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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2010, 4:11 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 50
Default Noob sold TZ7...confused

hi guys,

To keep the topic as one, i'm continuing my questions from two previous threads in here from now on.

Here's the two previous threads:-

SARAH HAS BEEN POSTING PHOTO EXAMPLES OF HER FZ-35:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wh...ml#post1056752


and

PAUL & SARAH HAVE BEEN HELPING ME HERE:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pa...hy-fz35-3.html


Here is my reply to both Sarah and Paul:-

well thank u very much for that photo photo sarah...it certainly looks very nice.

Paul and Sarah, if i could have got these sort of results from the TZ7, I can tell u that i would never have sold it, but i definately couldn't. If i even slightly moved the camera, i usually got grainy, fuzzy, blurry shots and the photo tended to look very yellowy/reddish. Macro shots from average to very good, but distance shots were definately very poor.

Here is my baby's shot - ISO 400, SLOW SYNC FLASH:-

DELETED BY OP!!!


Here is another photo which is a 100% crop...This is the kind of quality i got at ISO 400. Can u see the double edge effect around her head?:-

DELETED BY OP!!!

Last edited by amateurman; Feb 25, 2010 at 11:29 AM.
amateurman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 24, 2010, 12:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

amateurman-

Thanks for the posted photos, they help a lot.

The problem shown in the photos is once again all a matter of camera technique. The incorrect flash mode was selected, and the WB balance was incorrectly selected as well.

Had you taken those photos with the TZ-7 selected to Auto Flash rather than Slow Synch, you would not have had the blurring in your photos.

Had the white balance been properly selected to Flash WB instead of left in Auto WB you would not have the yellow cast to your photos.

These photos show that in this case, it was a camera user problem, not a camera problem.

Good camera technique is a learned thing. It does not in anyway slow down taking your photo. It is a matter of making the person behind the camera smarter, and more able to take advantage of their camera's many features. That is what we do in this folder.

Sarah Joyce

Last edited by mtclimber; Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM.
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 2:35 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 50
Default

i agree with learning. Hopefully i'll understand it better as i can see u guys know what ur doing.

May i say one thing though...when i tried AUTO FLASH, i got extremely dark photos, that is when i decided to change to SLOW SYNC on someone's advice.

Also sarah, i noticed you mention that the Sony HX1 being a good camera in its own way, which i totally agree and i'm sure i read a review somewhere that the reason for it being so good was because it had a better lens...is this true?

Lastly, i don't know if u remember but i was asking if i could create VIBRANT images or shall i say MORE COLOURFUL, without having to POST PROCESS, is this achievable with the FZ-38 and would i be needing any sort of filters to do this?
amateurman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 4:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

amateurman-

Well, firstly, you are much better off with a FZ-35, as it has a much more powerful built-in flash unit than the Panasonic ZR-series cameras, or the ZS-series cameras.

Concerning the Sony HX-1 camera: a camera is only as good as its component parts and how they work together in concert. Both the FZ-35 and the HX-1 perform very well because the cameras, as a total unit, perform very well.

And, amateurman, I will again answer that the FZ-35 has multiple way in which to increase the vibrancy of the colors in a photo. Please go ahead and download a copy of the FZ-35 Owner's Manual, just as Jazzer has done. In doing so you can actual peruse and read all about all of the color options that the FZ-35 has to offer.

It is only in brightly lighted outdoor photos that you could possibly benefit from using a polarizing filter. However, that filter is 100% optional. I can get all the color vibrancy I desire using just the adjustments available on the FZ-35 camera.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 8:19 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

amateurman-

Here is a ZS3 flash photo taken using the technique that I outlined above.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 6:21 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amateurman View Post
... i was asking if i could create VIBRANT images or shall i say MORE COLOURFUL, without having to POST PROCESS, is this achievable with the FZ-38?
yes - I quite easily achieved this by increasing the default Saturation level from 0 to 1
Regards
dbnnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 7:10 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 50
Default

well let me say thank you very much for ALL the HELP & ADVICE you guys have given me. I can't appreciate it enough.

Now after careful thinking (I hope u guys don't think i'm mad!), i've totally decided to ditch all SUPER-ZOOM cameras for a NIKON D5000 DSLR.

I'll tell you why i've gone with this camera.

1. Firstly unlike the FZ38, the D5000 is available in my local store for 550 to pick up and the FZ38 i have to order over the net.

2. I also have a 100 gift vouchers to use at this store. So the nikon is down to 450

3. i can also claim another 50 cashback and now its down to 400!!!

i think for me that is a bargain for a camera which is DSLR, has good reviews and has the bonus of HD movies. From what i've read, no compact or super-zoom can match a DSLR is low-light and quality.

What do u guys think? Do you think i'm mad? plain stupid? or do u think that i've thought this through?
amateurman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 7:41 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 232
Default

Amateurman, the D5000 is a great camera and you will certainly enjoy using it.
My 2 cents: If you wish to continue keeping the costs of your hobby in
check, just always keep in mind that the urge to consistently buy more
and more glass for your DSLR is always going to be there Its the main
reason the camera retailers LOVE to sell them!
The initial price of a DSLR can be quite small once you start buying decent glass!

As for the reasons for purchasing one, everyone will have their own set of
criteria in the decision process. I for one wanted to return to using a DSLR
again, but knew that in my case I wouldn’t use it nearly as often due to
the larger form and weight factor (camera and lenses) & as I am away
quite a lot, really like to travel as light as possible. It was the reason that I
finally went for the FZ38/35 ( Even now I never go with the Hood, and use
the smallest possible carry bag to keep things as compact as possible) –
Initially I was going to get a Canon DSLR.
Regards

Last edited by dbnnet; Feb 25, 2010 at 7:44 AM.
dbnnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 7:46 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 50
Default

thanks dbnnet.

size can be an issue, but one of the reasons to go for a dslr was that it stops me from taking loads of rubbish shots...i.e if u have a light compact/super zoom, its easier to carry around and what happens is that you just keep taking shots after shots. With the d5000 i will take less, but only take QUALITY shots.

There are other DSLR cameras, but the ones with HD video are extremely expensive.
amateurman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 10:07 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 51
Default

One of the great benefits of digital cameras, big or small, is the ease of taking lots of pictures. The equivalent of dozens of rolls of film can be carried on a small, lightweight storage device which is often no larger than a postage stamp.

And taking lots of pictures is crucial to becoming a good photographer. It's necessary to learn one's own camera and it develops the photographer's eye for pictures (recognition of a subject or story, learning composition, recognizing qualities in different lighting, etc.). In the first, learning one's own camera may require more effort in the digital world than in film which therefore boosts the need to take more, not less, pictures to progress on the learning. In the latter, it's a universal admonition to new photographers..."take pictures...take lots of pictures". One cannot improve by not taking photographs, rubbish or otherwise. There may even be an argument in stating that one cannot truly see the difference between one's own rubbish and good photographs until one has taken and continues to take lots of photos.

Quality shots are not automatic with a specific camera or technology...after all, there are many fine photographs dating back as far as the 1800's. Consistent quality photographs come from experienced photographers that "take lots of pictures."

john
jmgiv 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 9:41 PM.