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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 28, 2006, 5:24 AM   #21
Member
 
kriptone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 83
Default

Hi All

Not really got time to answer all your posts in detail at moment but just thought I would acknowledge them.

RaymondK, You have a Ferrari as well as the M3? You lucky man! Bit short on boot space though aren't they?

Forestcat44, where did you take that AWESOME gull picture? And it was within 3 days of getting your FZ30? You are obviously very talented, or lucky, or a combination! I wish I could train my local wildlife to be so cooperative

Treemonkey " DSLRs will not be for everyone but if some one offered to swap a canon 350D for my FZ I would do it in a flash. " So would I my friend, but I would prefer someone gave me a 350D so I had the best of both worlds!

KennethD "Two very capable, tho different camera types." I couldnt have put it better myself sir

Right, that's it for now, take care one and all

Tony
kriptone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 2:25 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

I agree that you will enjoy yourself at 3 MP as much as we who shoot higher. But, viewing at small sizes, printing at small sizes will eventually lead you to expand, in my experience. I still have tons of pics I shot at 3 MP and they are side by side as good as higher MP count pics. Especially my travel shots. I was very grateful to shoot at that setting too because I had limited space for a flash card and was able to get in my whole holiday thanks to the reduced MP demand. Sightseeing, and visiting different places and now I have all the pics. Nowadays with prices for memory way down and affordable, I love to shoot at higher pixel counts. It gives the luxury of cropping for one thing. Overall it's more versatile. But never pooh pooh a 3 MP shot. They have place in our hobby too.

Kd
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 2:27 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 314
Default

KENNETHD wrote:
Quote:
Treemonkey wrote:
Quote:
Here are the reasons why I will one day (when I can afford it) get a DSLR
1- Dynamic range - ever notice how the sky often seems blown out and shadow detail is missing in high contrast scenes? This is due to the poor dynamic range in small sensor consumer cameras. DSLR cameras have much better dynamic range.

2- Depth of field - Since the FZ series has such a small sensor even at f2.8 the DOF is huge. This makes it very difficult to achieve the nice out of focus backgrounds. With DSLR you can use DOF to achieve more artistic and interesting photos, this is due to their larger sensor but also the possibility of useing faster lenses (ie 50mm f/1.8, 1.4).

3- Wide angle - and I mean real wide angle. One of the first lenses I would like to get is the sigma 10-20mm (16-32mm equiv on a 1.6 crop). This gives true wide/ultra wide angle and again gives more freedom when it comes to taking interesting photos.

4- Long exposures - Long exposures (>5 sec) photos on the FZ gives massive amounts of noise. Long exposures with DSLRs tend to give very clean images.

5- Useable ISO above 100 - We may not have been able to readily use high ISO on film cameras but we can now, so why not use it. I can think of many occasions where there was just not enough light and high usable ISO would have been great.

6- Little things like TTL flash, tilt-shift lenses, dedicated macro lenses, faster focus, faster start-up, faster burst modes (esp with RAW files).

Of course there are always down sides as nothing in this world is perfect. There is the cost, the extra weight, more lenses, dust on the sensor. But to me these are minor issues compared to the advantages that DSLRs offer.
DSLRs will not be for everyone but if some one offered to swap a canon 350D for my FZ I would do it in a flash.

Treemonkey
Well, look. DSLR's are ok too. In the right hands I daresay none of what you list is a serious issue for the FZ series. Just a little practice and skill, and the bread and butter you rely on in your photos is there. Check this out. I forget what the exact time this exposure was. Somewhere between 4 and 6 seconds. Taken inan almost totally dark room. Noise? It's there but not horrific. And this is right off the card. No noise clean up at all. I concede hyperbole has it's uses. But you don't need it to defend a DSLR vs an FZ. Two very capable, tho different camera types.

Kd
Sorry, Kd, but all of what Treemonkey listed are completely legitimate reasons to get a DSLR.

1.If you don't have the DR, even in the right hands you will have blown highlights or a badly underexposed picture. Sure, you could take multiple frames and process them in PS, but that's an option only for completely static subjects.

2.As for DoF control, you can introduce blur in PS, but that doesn't look quite the same, and often has a PS-look to it.

3.Again, you could take multiple frames for a panorama type picture, but that's again an option only for static subjects.

4.Sure you could run images through a noise-reduction program, but you'll remove detail.

5.See 4. Besides, having ISO 1600 (which is much better than ISO 200 on the Panys) allows you to take pictures you couldn't before.

6.Yep, speed matters. Pictures of flying birds aren't that easy, even with a DSLR.

Really, if all you do is take pictures of static subjects in great lighting, then yes, a P&S might do just fine for you. However, for many real-world applications, a DSLR is flat-out better.

Of course, there's a downside: it's expensive and heavy, but for a reason.

Also, with all due respect, your picture is underexposed, and even so, the highlights aren't very well preserved. If it were metered so you could actually see the flowers and the head, the snow would be completely blown--not b/c of an incompetent photographer, but b/c of a lack of DR--your picture illustrates point 1 perfectly.
thebac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 1:55 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

Repeating myself...I tell you that the shortcomings and comparative difference is real, between the DSLR and the FZ 30. They are two completely different tools, if I may use that description. However, while legitimate comparison will clearly show these differences, your list and explanation tends to expand and exaggerate. (sniffs in distain) The FZ 30 is indeed formidable. Once it is put to use and the owner becomes familiar with it's strong points and how to maximize them, while it is no DSLR...results bring joy to them that engage the shutter. Now, if that incites your fingers to riot, turn them loose on your keyboard. We who bring the world beauty and enlightenment through the lense of this creation, can tolerate any rebuttal.:|Best regards...

Kd


KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 2:49 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

I would requote Treemonkey's post if Thebac had not already done that.

Ican add that I have had a Canon P&S for a year and a FZ20 for another year, so I am absolutely new to photography.

Sometimes in my posts here and elsewhere Someone told me I ve got the eye or that my pics look as they are from a dSLR.

I've used Photoshop for 10 years, since the Floppy version 3.
I have started with digital Photography in 2004.

I have always liked my more than 1 year old FZ20, which gave me some great shots, but already since I started to use it, I could detect its limits as against a cheap P&S, which had sensibly larger Dynamic range, better colors andno noise at low iso.
dSLR is another world. Only when you have one you can understand that.


However, even if I like dSLR Image quality and flexibility, I cannot think that I must carry such weight with me in 'dangerous' places.
So for now I will still play with my FZ20 (and with the 40 is it's not worse thanthe 30)
and a lot of Photoshop healing.
For macros, with Nikon lenses or reversed optics, and bounced flash, it is even easier to match dSLR qualityand narrow DOF.

Yet my meter of comparison will always be the dSLR images, for they are quite superior to anything a small CCD camera can do.


But you can't think to have all in one: a cheap, small, light, and with perfect IQ camera.

Every one of these two worlds has its pro and cons, which Treemonkey has rightly enumerated

Francesco
http://digilander.libero.it/peribsen/indice.htm
MY MACROS

PS thank Neil for that link of EOS 20D -FZ30 "comparison"
Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 6:59 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

Ya, I think it's great that while the DSLR has all the picture qualities we envy...it actually helps those of us who have cameras like the FZ 30 or other FZ's, because we have examples of what to aim for. By comparison, I experiment with my wildlife shots, to see how close I can come to the fabulous DSLR shots I see. By choosing days with brilliant light and experimenting with my shutter speed and aperture, I have been able to get better shots than I believed possible. Birds especially. I hope to be able to post a few to illustrate my point. Tho not in the same class as DSLR's I have been able to improve, simply because I've seen the DSLR shots.

Kd
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 2:53 AM   #27
Member
 
RaymondK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 82
Default

I just have to TOTALLY agree with KennethD (and he's not a family member either!!) and likewise thank Neil for the link to the comparison of the FZ30 and the EOS.

Reading all the comments, articles and recommendations both here and on other forums, I feel that this wonderful world of photography is completely "endless" and there is really no ONE solution to "perfection". And, how does one define "perfection" anyway??? Whilst to one person, his (her) picture is the most perfect in ALL respects, there will always be MANY others who will critisise it and "suggest" how it could have been taken "better" (or how "camera x" would have improved "this", "that" or the "other").

It IS a very much a consumers market and, whilst one is happy with what they have and the results that they get from "it" (no mention now of the FZ30 ), there will always be a lot to learn - at least, for me, there will be.

I thank all who've already posted on this and other of Steve's forums and feel that I will continue enjoying (and learning) from their comments for a lot time to come.

Thanks to all - best regards,

Raymond
RaymondK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 3:46 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Treemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 628
Default

I think everyone here has the same idea but is just putting it in different ways. I love my FZ10, I certainly dont regret buying it. I also dont believe that I will be a better photographer with a better camera, but I do believe that I will enjoy photography more with a better camera (by better I mean DSLR).
As most others have said, its all about what you want and need. Its all personal choice and it is for that reason why I want a DSLR.

It all comes down to my favourite saying "bang for buck", you wont get more bang for you buck than with a FZ. But if you want more Bang you will need a lot more bucks.

Treemonkey
Treemonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 4:24 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

I can only add that, maybe we are also too unfair in comparing our FZs with dSLR.

Despite the undeniable difference in image quality, it must also be said that FZ10-30 (with a few expenses in additional lenses or diopters) have allowed us to approach the world of tele (wildlife shots) and Macro in a serious way. Wasn't for these digicams many of us would have never had this possibility or even the chance to discover this world. In some conditions, the results quitely match those obtainable with dSLR and high end optics.

Certainly we can't pretend to be able to cover really any field of photography with the same standard of results, but they have opened up the way for us all.
And it's getting even better, for UZ and good entry level dSLR prices are still going down while technology progresses on.

Narmer
http://digilander.libero.it/peribsen/indice.htm




Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 5:00 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
nzmacro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 389
Default

I honestly have no idea why people even try and compare the two formats. Its a bit like trying to compare 35mm film to large format, why would you even try :roll:

Its really is basic and simple as already pointed out. Its about frame size and real easy to understand mathematics (otherwise I wouldn't understand it). Just accept what you have and what you get out of the box.

No I don't need or even want a DSLR, but certainly understand why people do. The new L1 might change my thinking because it suits me, not because one format is better than another

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.


nzmacro 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.