Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 30, 2006, 8:55 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

That camera....would be very high on my list if I did not already have an investment in Nikon Glass....

I think you will be happy but if I read you correct and you are trying to improve on the FZ30 quality you may find a need for better/faster glass.

Also it may have been just me but I tried one of those gimbal mounts and I am glad B&H has a liberal return policy....I did not find it to be very solid at all....ease of tracking and positioning,was fine but vibration was not. Of course with really long lenses I am not sure there is a perfect tripod and head.

After you are familiar with the camera,be sure and let us know how you find the stabilization.

Congratulations!
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 12:33 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

genece wrote:
Quote:
That camera....would be very high on my list if I did not already have an investment in Nikon Glass....

I think you will be happy but if I read you correct and you are trying to improve on the FZ30 quality you may find a need for better/faster glass.

Also it may have been just me but I tried one of those gimbal mounts and I am glad B&H has a liberal return policy....I did not find it to be very solid at all....ease of tracking and positioning,was fine but vibration was not. Of course with really long lenses I am not sure there is a perfect tripod and head.

After you are familiar with the camera,be sure and let us know how you find the stabilization.

Congratulations!
Gene, I have been using the Tamron 28-300 lens (same as the one Roger is getting for his Pentax) on my KM5D for a while now as my main wak-around lens, and while the maximum aperture ranges from 3.5 at 28 mm down to to 6.3 at the long end, this 1 1/2 step f-stop loss at the long end compared to the FZ30 is more than outweighed by the 3 f-stop gain in ISO settings. Any DSLR will perform better at ISO 1600 or even ISO 3200 than the FZ's do at ISO 400. Therefore, even with the inexpensive Tamron ultra-zoom lens (I got mine new on ebay for $149 on ebay), the Pentax K10D (just as any DSLR) is already quite a step up from the FZ30. Faster lenses (such as my 50mm f1.7 or the 28-75 f2.8 lens) add even more low light capabilities. At f1.7 and ISO 1600 plus Image Stabilization, I can easily take handheld pictures in a candlelit room. It's nice. It is a myth that one has to spend a fortune to have the same versatilityas the FZ30 in a DSLR. I spent about $700 between my KM5D body and the Tamron 28-300. And the image quality was a major step up. If I was in the market today, I would probably also choose the Pentax K10D, but at this point I have so many Konica Minolta accessories, I will probably stick with their future line by Sony.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 3:33 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

I did say he "may" find a need for better lenses.

Myself I can not afford any of the big price lenses but I did have the opportunity to try a couple......Thanks to total strangers.......when I got home and looked at the difference in those photos with the good glass and the ones with the glass I own ...the results are truely amazing......It is not as simple as just the Fstop...no more than its all about mp.....

I do know that there is a reason people pay big bucks for some lenses....they are all around better glass.

I am certain I will not ever own one of thosemany thousand dollar lenses but if anyone wants toget rid ofone......I will be glad to take care of it for them.

A fellow at Yellowstone last year let me shoot with his D70 and a 200mm F2 VR lens, I used my card and those photos are so much better than the photos from my 18 to 200VR of which I am very fond.

I was only trying to be useful ..not start a debate.......but the theory, buy better glass rather than a new camera , has been proven to me.

But I could buy a few new cameras for the price of that lens.


genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 4:14 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Not trying to debate at all. But from my experience the big price increases come into place by creating a faster (meaning brighter) lens especially at the longer focal length. I have done extensive tests, comparing my Tamron 28-300 to the much more expensive (and highly regarded) Minolta 28-75 f2.8 and the differences (if any) were very slim. My point is that with modern manufacturing technologies, there is not going to be a significant visible quality difference among most lenses within the medium focal and aperture range. The extra cost comes in when you want a 300mm lens at f2 for example. But that same lens is not going to be significantly better at f8 than my 20-300.

Here are a couple of threads on that subject, where I did some extensive comparisons,but it really goes too far outside the Panasonic forum.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=84

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=84

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 5:37 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

While thatmay be true ( I doubt it)it will be no contest with that lens at F4 than your lens at F anything.

My daughter and I just spent a day at a museum she used a kit lens with the D50 while I used a 50mm F1.8 lens......no contest... My next lens I think will be a sigma 30mm F1.4


genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 6:45 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I also love my Minolta 50mm 1.7 lens. It works wonders in low lighting. But at f5.6 the difference gets minorcompared to my Tamron. My original point only was though that one doesn't have to spend thousands of dollars to get the same versatility of the FZ30 in a DSLR.

When will your Pentax arrive, Roger?

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 7:20 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

genece wrote:
Quote:
I do know that there is a reason people pay big bucks for some lenses....they are all around better glass.
they areindeed. i don't own any of the true mega-buck lenses; my Sigma EX 80-400 was "only" $979. and while that's a lot to most folks (it was to me!),and may seem unjustifiable for a hobbyist, it's a wonderful lens, and produces images that are tack sharp and crystal clear, as long as i do my part. i can often see quite a difference between images taken with my Sigma and photos shot with inexpensive lenses, and for me, the improvement is well worth the cost.

and that cost is not driven just by how "fast" the lens is. it's also largely a function of the precision with which the glass is ground and polished, how many lenses/elements there are, how many achromatic or low-dispersion elements there are, and how well the lens maintains sharpness and contrast edge to edge and when shot wide open, not just in the center or at mid-range f-stops. those factors maynot have a lot to do with how "fast" the lens is, but have everything to do with the image quality it produces. my Sigma is not terribly "fast" - f4.5 at the wide end, and f5.6 at full zoom - but with image stabilization,"speed" is less important, and i can concentrate on composition, knowing the lens will do its part and produce sharp, clear, detailed images comparable to anything from even the vaunted Canon "L"-series professional glass.

one other point... if you plan to use a converter, you will be introducing another lens, and therefor another set of potential optical aberrations - between your sensor and the subject. given that, it would behoove you to get absolutely the best glass you can afford, so that those aberrations are minimized. remember... the sensor in your camera is nothing more than a recording device, and it records only what it "sees". the quality of the image it sees is dependent entirely on the quality of the glass it's "looking" through - much the same way you can see more clearly through a clean window than a dirty one, the sensor "sees" a whole lot better through top-grade glass than it does through inexpensive lenses.

<Squirl gets off soapbox...>
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 7:53 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I was specifically replying to Gene's comment: I think you will be happy but if I read you correct and you are trying to improve on the FZ30 quality you may find a need for better/faster glass.

The $700 KM5D/Tamron 28-300 setup is an improvement of quality over the FZ30. Roger's Pentax K10D will be, too. Of course, he can then add some faster, bigger, better lenses.

But the whole idea that in order to equal the quality of the FZ30 in a DSLR one would have to spend 1000's is a myth.

And as far as the polishing quality etc. is concerned, I am very meticulous about running extensive comparisons side by side and have tested dozens of lenses, and while the Tamron is definitely softer between f3.5 to f 4.5 than some of the prime lenses I tested, any differences thereafter are indistinguishable to my eyes.

For my purposes, this is satisfactory quality for a shot at 300mm (450mm equivalent) as far as sharpness, color,aberration anddynamic range are concerned and in no way lags the FZ30.



Rainer






rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 9:24 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

Peace, Rainer. i wasn't taking a poke at you... and i'm certainly not dissing Tamron... i have their SP 24-135 lens for my Canon, and it takes marvelous photos. i merely meant to convey that there really is a noticeable difference in lenses, and that there's a reason why top-grade glass costs what it does. nothing whatsoever to do with the FZ30... i'll be the first to admit that you needn't spend thousands to getresults comparable to- if not better than, due to lower noise-what you get with theFZ's, but i also know that those mega-bucks lenses really do offer advantages in terms of optical clarity, sharpness, contrast, etc., over the inexpensive lenses most people are content with. now, that difference may only matter to a proefssional, but it is there, and if you make your living with your lenses, or even plan to, it's worthwhile to get the best glass you can afford.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 9:59 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
Peace, Rainer. i wasn't taking a poke at you... and i'm certainly not dissing Tamron... i have their SP 24-135 lens for my Canon, and it takes marvelous photos. i merely meant to convey that there really is a noticeable difference in lenses, and that there's a reason why top-grade glass costs what it does. nothing whatsoever to do with the FZ30... i'll be the first to admit that you needn't spend thousands to getresults comparable to- if not better than, due to lower noise-what you get with theFZ's, but i also know that those mega-bucks lenses really do offer advantages in terms of optical clarity, sharpness, contrast, etc., over the inexpensive lenses most people are content with. now, that difference may only matter to a proefssional, but it is there, and if you make your living with your lenses, or even plan to, it's worthwhile to get the best glass you can afford.
No offense taken.

From all I have seen, one might be buying a 5% difference in image quality for those many hundreds of dollars more. I have yet to see any side-by-side comparison in which the Tamron clearly fades in the face of competition. I have been buying up and reselling old Minolta equipment on lenses on ebay, and in the course of it have tested many, many lenses, the best one still being the legendary Minolta 50mm f1.7 lens. But after shooting dozens of shots at different apertures, and comparing them side by side, cropping them, and looking at them closely, the differences were minute, with weaknesses largely exposed in the wider aperture range ofsome cheaper lenses.

I would like to see somebody else's analysis which proves the point that supposedly better polishing and coatings make a huge difference. I spent over $400 on the KM 28-70 f2.8 because it was hyped in another forum. But other than gaining an extra f-stop and a little more sharpness up to f4.5, I have not found it to be much different. You can find my comparisons in the threads I linked to in my posting above.

So, until somebody shows me a valid comparison, the statements of "you get what you pay for" and about "much better glass", etc. are hearsay to me. I happen to get my Tamron at $149 becase they were making room for the next "digitally optimized" generation, thereforethey were blowing them out cheap.Any optical company can polish and coat an excellent lens these days. The cost increases when you make it brighter because you need more and larger elements. But show me any lens that is sharper, more detailed, etc. than my Tamron at let's say f6.3 and I concede. I am honestly curious about it.



Ok enough now.

I am waiting for Roger's feedback when he receives his new set.

Rainer
rduve 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 2:33 PM.