Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

View Poll Results: Panasonic FZ7 or pentax K110D
Panasonic FZ7 1 16.67%
pentax K110D 5 83.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 11, 2006, 2:29 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Default

Should I get the Fz7 or the K110D. I really like photography and i always use the manual features; both cameras have them.
Both are 6 Mp
the K110 is 150 dollars more expensive
the Fz7 has 12x zoom and IS
the K110 has a better sensor
the K110 IS A DSLR


I cant decide. If anyone could even sway towards either, it would be tremendously helpful . Thanks
ndnboy321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 11, 2006, 6:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

If you can't decide, but ask this question and you like photography, maximum a year from now you'll buy a DSLR anyway. So just cut the cost and buy it now :-). There are more expenses involved with a DSLR - eventually you'll want better/other lenses, flash etc.

When I bought a Fuji S9500 a year ago, I thought that I could manage with all-in-one advanced P&S camera, but gradually became fed up with it's limitations and bought a DSLR two weeks ago:lol:. Now I'm selling Fuji to buy additional lenses and accessories:-):roll:

HTH,

regards,

Alex
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 9:06 AM   #3
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

As yourself these questions:
How important is that big zoom? If I get the Pentax, a big zoom lens aint' cheap.
How important is IS (which of course is great paired with a big zoom)?
What do you like about manual controls? Is it turning focus / zoom / aperture knobs yourself? If not - the Fz7 has just about all the same manual controls.
Is the price difference a real factor?
Do you like to look a pictures through a microscope?

There are a lot of people who like/LOVE photography and all things being equal, spending more doesn't make that huge a difference in bottom-line image quality. So it's often better to get the non-dSLR camera if price is a concern.

ndnboy321 wrote:
Quote:
Should I get the Fz7 or the K110D. I really like photography and i always use the manual features; both cameras have them.
Both are 6 Mp
the K110 is 150 dollars more expensive
the Fz7 has 12x zoom and IS
the K110 has a better sensor
the K110 IS A DSLR


I cant decide. If anyone could even sway towards either, it would be tremendously helpful . Thanks
digraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 10:11 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

digraph wrote:
Quote:
Do you like to look a pictures through a microscope?

There are a lot of people who like/LOVE photography and all things being equal, spending more doesn't make that huge a difference in bottom-line image quality. So it's often better to get the non-dSLR camera if price is a concern.

First, let me say I agreesomewhat with the second statement above. Spending more money doesn't NECESSARILY make a huge difference in quality. It still comes down to the photographer.

The first statement above (using a microscope) may or may not apply.

But, it CAN make a big difference. Whether it does or not, depends on the types of photos you like to take and the conditions in which you take them.

Let me provide an example: a friend of mine recently bought the FZ-7 and I've seen a few hundred photos she's taken with it. She has some shots from a recent zoo visit that are every bit as good as what a DSLR could provide for 4x6 prints, given the fact the background was not distracting. So, the IQ was very good. But don't disregard the last part of my statement - given the background wasn't distracting. If you want shallow depth of field for purposes of subject isolation - there is NO WAY this camera is going to give it to you. If you don't care about subject isolation then in terms of sharpness, color, etc. the FZ7 produced some very nice photos.

But this same person also wishes to use the camera at her daughter's swim meets. In this case I can assure you the results are much worse than whata DSLR can produce - and there is no microscope needed to tell the difference. The high ISO performance, focus and tracking ability of a good DSLR are leagues above that of the digicam.

So, it really depends on the types of photography that interest you. DSLRs still have an advantage in shallow depth of field, low light performance (not only better high ISO but also the ability to use 2.0, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2 lenses which digicams cannot use). They still have better auto-focus, servo focus and burst speed for action or wildlife shooting.

But the digicam is without a doubt more compact and that should not be underrated either.

And, a DSLR is not a magic box. You do have to invest in the right lenses and accessories and you do need to invest in your own skill and learning. So, buying a DSLR and kit lens only, you will initially be more restricted in the types of photography you can do versus the digicam.

In the end, the DSLR is always going to provide you more room to grow. Whether or not the DSLR can be of immediate benefit over the digicam depends entirely on the types of photography you are in to. In some types, you may not notice a difference - so the DSLR is overkill. In other types of photography the power and versatility of the dslr become very noticable or even essential. But that comes at a cost - both in dollars, learning curve and bulk.

So, what types of photography interest you?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 10:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Alex and digraph-

You both raise some excellent points. There is also a saying that a prosumer p&S is a fixed investment, while a DSLR camera is a continuing investment program, that might apply as well. Each category has its pro's and con's that is for sure.

If one does go to a DSLR camera, then you might as well resign yourself to learning to clean the by pass filter plate in front of the imager , youreself as well (google: the copperhill method)as it is far to expensive to have it done professionally.

IMHO, If you just like to take photos, or the art of photography is the end, in and by itself, then you can probably get by with a prosumer camera. If you love the mechanism or camera itself and love to make adjustments, get faster focusing, and do burst shots, then you are most probably a DSLR candidate. Finally the type of photography you do is critical. There are some venues where a prosumer can't deal with the photo environment at all such as indoor sporting events.. So both categories of cameras are not equally able.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 10:44 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
...or the art of photography is the end, in and by itself, then you can probably get by with a prosumer camera.
MT/Sarah
There are 2 issues I have withthis statement: Depth of field and flash use. When I learned photography years ago shooting manual focus and B&W, depth of field was an important part of "the art of photography" as was the proper use of flash. Most digicams do not allow you to experiment much with DOF and they are very limited with what you can do via flash (although some do offer a hot shoe for external flash use).

Here are a couple shots that have nothing to do with fast shutter speeds, fast focus performance or low light shooting:





And, let's not forget situations where a good external flash and flash bracket may be of use (some digicams have hot-shoes but certainly not all):

no red-eye here (bounced flash):



Or try getting the flash coverage required for a group shot like this from a digicam:





It still comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. And you have to know what the job is before you know what tool is right.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 12:14 PM   #7
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

I have one comment that applies to most of the what camera should i buy threads

Sometimes a beginning photographer needs to start out on a limited camera so that he/she can learn how to take a good picture. The amateur needs to fail first so that he/she can see where improvement (either in the human part or the machine part) is necessary. Also, during the learning months, the photographer can hone in on what type of photography (and camera) is best suited for him/her.

Personally, I think that whenever a new photographer asks if they should start with a P&S or dSLR, and all the photo enthusiasts say dSLR IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO, we're doing this person a disservice. The budding (general) photographer, with great aspirations, should start on a simple camera with a 3x zoom. You can get a fantastic P&S camera these days for $200-250. After a few months -year this person can come back to the What Camera Should I Buy forum and ask a well formed question.



(btw: I am not implying anything about the OP's skill level or photographic intentions )
digraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 12:30 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Digraph,

When looking at each request, I think they need to be addressed on an individual basis. I just disagree that there is always one right answer. A camera is a tool - nothing more. And, you need to get the right tool for the job. Suggesting that a digicam is the right solution without bothering to inquire as to what the intended purpose is is doing a disservice. You'll note at no point in my posts do I suggest a DSLR is the right choice. I simply tried to point out areas of photography where a DSLR provides more benefit. If the beginner is interested in those areas then a digicam is a waste of money. If the beginner is not interested then the added weight / size / cost of a DSLR may outweigh any gains and may thus be the wrong choice.

As for learning on a DSLR vs a digicam - I disagree with that as well: a DSLR has auto mode - same as any digicam. The consumer level DSLRs also have all the other pre-fab modes (portrait, landscape, sports, nigthtime - whatever)..

For some people I readily recommend digicams over DSLRs. But that recommendation is based upon individual needs. Which of course is why I ask the OP for their needs and areas of interest. The only reason I posted the responses I did was because of the misleading comments that digicams are just as good now as DSLRs - the fact is in some cases they are, in some cases they are not and in other cases they're even better.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 12:57 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

digraph wrote:
Quote:
I have one comment that applies to most of the what camera should i buy threads

Sometimes a beginning photographer needs to start out on a limited camera so that he/she can learn how to take a good picture. The amateur needs to fail first so that he/she can see where improvement (either in the human part or the machine part) is necessary. Also, during the learning months, the photographer can hone in on what type of photography (and camera) is best suited for him/her.

Personally, I think that whenever a new photographer asks if they should start with a P&S or dSLR, and all the photo enthusiasts say dSLR IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO, we're doing this person a disservice. The budding (general) photographer, with great aspirations, should start on a simple camera with a 3x zoom. You can get a fantastic P&S camera these days for $200-250. After a few months -year this person can come back to the What Camera Should I Buy forum and ask a well formed question.



(btw: I am not implying anything about the OP's skill level or photographic intentions )
It is not always possible to tell from the original question if it is being asked by a beginning photographer without asking questions first.

If the comparison is made between a highend P&S and an entry level DSLR, sometimes it is not worth it to go with the P&S especially if low light shooting is a consideration. Most entry level DSLRs have enough auto settings to make them act like a P&S.

Each recommendation needs to be on a case by case basis and ultimately the OP must decide what is best for them.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 1:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

ndnboy321 wrote:
Quote:
I really like photography and i always use the manual features;
Quote:
the K110 is 150 dollars more expensive
the Fz7 has 12x zoom and IS
the K110 has a better sensor
the K110 IS A DSLR
There's been quite a bit of discussion above about whether a high-end p&s is better than a dSLR, and everyone seems to be saying the same thing - the answer is: it depends.

The first statement leads me to believe that a dSLR may definitely be in your future -just whether it isnow or not is the question.

1. A dSLR will beMUCH heavier, and ultimately more expensive if you try to match the 12x zoom on the FZ7 (if you want top quality pictures you would probably be looking at more than one lens). Are you ready for that?

2. A dSLR does have better picture quality, but many people find the picture quality of the FZ7 or other high end p&s cameras perfectly acceptable. That's an individual thing and the person thinking about it should decide for themselves after looking at various reviews, test shots and pictures posted here by various users.

3. Just my opinion, but after having the K100 with the SR and the DS without it, the K100's SR makes a big difference to me (I'm not as steady as I used to be). The right answer might be to get the cheaper FZ7 now and then save up for the K100. By that time you'll know if you want to spend all the extra money on a dSLRand will be better able to decide whether the extra picture quality is worth all of the disadvantages to having the dSLR. I actually did something like this - I bought an FZ30 a year ago and sold it (for a loss) a month later because I was so disappointed in it. It ended up costing me more money than if I had just bought the Pentax DS in the first place (but I was anti-dSLR at the time).
mtngal 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 7:49 PM.