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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2005, 12:40 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

nooner wrote:
Quote:
So Nick................how do you really feel:?:

I'm on the verge of dslr-land too. Probably keep the FZ1 though.
LOL... on a rant-rampage resulting from an exhausting work schedule over the last couple weeks. And an overdose of Nootropic substances... :? ... to help my bad, bad brain. All apologies.

I'll get off my soapbox now and catch some much needed :sleep::sleep::sleep:
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 12:45 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:-), I already posted this chart in another thread but I think it is relevant here too.

I found it in the http://www.country-images-newmarket.com/current newsletter.(I'm a member of the club:-))

You are right, if you are not after monster size prints or massive cropping the current high MP cameras are becoming overkill for most people.

Peter.


Attached Images
 
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 1:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

iagree, the quest for ever more pixels doesn't gain you much, once you get above say, 4 or 5 MP. i know lots of folks swear by the FZ1, and i certainly don't doubt it's a great camera - judging by some of the shots i've seen here, it's a very capable instrument.but i like the FZ20's 5MP because it gives me enough to play with, so i can crop a bitif need be and still maintain a minimum 200 pixels per inch on an 8x10 print. other than that, i have no need for more. even with my glasses, i can't tell the difference between an 8x10 printed from 3MP and one made with 5. i haven't tried making an 11x14 print from my FZ yet, but it's only a matter of time...

yes, i know, DSLR's offer some advatages. but, as has been mentioned, those few advantages come at a steep cost... a lot of added weight, a lot of extra gear, and a whole lot more moolah! yes, the FZ is noisier because of its small sensor, but for anything short of full-blown professional use i don't think the problem warrants the cost of a DSLR to get around it. for half the cost of a DSLR body only, i have a camera with outstanding optics, plus accessories, filters, batteries, memory, everything i need to take excellent photos. for those few shots where noise is a problem, i can clean it up to acceptable levels in PP, which is a lot less costly than spending $1500-$2000 for a cam with a larger sensor.

frankly, if i could choose between an 8 MP DSLR and an improved FZ that was essentially noise free up to ISO800, i'd pick the FZ hands down. i'd rather carry one camera, one lens, and have it able to do everything, than lug all the 'stuff' that goes with SLR's. been there, done that, and it's just not that much fun.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 9:09 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
bmccoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 362
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
frankly, if i could choose between an 8 MP DSLR and an improved FZ that was essentially noise free up to ISO800, i'd pick the FZ hands down. i'd rather carry one camera, one lens, and have it able to do everything, than lug all the 'stuff' that goes with SLR's. been there, done that, and it's just not that much fun.
Personally I would be happy if it was low noise just up to 400. After that I expect some level of noise in the picture. After all look at the consumer level film that is out there. The Kodak 400 and 800 ISO films have a very heavy grain to them in my opinion. That is one of the reasons that I switched over to Fuji films many years ago. I prefer the saturation and subdued grain of their 200 and 400 films.

If the FZ series kept the noise just a little more subdued at 400 I would be even happier then I am with my FZ3. That is one of the reason I was so interested in the f 2.8 across the entire zoom, helps with shooting at lower ISO settings even if the light is marginal.

I agree 100% with the resolution comments from Nick, the 3 mp that I get fromthe FZ3 is enough for my needs for many years to come.

-Brett
bmccoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 11:34 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 45
Default

I ended up with an FZ15....and i think I might get my wife an fz3 or one of the smaller sized cameras in the fz line...... I have blown up a couple of the 4mp pictures from my camera to 8x10 and they seem as clear as any film camera's picture..... sometimes I wish I would have just bought the smaller camera, but have never used the ones in the smaller fz series. The FZ15 is sometimes a lug to haul around.... I can't imagine what the people with all the lenses are doing... I have a back broblem and tis camera and a tripod is usually all I am up to carrying around.... if the smaller one works for my wife I may just end up with one in that series.

Ernie
TopSpin80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 1:06 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Goldar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 145
Default

TopSpin80 wrote:
Quote:
I ended up with an FZ15....and i think I might get my wife an fz3 or one of the smaller sized cameras in the fz line...... I have blown up a couple of the 4mp pictures from my camera to 8x10 and they seem as clear as any film camera's picture..... sometimes I wish I would have just bought the smaller camera, but have never used the ones in the smaller fz series. The FZ15 is sometimes a lug to haul around.... I can't imagine what the people with all the lenses are doing... I have a back broblem and tis camera and a tripod is usually all I am up to carrying around.... if the smaller one works for my wife I may just end up with one in that series.

Ernie

Portability is good. The initial post points out that only a few years ago, 1.9 effective megapixels was considered ample, from a resolution standpoint,for ahigh-end DSLR designed for professional work that cost $10,000. And, the latest, 2005top-of-the-line pro-level Nissan DSLRhas only a 4 megapixel sensor.

__________________________________________________ __________

Review excerpt from http://www.lonestardigital.com/DCS620.htm

Key Features -
  • 1738X1152 Pixel ultra high quality CCD (2 Megapixel) gives a traditional 35mm film format aspect ratio of 2:3 (example - traditional 4"x6" prints). Produces rich, well-saturated images, delivers smooth, clear "enlargement sized" prints up to 8" x 10" or greater.
[/*]
The best part - pictures from the DCS 620 printed on a top quality thermal dye sublimation printer are virtually indistinguishable from top quality 35mm film camera "store processed" prints... with all of the look, the feel, the depth, and the durability...And when you pay this much for a camera, it's really nice to hear "WOW!!" when people look at your prints...
__________________________________________________ _____________________


"Indistinguishable from 35mm film quality" = "Indistinguishable from 35mm film quality" and Wow print = Wow print, "way back" then and now.

The megapixel thing is ->totally<- psychological, induced by marketing and hype andfew things illustrate more clearly how influenced we all are by"conspicuous consumtion brinksmanship"The only advantage is for cropping and enlargements beyond 8X10, which most people can't print from home anyway. Again, the latest and greatest procamera has 4 megapixels at a time when cell phones are coming out with 7 megapixelon-board cams. Shows how much megapixels matter to image quality, and how much they're used to exploit the consumer camera market.



Goldar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 2:06 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
silvagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
Default

I may be waaaay off the mark here, but.....

IF you want to crop a pic but have the details still clear, then there is no substitute for megapixels. IMHO it's not a gimmick to move prices up but for higher image detials when 'enlarged' (to use an old film term)

There's a terrific site that show what IS possible, do a search using 'Gigapixel' (I forgot the actual site URL) but the details that are visible at only 5% of the actual image size are unbeleivable.

The picture showing the 'nudist beach watchers' is particularly revealing, not for the nudists, but for the lengths some people will go to try and watch them:O


silvagod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 2:37 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

If headed the DLSR way canon seem the best choice the lens range is incredible, they have a new zoom lens 28-330mm 12x
only thing is price $4500 :roll:
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 3:13 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Goldar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 145
Default

silvagod wrote:
Quote:
I may be waaaay off the mark here, but.....

IF you want to crop a pic but have the details still clear, then there is no substitute for megapixels. IMHO it's not a gimmick to move prices up but for higher image detials when 'enlarged' (to use an old film term)

There's a terrific site that show what IS possible, do a search using 'Gigapixel' (I forgot the actual site URL) but the details that are visible at only 5% of the actual image size are unbeleivable.

The picture showing the 'nudist beach watchers' is particularly revealing, not for the nudists, but for the lengths some people will go to try and watch them:O


Oh - absolutely. But from a practical standpoint, how often do you do this or need this? No, you won't be able to take little Johnny's eyeball thatis this actual size: ( 0 ) and enlarge it 500% and retain detail with a 2 megapixel camera. If you do this often, go for it. I have never had the urge. Nature shooters might need this to enlarge distant subjects without losing detail, and that's fine. Go for the 8 megapixel camera.

But for 35mm slr oriented shooter who view most images on the web or photo CD, and print to standard print sizes without cropping, which is (anecdotally) what most folks do, 2 megapixels is all you need for resolution comparable to a 35mm film camera as far as you eye is concerned for most print sizes. Again, 200 to 250 ppi = 35 mm resolution "to your eye". Above 300 ppi your eye is - literally, physiologically incapable of telling thedifference inimage quality.Printing a 600 ppi imageto a6X4 (or any)print sizeis a complete waste.
Goldar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 5:09 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Treemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 628
Default

Once again Nick you have started a very interesting rant. I do agree with you in general. I have the old Panasonic F7 which is a really small 2MP camera and I have printed quite a few A4 sized photos from it and have been very happy. I am happy with my FZ10 and it has taught me a massive amount about photography and I dont regret buying it but I still feel I will out grow it at some point. 90% of the time the FZ10 will do what I want but the other 10% of the time I miss a photo because of its limitations (slow startup, slow auto focus, high noise). Eventually that 10% will annoy me enough that I will trade up.
I have been looking at D-SLR (Nikon D-70) and also following the 4/3rds cameras as well. I dont think 4/3 is quite up to it full potential yet but it does seem to offer some advantages.
Photography is undergoing one heck of an upheaval at the moment with a new technology announced every day. But in the end it means we will have better and cheaper cameras to choose from.
I realised this has little to do with your initial rant Nick.

Treemonkey
Treemonkey 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 12:41 AM.