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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 1, 2004, 7:49 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10
Default Canon Pro 90 not a replacement for FZ10A

A quote from the referenced article at the beginning of this thread:

Quote:
Figure 3a shows that the contrast in the corner of the field with the long focal length lens used with the large sensor, is worse than for the shorter focal length lens used with the smaller sensor, as depicted in figure 3b.
while indeed the FZ10 has the smaller sensor, the quoted article does not support the hypothesis that this, per se, leads to higher noise. The article merely explains, very well. why it's not economicaly or physically practicle to have a 35-420 zoom on the equivalent of a 35 mm. ccd for $550.00, and notes that contrast is indeed better for the small focal length/ smaller ccd than for the larger combination. The Pro 90 employs the same strategy using a 7-70 mm zoom as opposed to the 6-72 in the Pansonic.

I'd agree with the prior reader that Panasonic has done an excellent getting the most out of their ccd. Given its smaller effective pixil count, the smaller zoom and slower lens, higher price, slower shutter speed and lack of burst mode, it's hard for me to imagine that the Pro 90 would ever be a replacement for the FZ10, which in the end is only billed an "enthusiast" camera. Sure I'd love to also have a G5 or D10 or others as well, but at the moment, Im thoroughly happy with my FZ10.

The reason I make a point of this is that this forum is touted as a "the consumers best source of digital camera information and news". While those who profess to be pros may disagree, I suggest that the advanced amateur and enthusiast will likely be thrilled to own this camera because it offers a lot of bang for the buck.
georgez opinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2004, 9:55 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Reply to georgez opinion

george, the FZ10 was my second purchase of a digital camera. My first was the G5. As a lifelong artist and videographer, I have learned to appreciate quality and was on a quest for a still photographic product in a particular environment (my gymnasium) that I could begin to digest without having to go to the toilet. I was certain that the FZ10 would be able to perform this duty (according to what I had read about it). I was unfortunately disappointed in it's abilities in this particular environment, so much so that I knew that I needed to make another purchase (ack, my wallet!) because I can get quite fanatic about quality. Over Christmas I decided on the digital Rebel and feel that I have finally found a path that may lead to some photographic destination that I long for. I outline various reasons and offer some examples here: http://www.brrd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/index.htm
I hope you visit and have a bit of a read, perhaps you will be better able to understand my postings and also accept that I'm not some spy for Canon (although, if I had a choice I wouldn't argue with being a part of Canon's team. I think that they have a great track record and their product certainly doesn't disappoint me). I have the Rebel, the G5, and the FZ10, and I have used all three in different environments. I wouldn't dream of using anything but the FZ10 outdoors, in good light, when I want to get a shot of something tiny from a long distance. I wouldn't dream of using anything but the G5 when wanting to get a good clear focus indoors without worrying about carrying around a bunch of lenses, and I wouldn't dream of using anything but the Rebel when attempting to capture a good shot of sports inside my gymnasium.

Each has it's positive. The Rebel costs more, for good reason. If I had to throw away 2 and keep 1, it would be the...
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2004, 1:10 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4
Default Get a Nikon D2H!

Normcar,

Sounds to me what you need is a Nikon D2H with a fast lens and maybe a good flash. I have read some of your posts and visited your website. You sharply criticized FZ10 in your poorly lighted gym basketball shooting and claimed that you can get usable result from G5. I could not find any solid proof (pictures) either from your posts or your website. No wonder some suspect that you were hired by Canon! My guess is that you just had much higher expectation on FZ10 than on G5 before your gym adventure even though none of them are suitable for the situation you described. If you could backup your claim with some solid photo comparison instead of throwing out meaningless "challenge", I believe most people would be convinced.
Padanaram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2004, 11:54 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

******ram

Tonight I posted some of the G5 product that I shot in that gym a month ago. As well, I have offered comparison photos between the G5 and FZ10 without comment, leaving it up to the viewer. Of course this comparison isn't in the gym environment, but it "is" indoors. I'm pleased with a normal indoor performance of the FZ10 when the subject is not rushing about to and fro and is no more than 10 feet away. My complaint with the FZ10 has always been, and remains, it's performance in my gym. That is the stage that brought me into the digital still area in the first place. I am essentially a videographer (hehe, yeah, Canon as well, but I also have 2 Panasonic digital video cams, so you can't claim that I hate Panasonic now, can you). As I indicate on my site, I will soon post some FZ10 gym photos, no matter what they look like. The performance was so bad that I trashed the photos, not anticipating a need for them (apparently a need now exists, to demonstrate the performance, however poor, in this environment). I "hope" that I can get something worthwhile. After all, it's my camera and I'd like it to be able to perform in as many forums and situations as possible. However, I've tried real hard twice and you can't squeeze blood from stone, if you get my drift. I'd love to see some of your own product just to be sure that you have the credibility to be taken seriously, since your words are somewhat accusative. I like to know that I am being dissed by someone who actually knows what he or she is doing. Thanks a bunch. You know where my site is: http://www.brrd.ab.ca/nnorway/carrweb/index.htm

P.S. - Howz your Canon S100 doing? I wish you well with those black dots in your FZ10's LCD. If I were you, though, I'd get an exchange pronto because black dots on LCD screens "definitely" indicate that the genetic makeup of your machine is flawed. Note that I said "exchange" and not refund. Have a good one ******ram!
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2004, 1:23 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 42
Default Note to Normcar

Norm - I keep reading this since I starated the thread...

Don't worry about the accusations of being in the pay of Canon...actually the "other" site is much worse on this kind of thing ! - boy do they get nasty sometimes...

I enjoyed your comparisons. However my guess is that having experienced the large sensor of the Rebel and the quick response, you won't go back.

I started with the Pro90 IS quite by accident, after some 50 years of 35mm with a wide variety of cameras including the original 35 mm reflex - the Praktiflex from East Germany - I got the Pro 90 "to see what digital was all about" It was obsolete when I bought it - I got a new one mailorder for just under $900 tho it introduced at $1500.

The Pro90, BTW, introduced the idea of an all-in-one long stabilized zoom with a 10 zoom and 2.6 mpx. Also btw Canon sold the lens assy to Olympus, who used it to produce the famous UZI - which was in all ways (save one) a better camera than the Pro 90.

The one way the Pro90 was better was the sensor. Canon used a slightly larger sensor than the lens would cover, thus getting the odd 2.6 mpx and a larger pixel site than was usual for this length zoom. Apparently they got it just right for I have yet to see a set of images from digicams up to 4 mpx that beat what the 2.6 mpx of the Pro90 can deliver.

However I learned 2 things from using the Pro90 - first, that despite the stabilization, camera motion was the chief problem at high zooms. 2nd - the SILENCE and unobtrusiveness of the digicam was a great boon.

My personal hobby has always been informal people pix without flash mostly indoors. I found to my profound surprise that the SILENCE of the digicam greatly increased my percentage of usable shots. (these are not sneak shots - people know I am there and shooting - but they pay no attention to the small silent camera).

Hence my interest in replacing the Pro90 with a larger megapixel digicam. But apparently this is never gonna happen.

After learning I loved digital (long time computer/Photoshop user - since v 3.0) - I bought a 10D since I already had Canon 35 mm lenses.

Your Rebel is really a crippled 10D - same sensor - and you see how much the quick focusing, quick shooting, large sensor contributes in your samples !

So I am now gonna try another tack. I can use the 10D with the 28-135 IS, and I am going to try to make a "blimp" to cut down on the shutter/mirror noise. (A blimp is a housing made of cloth and thin foam rubber to muffle the camera sounds - originally used on cine cameras to keep the camera noise from the microphones.

If I could get it quiet I can live with the size and bulk as a tradeoff for the wonderful images and the ability to shoot and foucs rapidly.

This sound thing is a not a problem in your interest and I think you will find the Rebel's image quality and quicker repeat-shoot ability will put your other two dameras out of the running over time.

good luck - nice work
Humble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2004, 1:42 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Humble

I appreciate your input. It's clear that you have a great deal to offer and I'd love to be able to view some of your work sometime. I understand what you are saying with the sound issue and I was reading an article on that very theme just last night. Yes, in the environment I'm now focusing on the issue isn't mandatory, but I still appreciate your input because who knows where I'll go with this fun, creative, frustrating, demanding, passionate, 4 dimensional, wild and crazy artform. I'm sure that sports is only a beginning. And silence is golden when it comes to creativity. Some of my best videography has come about while treading silently and inconspicuously, ensuring that the subject remains natural and complete.

Thanks for your input, I wish you well!

P.S. How does that 3200 ISO work?
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2004, 2:40 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Normcar,

Seriously, I have never believed that you are hired by Canon. Also I have no doubt of your bad experience with FZ10 in your gym because I also own FZ10. I could imagine how FZ10 would behave under such circumstances. I can't agree with you more that " you can not squeeze blood from stone". It simply is not for that. What I have doubt about is the performance of G5 you described because I do not own one. Now you have posted some gym photos taken by G5. I am convinced that G5 is better in your gym. Thank you for your post.
Hey, even if you were work for Canon (Which I never believe), there is nothing wrong to praise their products. The photos will speak for themselves. As you know now, I also own Canon digital camera and I love it, too.
Padanaram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2004, 7:35 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

******ram

I think that both you and I should sit back and listen to Humble.

I wish you well
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2004, 2:47 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 42
Default Normcar - I'm not sure I'm worth listenting to -

but if you want to see 3200 go to http://www.pbase.com/willie408. I don't understand pbase too well, you may have to click on the box to get the 4 pix. The two candlelit images deomostrate, I think, what 3200 is good for.

There is a good bit of noise in the darkness in pbase, but for some reason these print perfectly clean, quite nice.

The man in the candlelit images is my son Morgan, 50. The boy is his son, who is 7.

the image titled Kim1 is my daughter-in-law comforting her other son after he hurt himself. This is also 3200 but without any prostprocessing at all.

the 4th image is my oldest grandon's wife and their first son - not my first great-grandchild, tho. This is a Canon Pro 90 IS image, 1/20, F2.8, ISO 400, no post processing.

These are not works of art but snapshots which give a good idea of just how good the Canon stabilization can be. And I think the Pro90 image demonstrates just how well Canon hit their mark all those years ago compared to the FZ10, etc !!

best regards
Humble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2004, 2:50 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 42
Default Normcar -

Like I said, I don't understand pbase too well. I intended the link to go direct to the images but you have to click on "all galleries" to get to the pix.
Sorry 'bout that -
Humble 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 7:57 PM.