|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
|
![]()
Hi, i'm a newbie to digital cameras and photography.
Here are my choices: Nikon 3100- good all around camera Main pro: small size Price: $180 Panasonic FZ3: Main pros: 12X zoom, high quality lenses Main cons: no video in 640 x 480 Can you attach other lenses to this camera Price $306 Canon S1 Main pros: 10X zoom, excellent video capability, zoom during video shooting Main cons: none (except price) Price $350 I can understand that the two more expensive camera probably have higher image quality. But how much higher is the image quality? How would you tend to rate the 3 cameras on a 1-10 scale? Is it the difference between a crappy 19 inch tv and a $1000 35 inch tv with all the options? If you took modelling or fashionphotographs or landscape photos with the cameras, how would they be different. This is of course excepting the zoom function, although that is of course qute useful. every time i see suggestions for a camera, the panasonic fz3 comes up. Why? Is the image quality a 8.7 compared to a 7.0 for the Nikon? Thank you very much for your help!! |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
|
![]()
echo99 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
In terms of pic quality, I think all these cameras are sufficient. Most people probably won't be able to tell the difference in pics in good conditions (outdoor sunlight, or indoor with flash). Where they will differ is in the conditions they can take pics in, as well as their capabilities. It's hard to compare an ultra-zoom (like the FZ3 or S1 IS) to a compact (like the Nikon you listed). You cannot zoom into a bird sitting on a tree with an ultra-compact so how do you evaluate that? But on the other hand, you will not be carrying around a somewhat large camera like the S1 IS everywehre so you will miss all those candid and spontaneous shots that you might have taken with an ultra-compact--how do you compare that? I think what you should do is to concentrate on the type of pics that you want to take and then decide. For example, if you want to take far away objects (eg. sports athletes in a stadium, animals wandering around, etc) you want zoom; if you want to take landscapes or group pictures in narrow space, you want wide-angle (the lowest zoom should be wide); if you want to carry the camera at all times, to restaurants, nightclubs, going out, etc, you want ultra-compact or compact (eg. you really can't carry, say, the FZ3 in your pocket); if you are going to take mostly indoor pics then you want a bright flash (or at least an add-on flash), and/or AF-assist lamp, and/or low ISO noise (basically you want good low-light performance); etc. So try to come up with a few key things that you want... you'll take pics of everything but what are the key things? Where will you spend most of the time? Quote:
Ultra-zooms are generally not good for landscape pics or close-up pics. Sure, you can take them but that is not what they are designed for. For landscapes, you want a low-zoom wide-angle camera. And so on... I think it depends on what you are trying to take. Someone might say a high-end ultra-zoom like Panasonic FZ20 is best (since they like hte zoom) while another might say a low-zoom high-end camera like Canon G6 is best (since they don't use the zoom)... Quote:
Quote:
Second, FZ3 is a very good all-around camera. Even if you don't care about the zoom, it still competes well against other camera classes. The key features of the FZ3 IMO are: * image stabilization * low aperature of F2.8 throughout zoom (most cameras decrease the aperature size as you zoom but not this line of cameras) * good pic quality that rivals other camera classes (mainly due to very good lens) * good bang for the buck (relatively cheap when you consider the fact that it pretty much offers all the manual features you might want (its manual focus is weak but its higher-end sibling, the FZ20, is ok) Here is a good list, courtesy dcresource: http://dcresource.com/specials/holid...04/index.shtml Check out the list to get a rough idea of the best... Steve also has his list (although I think he puts too many cameras on that list) so check that out as well... |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
|
![]()
Thanks for the informative information.
Here's my question: If the panasonic didn't have the ultra zoom feature, how would it compare with the Canon SD300, A95 and the S60? Does it take better quality images, the same or worse? I've now realized that it's basically between the Canon sd300 (small size) vs the Panasonic fz3. I do figure that if i had the zoom, i'd use it at some point though. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
|
![]()
also, according to the review in dpreview.com, it sounds like the entire level of camera is simply superior (the fz3) over the canon sd300 or the a95.
Is this true? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
|
![]() Quote:
Ultra-compacts generally offer the least features (eg. no aperature/shutter priority modes, no custom/manual shooting modes, etc) and have the worse pic quality (eg. weak flash, red-eye problems). BUT the thing is that the ultra-compacts (eg. Canon SD300) are VERY SMALL. You can carry it in your pocket or purse, while the ultra-zooms (eg. Panasonic FZ3) or low-zoom prosumers (eg. Canon G6) are larger and inconvenient without a bag. You can see the difference between an ultra-compact and an ultra-zoom or a mid-end prosumer simply by comparing the basic stats. HEre is a side by side comparison between the major Canons, SD300 (ultra-compact), A95 (compact), S1 IS (mid-end ultra-zoom), G6 (mid-end low-zoom), Pro1 (high-end prosumer): comparison Scroll to the middle of the page and look at stuff like manual focus, aperature priority, and stuff like that. You'll find that they are either lacking with the ultra-compacts or they really oops. Also check out Steve's reviews of different cameras and look at the pictures. Steve usually has a bunch of identical pictures at the end that you can compare between cameras to get a rough idea. If you care about amateur photography, you should really stay away from ultra-compacts and some of the smaller ones IMO. These are basically portable point&shoot cameras with very little control of any sort. Also, ultra-compacts cost more for a given feature than the larger ones. If you just look at the features, all ultra-compacts would seem to be overpriced for what they offer--but they have compactness and a more stylish design and is rugged (often metal case)... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
|
![]()
Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
|
![]()
Again, thanks for your information.
I researched the other cameras and for me it boils down to the Canon SD200 and the Panasonic FZ3. I also read that the Nikon 3200has basically unacceptable prints in many situations. For the most part it boils down to image quality and size vs mega-zoom. how many megapixels would i need to make high-res full size wallpaper prints of landscape for my computer (high quality, i'd hope)? Which would be better or would both be insufficient? I also read in another thread that you posted in about the FZ3 having problems at night or indoors. But would the Canon have a small sensor and have the same problem too? How much superior is the image quality between the 2 cameras. i thought about it and in the case of compactness, it would most likely be pictures of people that would be taken the most ( and likely indoor) with a super compact. My guess is that it would not make much difference in people pics, but would make a noticeable one for outdoor/wildlife/beach pics (not considering the zoom) I also like to travel and go hiking, so landscape, cityscape, street scenesand wildlife pics i think would be greatly favoring the FZ3. How bad woulf it be to buy a $150 3 megapixel camera (yes i know a real piece of ****) for just people pics (like an olympus)? It's a tough call. What are your experiences of when it's nice to have a smaller camera and when you felt lucky you had a nicer high zoom camera? I may want to take an interest in (very) amateur photography later on and don't want to but 2 cameras. Thanks a lot, btw!! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
|
![]()
echo99 wrote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
How about size? Size is a huge factor with digicams. If size doesn't matter, I would say the FZ3 is better for the most part. FZ3 clearly offers more features for its given price... Quote:
Here is a brief overview of megapixels and printing: http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_...egapixels.html The chart in the middle of the page shows that a 3 megapixel camera can print a 6.8"x5" pic @ 300dpi. I would say that 300dpi is near the top for typical photos. Most people print at lower dpi and it not noticeable (for example, if you go to a major photo printer or a general photo printing place (like Wal-mart or something), they generally recommend something lower than 300dpi). So it all depends on the quality you are looking for. If you want to print large pics I would try going for a camera with around 5 megapixels. Latest ultra-compacts and compacts start out at 5 megapixels but if you want 5 MP ultra-zooms then you have to pay more and go for the higher-end Panasonic FZ20 (or something). I think you should figure out what size print you want and can afford (the cost of printing goes up almost exponetially eg. 4x6 costs less than $0.50 but 8x10 costs several dollars, and 11"x14" costs quite a bit). I think you already have the size (wallpaper size--whatever that is), and then figure out what quality you need (i.e. dpi required). Is this something that people are going to go very close and look at it closely (centimeters away) or will most people just look at it from far way (meters away)? Quote:
As a side note, if you are shooting with a flash then it doesn't really matter. Flash night pics are ok for almost all cameras (you just need to stay within the flash range, which is usually a few meters). Quote:
For example, I was looking at some pics between the Sony T1 (high-end ultra-compact; almost no control) and my Canon S1 IS (mid-end ultra-zoom) in an office party that I attended recently. All pics were indoor during the night (so they were all with flash). We didn't print the pics yet but looking at it on the computer (at max resolution-zoomed in), I really didn't notice any huge difference in pic quality (with exceptions I will list below). So I would say the pic quality between cameras is almost the same as long as the camera has good lens and sensors (Canon and Sony are definitely good with their lens; so is Panasonic and its Leica-branded lens). The only key negatives that I saw with the ultra-compact (vs my ultra-zoom) are the following: * weak flash: My S1 IS had much stronger flash and could bring out the details of the whole room but the T1 pretty much just illuminated nearby objects. But do note that the T1 has a weaker flash than most ultra-compacts. * red-eye problems: T1 is known for red-eye problems so I don't want to say all ultra-compacts are like that but this was definitely more visible with T1 (whereas S1 had almost none) * noise: Some of the T1 pics had a ton of noise (but I think the auto mode may have been messed up or wasn't set properly??). The T1 seemed to take some pics at higher ISO, hence producing more noise, vs mine which didn't. Here are some positives of the T1 over S1 IS: * portability: Since the T1 is an ultra-compact, it was almost as if the camera wasn't there. In contrast, it was very noticeable that I had a camera and almost looked like a photographer lol ![]() * bigger LCD: Ultra-compacts generally have larger LCDs than the mid-end ultra-zooms. This was clearly the case with the T1 (2.5" LCD I think) vs the S1 IS (1.5" LCD). This really doesn't matter to me much because I mainly look at the histogram to review an image, but others (casual people you asked to take your pic) were able to get a better idea of whether they took a good pic with the T1 than the S1. Quote:
So pic quality is probably similar in all these cameras IMO... where these cameras differ is in their manual features and control. For example, most ultra-compacts may not give you much control over shutter speeds, or allow you to attach add-on lenses, and so on. I think you should get some second opinion on this though. I'm not too familiar with ultra-compacts (other than testing what my friends have/had). Quote:
Quote:
I'm also a newbie and I bought my S1 IS a few months ago. We (me & my parents) also have a Canon Rebel film SLR, and my brother has a couple of compact film cameras. After playing around with the S1 IS, my feeling is that I should probably consider purchasing an ultra-compact in an year or two. I love my camera for family events, for "serious" photography, and so on. But I can't really use it when I'm going out to a restaurant, or just driving to a friend's place or whatever. So I think I would like to have a really small camera and a much more serious camera. I have a feeling you are in a similar situation. Quote:
Oh before I forget, if you haven't already done so, go to a major retailer (Wal-mart, Best Buy, Future Shop (Canada), etc) and check out the cameras. Check out their size and feel how they are in your hand. See if you like the look of it, the size of it, and so on. The last thing you want to do is to buy a camera that you are not comfortable holding/carrying/etc. Quote:
You can also look at a slightly larger ultra-compact. For example, the high-end ultra-compact Canon S70 has a ton of manual features and seems to be very good. I don't know anyone who has it but it looks great on paper (it also has good reviews). |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
|
![]()
Seems like I'm posting a ton on this thread but anyway...
I was just thinking about your requirements and the more I think, the more it seems that a compact like Canon S70 (or S60 or Sony P150 or something like that) seems best. You wanted to print large pics so you need high megapixels (these are all 7 megapixels), and it seems that you wanted to take landscapes, which will be very good with a very low wide-angle of the S60/S70 (although S60/S70 are not so good when you zoom), and these cameras offer a lot of manual control. The only issue might be price since theese cost way more... Have you considered the Canon S70 or the Sony P150 and ruled them out? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 106
|
![]()
> how many megapixels would i need to make high-res full size wallpaper prints of landscape for my computer (high quality, i'd hope)? Which would be better or would both be insufficient?
I think there may be some terminology problems here confusing people. When you say "wallpaper prints", are you talking about putting them on your windows (or Mac) background, or using a printer to create poster-size (or larger) photos? The latter is already addressed by a couple of people, and is really a fantastically difficult question to answer. But if you just want to replace the MS Windows "Clouds" background with a picture of your dog, anything over 2Mpixels should suffice for most displays. Just look at the resolution of your monitor, and compare it to the max resolution of the camera you're looking for; if the camera is equal or bigger, you should be fine. Between the sd200 and the fz3, both are pretty lightweight. But the fz3 is considerably bulkier in the "depth" dimension and doesn't fit into even a large pocket easily. Its more the type of camera that you're going to have to make a decision to bring a camera along, rather than something that happens to be riding around in your (wife's) purse. The fz3 will be harder to protect if you're planning on packing it into your hiking gear, but its probably doable. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|