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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 12, 2004, 9:40 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Treemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 628
Default

Thats a big call Bob.
I think you are right in saying that the ultrazoom cameras are getting as good as the DSLR's but the DSLR still have one advantage. When the camera dies (which they all do eventually) you still have lenses which can be used on another camera. If our FZ's die (which I hope doesnt happen for a long time!) we need to start from scratch again.

Treemonkey
Treemonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2004, 10:27 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Rezajune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 233
Default

I wouldn't go that far bobc. I went to the store and played with the canon and nikon dslr and it blew my mind how fast the autofocus was and how fast(as fast as your wrist) you can zoom unto subjects.

Now that I have played with both of them...one can not really compare them. DSLR are are complete different beast. I mean at the end under normal conditions, one probably can not tell the difference between a 2000$ dslr kit and our FZ cameras megapixel to megapixel that is if the DSLR had also image stabilization., but they offer super long shutter speeds and very small apertures (F40), but those are extremes we will never have to encounter.

I love my FZ10 and nobody comes close to it, but if i had 4 to 8 grand I would easily jump into DSLR.

Rezajune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 12:30 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

Loving candid work, I agree w/Rezajune. The dslrs are much more responsive, esp. auto focus wise.I have missed a few shots b/c of some focusing issues (although I did great with those football kids!) A sales rep @ B&H photo told me (take this with a grain of salt, he is a sales rep, mind you) that it will take up to 10 years for the consumer digicams to be at par with the top of the line dslr oftoday. Would I trade my FZ20, never, but the dslrs exist for a reason. I am a small woman with a bad back, so even if I had the money, the FZ20 is more than enough camera for me. I agree w/Bob-who wants to lug all of that equipment around. But I would like to have the ability to shoot w/an ISO of 1600.And who couldn't use more picture quality? I would crop more closely if I had the higher image quality (i.e 8mp and above)And while it is true that if our camera dies, so does our lens, but those dslr lenses are usually over a grand, anyway. We could buy a whole new camera!
Nancy Gabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 1:19 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

I agree with all of you, and understand what you are saying about the DSLR's, but the way I see it is this...

I see the future non DSLR's having CMOS sensors, higher ISO settings, and a single lense that can do it all, as well as response time being just as good as the DSLR's. And I see this in a smaller more affordable package.

The way this technology seems to be moving, it may even be in the next 10 years or so. If this happens DSLR manufacturers are going to have to either have some advantage over this or not produce DSLR's any more.

I'm just saying it could happen.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 4:24 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Rezajune wrote:
Quote:
I love my FZ10 and nobody comes close to it, but if i had 4 to 8 grand I would easily jump into DSLR.
Yes, yes... they're great in low light and have fast autofocus systems but for $4,000-$8,000 when I think of all the "real" (film) stuff I can get... You could even get a "real" Leica lens for that kind of money.

One assumes that if your laying out those kind of dollars, you're concern is optimal image quality, so why spend that kind of money to get something that only ->approaches<- 35mm film quality, when for much less you get ->actual<- 35mm film quality? Answer: you're more enamoured with the technology, than you are with taking pictures!

DSLR owners must repent! They are on the road to "Level 1 of Photographic Hell": :evil:

Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1
(equivalent to "Hell" in Christian mythology)

These men (and they are all men) have no interest in art or photography because they have no souls. Lacking souls they cannot express imagination or feeling, which is why their images, if they ever bother to make any, suck. Does poring over a microscope analyzing test images has anything to do with photographing a Joshua tree at dawn? Of course not.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

DSLR owners are most certainly are at "Level 2" already.

You'll note that there are way, way more posts of pics on this, the Panasonic thread... and they're of the "...having fun with my camera, check this out" variety, than "test" shots comparing cameras on the DSLR sites (Lumix 20 vs Canon thread for example didn't, thankfully, originate from anyone here...)

Most regular posters here are at Level 4 or 5. You went with the Lumix because it enables you to take a lot of pictures (digital) without constraint (IS system/super zoom) for a reasonable cost, to hone your skills, because you love taking pictures.

:|
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 8:51 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 28
Default

NickTrop,

That post really struck a chord with me. OUTSTANDING!!! The whole reason I bought my first digital camera was so I could take pictures... period. Something I didn't do with film because of the cost. The ONLY reason I upgraded to the FZ3 was so I would get the pictures my Fuji A205 was missing. Although I have to admit I was probably in "Level 2" when I was researching for this camera. :?

My comments on DSLR's: They are now where the good cameras (like the FZs) will be in 5-7 years. If you are a professional photographer who neeeds to "get the shot" in conditions that vary wildly, the yes, the DSLR is a good thing. But if you are a soccer dad who just wants a picture of junior kicking the ball... why spend $1,500-$2,000? For 1/5th the money I can get the same shot.
dsuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 12:17 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

dsuds wrote:
Quote:
That post really struck a chord with me. OUTSTANDING!!!
That article on Rockwell's site is sad, funny, and true all at the same time. Struck a chord with me too. Glad you liked it.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 12:38 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

I just love not spending hours in the dark (physically, not metaphorically, mind you). I.e developing pictures. I used to keep costs down by developing my own pics. Mainly b&w, I tried printing color when I was @ school (PSOD) but it was such a pain, and took forever to get the color balance and you had to be in complete darkness - with the exception of that freshman who had to open his enlarger with his light on exposing (and ruining) everyone's print who was in the darkroom (about 24 people!).

Now I am on my laptop editing images, e-mailing and IMing my peeps etc. As much as I love the quality of b&w, and as much as I don't want to sell my enlarger (in my kitchen), I don't think I will ever go back. I am waiting for digital to go forward. And I don't know about hell, but I do feel like a slave to equipment, sometimes.
Nancy Gabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 12:48 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Nancy Gabby wrote:
Quote:
with the exception of that freshman who had to open his enlarger with his light on exposing (and ruining) everyone's print who was in the darkroom (about 24 people!)
Ahhhhhhh! :shock: How did you not kill him!!!
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2004, 3:04 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

Let's put it this way, Nick, my real name is not Nancy!
Nancy Gabby 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 6:15 AM.