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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 6, 2005, 2:22 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Default

To be fair, I doub the S2 will be any better. So far, I haven't been too impressed with it (a lot of purple fringing, noise, average low-light shots). Both cameras are great; it's just all a matter of personal taste.
John Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 6, 2005, 2:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 132
Default

Ummm... not exactly sure what you're saying, it isnt very clear. But sounds like a complete contradiction of your previous topic.
spidamonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 2:40 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

PCmag has done unfavorable reviews of a lot of nice cameras. They are PC experts (maybe), not camera experts. Their reviews are more "gadget" status than real photographic reviews.
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 9:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

To me, the "only" "digital" camera worth considering is one with a long zoom with IS. This gives you capabilities that you can't get with other types of cameras. Either big zoom models, or a small one that slips into your pocket. They all use the same hand full of sensors, and all have the same issues with various chromatic abberations, color casts, limited ability in wide angle, no control over depth of field, tendency to blow out highlights, and noise at and above iso 200. They're (digicams) are all pretty generic, and their flaws are the same. Most reviewers split hairs over this or that... a digicam is a digicam is a digicam. Pocket ones are nice, since you can have it with you at all times. Ultra-zooms with IS give you handheld capture capabilities never before available in photography.

I've given up on "reviewers", they don't weight their evaluation criteria as I do, or the way most consumers use their cameras. There really hasn't been much innovation in this area in the last couple years, except manufacturers are trying to cram more meaningless megapixels into their sensors. I think they've bumped up against the limits of CCD technology in the digicam sensorptics equasion. Everything else is just firmware stuff, most of which is done better in post but the user.

Consumer DSLRS? Still too expensive, relative to their lifespan. If I'm going to spend $800 to $1000 for a camera body, digital or otherwise, I don't want something that will be obsolete within 24 months. Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me unless you're a professional. Everytime I think "DSLR", I look at the money needed for a decent kit - even lower end, and start thinking Contax rangefinder or something.

That's why I'm back to using film 50% of the time, at least.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 12:26 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

Well said... Exactly WHY I didn't buy a dSLR.. My film SLRs still outperform them and I don't have to worry about how many MP are crammed on to the sensor.. Especially with chromes and b&w.. Don't have to worry about dirt on the sensor. Most of them are full manual and operate fine without batteries. The only real advantange to digital over film, that I see, is instant feedback and it's already in an electonic format (spare me the per shot cost argument). I still don't regret the FZ20 but my film cameras are still perminant fixtures here.

Here's a shameless plug for where you can get your MF & LF classics serviced.

http://www.rolleiman.com/

Jeff
:G
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 9:37 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 50
Default

jsiladi wrote:
Quote:
Well said... Exactly WHY I didn't buy a dSLR.. My film SLRs still outperform them and I don't have to worry about how many MP are crammed on to the sensor.. Especially with chromes and b&w.. Don't have to worry about dirt on the sensor. Most of them are full manual and operate fine without batteries. The only real advantange to digital over film, that I see, is instant feedback and it's already in an electonic format (spare me the per shot cost argument). I still don't regret the FZ20 but my film cameras are still perminant fixtures here.

Here's a shameless plug for where you can get your MF & LF classics serviced.

http://www.rolleiman.com/

Jeff
:G
I use my FZ20 frequently, but if I feel the pictures will be important (birthdays, christmas, weddings, etc.) I still carry along and use my old 35mm film slr. That probably won't change until digital camera manufacturers can cost effectively put a full frame dslr sensor into an under $1000 consumer digital camera. Until then manufacturers are mainly playing marketing games with the megapixel count and minor feature variations to attract first time digital camera buyers. The upgrade market is a bit more jaded by experience, and more interested in seeing significant progress from what they already own towards 35mm film capture quality.
Tenshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 6:04 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

John Boy wrote:
Quote:
To be fair, I doubt the S2 will be any better. So far, I haven't been too impressed with it (a lot of purple fringing, noise, average low-light shots). Both cameras are great; it's just all a matter of personal taste.
I think the FZ5 or the S2 are fine cameras I prefer the S2 but would be happy with the FZ5, bear in mind small differenses between each camera in review tests don't add up to anything in real life picture situations, and whichever one you choose you will need to fine tune in camera and do some PP work,

As Nick Trop so rightly pointed out all digi cams have failings.
Make a choice and go with it go and take lots of shots.

DPR forum have a few threads.... eg Oh I am glad I got the FZ5 this comparison or that comparison showed the FZ5 has a little less CA or PF .... goodness its all about images and taking pictures ....fun .... not crowing over some minutae in camera difference...

I still use my little FZ1 I also use a canon A40 compact its nothng special 3x zoom 2.1 megapixals its takin some great garden shots I often visit open gardens in my state.
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 11:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

boyzo wrote:
Quote:
John Boy wrote:
Quote:
To be fair, I doubt the S2 will be any better. So far, I haven't been too impressed with it (a lot of purple fringing, noise, average low-light shots). Both cameras are great; it's just all a matter of personal taste.
I think the FZ5 or the S2 are fine cameras I prefer the S2 but would be happy with the FZ5, bear in mind small differenses between each camera in review tests don't add up to anything in real life picture situations, and whichever one you choose you will need to fine tune in camera and do some PP work,

As Nick Trop so rightly pointed out all digi cams have failings.
Make a choice and go with it go and take lots of shots.

DPR forum have a few threads.... eg Oh I am glad I got the FZ5 this comparison or that comparison showed the FZ5 has a little less CA or PF .... goodness its all about images and taking pictures ....fun .... not crowing over some minutae in camera difference...

I still use my little FZ1 I also use a canon A40 compact its nothng special 3x zoom 2.1 megapixals its takin some great garden shots I often visit open gardens in my state.
It really gets silly after a while. Anyone who owns an FZ-1 - or who have seen some of the fine pics by the FZ-1ers here, know that 2.1 megapixels is fine for most print sizes, certainly it's enough for the web. 267 ppi on a 6X4 is plenty, pics are not lacking detail. Interpolation works well in preserving that detail up to 100% fake pixels for larger prints. Heck, Fuji's been doubling the pixel rate in their digital cameras through interpolation for years.

On the subject of film - to piggy back on jsiladi and Tenshi point, good 400 speed film does a nice job with indoor candids if there's decent natural light and you have a good fast lens. It frustrates me that I can't do that with a digicam without spending a load of cash for a DSLR. Let's face it, to get the most out of a DSLR you need to have the glass. If you don't already own Nikkor or Canon 35mm lenses, you're laying out a couple thousand (US). No point in getting a D70/50 or a Canon D20 if you skimp on the glass.

Additionally, if you like black and white (and I love it, still) film is the only way to go. Been studying zone a little and digital - even DSLRs, only go to Zone 7. You really notice it in the prints. No comparison. While the detail might be there the subtle gradiations of gray aren't. Film is still king - hands down, in the world of black and white photography.

Glad to see there's still some film shooters out there!
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 12:33 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 38
Default

Boyzo and Nick, you guys couldn't have said it better. I guess I got a little toocaught upwith all the "camera A vs. camera B" talk; subsequently I chose camera A(Canon S2) over cameraB (FZ5) because of the presupposed superiority over the FZ5. And so my expectation of the S2 was really high. To my disappointment, I have NOT been that happy with the S2 (I've returned it - Imight give the FZ5 another shot or play it safe and wait for another model fromeither manufacturerto come out later this year, or whenever it comes out).
John Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 1:02 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Charlie46227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 295
Default

John Boy wrote:
Quote:
Boyzo and Nick, you guys couldn't have said it better. <snipped> [I may] play it safe and wait for another model from either manufacturer to come out later this year, or whenever it comes out).
Seems to me Boyzo and Nick are saying don't hold your breath for SEVERAL years, as even the more expensive DSLRs won't have the same capabilities as film-based SLRs (I tend to agree). And they CERTAINLY won't be capable using the same small CCDs in the types of cameras you've already mentioned trying out. You will NEVER be satisified with those, now or in the future. Just don't buy into that hype. As for me, it will be many years before I feel I'm capable of exploiting any of the quality found in regular SLRs and film, so I consider my FZ10 a fun and comparatively economical way to learn over that course of several years. Hopefully by the time film is really dead I'll have graduated to close to that level and the digital cameras will have also.

Charlie46227 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 2:45 AM.