoming trip to Glacier National Park & 3x won't cut it, even if add-on teles had any quality, and they don't.
How well can you focus manually with the FZ18's joystick-controlled focus? Seems to me there would be an engineering tradeoff. For good focus, the shift would have to be slow, so you could zero in without overshoot. But for quick capture of a difficult-to-focus picture, the shift has to be fast. Any manual focus users out there? Dave |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
|
![]()
I have difficulty with MF on all cameras and find the joystick on the FZ18 to be useless (my opinion). But the goodthing is, if you use one area or spot focus the FZ cameras are exceptionally good at auto focusing....
I love Glacier, you will have a blast. If you like to MF I would look at the FZ50..... Here is a photo taken with a FZ20 at GNP ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 319
|
![]()
Thanks, Genece.
And thanks for the tip -- butI had to reluctantly pass on the FZ50, as I'd need to add both a good wide angle and a good mild tele converter, for a totalway beyond the camera bucks available to me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
|
![]()
If you do not need a tele converter for the FZ18 you do not need one for the FZ50..........In fact I have no problem saying after about 5 years of using TCs you do not need one, period.....
And the 28mm of the FZ18 is IMHO way over rated........After years of taking photos with the FZs and DSLRs the number of photos I have ever taken at wider than 35mm is very low.....I can understand if architecture is a subject of your then a WA may be more important but very seldom in nature is WA as big a deal as some folks say. I was just looking thru some photos I took in Alaska and places like Glacier and almost nonewere wider than 50mm and when it was needed a 2 or 3 shot pano served me well., I know many feel differently, but thats my view on WA....I take way more photos at 600mm than at 28mm and the FZ50 does that just fine. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 319
|
![]()
Yep, architecture is a major interest. I got intoarchitectural photographywith a 4x5 view camera and 90mm lens (~26-27mmequivalent for 35mm) and often found even that not wide enough...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 95
|
![]()
DGehman wrote:
Quote:
Regards, Almar. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,048
|
![]()
The only time I use manual focus with my FZ18 is macro photography with attachments, and very rarely if I am shooting a creature with sticks in front of it. The auto-focus on this camera should be good enough for your needs. It is quite fast.
Steve |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 319
|
![]()
Thanks everyone. I'm coming to this from my Kodak experience, where only the spot focusseems to work in a great many situations, despite a number of other zone types that should be fine, but aren't.
Or maybe I specialize in focally ambiguous scenes... Good to know that Panasonic has minimized the issues. Dave |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|