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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2007, 10:48 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

thanks Dtarrio....

my thoughts for what they are worth....

a friend had a canon 20d..wow....loved howthat DSLRfelt in my hands....I want as close to that feeling as possible...now, coming down to earth I realize there is a huge difference from these....that and i'm on a very limited budget....so

The sony.....hated the H5...held it in my hand....felt like a computer with a lens glued on it...to sterile, mechanical....and once I looked through the evf...that was it...it was like looking down a tunnel and out of focus (I wear glasses)....the evf, not the image (fine in the LCD, which IMOmay be the best LCD I've seen in it's class)...i couldn't find a diopter adjustment....if there was one

the canon s3...is still on the list..felt great in my hands....one thing I wasn't crazy about...and the samples I've seen seem to confirm this....at the widest apertures, the images are too soft....and...you can't get closer then 18" (I think) without having to switch over to macro...i don't do much super-macroand wondered why someone didn't make a camera that would allowone to get as close as say 12" without having to worrythat if I didn't switch over to macro I will have a blurry image (like my olympus...about 20".....ugh), minor quibbles I admit in an otherwise GREAT camera

which brings me to the panasonics....I have stuff from my olympus...52mm filters(for the fz7)and 55mm filters (for the 30/50)and a 55mmolympus wide angle (.8) and an Olympus FL20 flashthat would work in TTL with the FZ50...yes, I understand the olympus flashesdo work in TTL mode with panasonic. although I admit I don't know if this small flash is an advantage over the internal one

PLEASE correct me if I am wrong....I understand that on all three panasonics mentioned, the internal flash will lower it's power when you get closer to a subject...if understand flashes...and I admit this is my achilles heal...if this is the case does a TTL flash on the fz550 also work this way, lowering it's output if you move closer to the subject?...I understand that a flash in TTL becomes part of the camera, so to speak and is adjust by the camera just like an internal one.

thanks again!

...y tusingles esta muy bueno! (did I say that right?)

gregg
gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2007, 10:50 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

Oh....

Dtarrio, I'd love to comment on your photo...but it didn't come through
gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2007, 11:28 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Here goes attached. (The picture isn´t the best you can get, is just an example under almost extreme conditions with the S2is.
Attached Images
 
dtarrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2007, 11:39 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

great photo....only one question...should I know this band?

IMO...that's an incredible example of how incredibly well the lens works at a VERY long telephoto as well as some lower lighting...but...I think a tougher challenge for any camera would be the people in front of you in the dark...that's when many cameras can't find enough contrast and either hunts and pecks or never locks at all

just a thought

gregg
gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2007, 8:50 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5
Default

They are 3 american guitarists (Joe Satriani, John petrucci and Eric Johnson) they usually play together and give concerts all around the world.

Ok, i'll try to give you an example of the FZ50 performance with a low light portrait.With and without flash.

Yes, the flash lower it's power when focusing close subjects. But i think thats not really TTL (Because TTL control the flash power in every conditions with close or distant subjects analyzing thescene's light).

One thing is real with almost every ultra zoom cameras i knew: I always had touse LOW ISO settings and take advantage of the Image stabilizer. (Hi ISO in S2is is VERY BAD, andwith theFZ50 you'll lost lot of details because the agressive NR). If you want to keep high quality with the FZ50 use always ISO 100 to 200. ISO 400 starts to destroy details. (ISO 1600 is unusable or just for emergency). I dont know why, but ISO 3200 is just a little better than 1600 but thats for an emergency too.

PD: Tu castellano es bastante bueno también. Saludos.


dtarrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2007, 11:51 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

oh yeah....didn't know what joe satriani looked like..."surfing with the aliens"
gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2007, 8:55 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448
Default

LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
These shots were done at f2.8 full zoom ISO 400 the 10 and 20 have lower noise levels then the 30 and 50. The 50 is a piece of junk and is not selling well it produces caulky washed out pictures with poor detail. The 30 is a touch better.
If you downsize to 5 MP the FZ50 is way superior over the FZ20. The FZ50 clearly produces pictures with water colors at iso 200 or higher, but this unpleasant effect disappears if you downsize enough. The FZ50 and the FZ30 have a 1/1.8" sensor, which is much larger than the 1/2.5" sensor of the FZ20. The sensor size is the sole reason why the FZ30 and FZ50 no more have aperture 2.8 at the tele end.
You can avoid the overagressive noise reduction of the FZ30/FZ50 by shooting raw.

If you don't know the facts, then you simply shouldn't spread such nonsense.
kassandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2007, 9:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

thanks for your comments Lovelife

To extend thesensor size theory...that is why I really wanted a DSLR...larger sensor...means less noise at higher iso's...among several other advantages of higher iso's and a dslr

But a dslr with a long zoom for that matter, is way out of my budget...actually so is the FZ50...at it's list price...now it's available for under $500

But to be fairthe 20/30/50are all very good cameras

I don't buy the hype that you need 7,8 or 10 mp to print 8x10....

one of my old cameras is an olympus c-3040 - 3.2mp.... I once printed an 8x10 from a pic I cut in half...1.6mp!..admitedly a little soft...but no noise, no purple fringing, beautiful colors....it's the electronics, the large glass lens and the person taking the picture and getting the most out of a camera that makes the difference

gregg


gregg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2007, 8:00 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Serafin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 201
Default

LoveLife wrote:
Quote:
These shots were done at f2.8 full zoom ISO 400 the 10 and 20 have lower noise levels then the 30 and 50. The 50 is a piece of junk and is not selling well it produces caulky washed out pictures with poor detail. The 30 is a touch better.



TTL flash so what. Get a Sunpak 383 flash and produce flash results like this.





BTW these are all done with the FZ10. Yes 4 MP. What good is 10MP when you can not make big pictures because of low detail?



Here is a shot in daylight.





You like most every body else on these forums haven't a clue what is the most important features from a camera. Sharp pictures with good color resolution; nothing else matters.

The power zoom was the great feature but now we have the cheaper retro look. Panasonic keeps weaving their web of meaningless features.
There is just no need to missleadpeople about a excellent product just because you like yours more based on your opinion.

These pics were taken with my FZ-50either on auto orthe action scene mode. And I would say they are not mushy or whatever negative word you used. And im just a beginner so I can imagine incredible results from somebody better than me. I considered the fz-20 in my choice and know its an excellent camera but went with the fz-50 for the moveable view screen.



















































Reflections in the water.






Serafin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2007, 12:11 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 264
Default

Lovelife,

while I agree with you, the FZ20 is a great camera and those are impressive photos...and that they pushed the sensor way too far in the FZ50 and then used way too much NR....that's a minor flaw in an otherwise great camera

IMO...If you shoot at 200 or less, set the NR at it's lowest setting, print at 8x10 or less or re-size for my computer, the above becomes a non-issue

Check out the photo of the guy holding the cat (taken at the standard NR setting, you can even drop it down one further)
Quote:
My very old olympus C-3040....I never shot anything above 100iso...it does not have image stabilization, no AF illuminator (or a long zoom for that matter)...and it took photos in ALL conditions. So I am sure any of the three will be a joy to own over my c-3040 and my c-5000

It comes down down to this....can you name a current camera under $500 that will do everything as well as the FZ50? I can think of only two other contenders...the FZ7...but then I lose the flash (I know I can use a slave), the higher resolution evf/lcd and the remote shutter cable...or the canon S3...but it's photos are just too soft unless you close down the lens

My budget may also determine if I stick witht the fz7

gregg
gregg 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 1:36 PM.