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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:22 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 52
Default

im really just trying to weigh the odds here.

[align=left]should i get the g9 for being able to shoot great pictures in RAW, get decent video, and add the extra bulgyness.
[/align]
or should i get the TZ5 which is a compact camera, and shoot decent shots, get GREAT video, and on the plus is the smallest ultra zoom camera there is.

i know i want great video but i also want great pictures. i know there isnt a perfect camera out there i just dont know if I should compensate one for the other.
xoxox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:41 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
brokenbokeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 195
Default

xoxox wrote:
Quote:
oh yes i know they are deifnitely smaller than the s5, what i wanted to compare was with the TZ5.

shooting in RAW i know gives the advantage of being able to retouch photos, but what about auto, is it that much harder to do editing with photos shot in auto using a program and wanting to add saturation or contrast for example?

also, is the shooting in HD at the 30fps in the 720p format is it hat much better quality than shooting in 640-480 at 30fps?
Nah, it's easy editing jpg files. You actually can't "retouch" RAW - you can adjust tint, saturation, tonal curve, etc. RAW is mainly for people who are either sticklers or anal.

In theory, video in 720p should be a lot better than 640x480. 720p is an HD format of 1280x720. I have no idea how good Panasonic's implementation is.

I agree with Sarah Joyce - I've never been interested in buying a digital camera because of it's video ability. However, I have been very few places where I would have been interested in video, so I'm not a good person to ask.

This link will lead you to a page where you can find the size and weight of the cameras you are looking at: http://dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

Re: the TZ5's flash, FWIW, Panasonic claims a flash range of about 19 ft in "Auto" mode.
brokenbokeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:45 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
brokenbokeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 195
Default

I wouldn't count on any digicam producing "great" video; they are simply not desgned that way. Follow the link I posted previously and check out the reviews of the camera you are interested in, if they've been reviewed yet. All the reviews have sample video. If a camera you are interested in has not yet been reviewed, find the most similar one to at least get an idea.

Also, most likely the audio will not be very good at all.
brokenbokeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:48 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

I tested out the video on my G9, and I think the manual says it does 1024x768 at 15 frames/sec, which is not that great really. On 640x480, it can do 30 fps....also not that great. It would be nice if it could do 1024x768 at 30 fps, or preferrably 50 fps.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:50 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
brokenbokeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 195
Default

Why would you need 50fps for conventional viewing? Such a memory hog.

1024x768 is not really a practical and future-aware resolution; widescreen formats are the way to go.
brokenbokeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2008, 11:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

brokenbokeh wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn't count on any digicam producing "great" video;
True. Although, they're getting better and better these days. Some of the latest pocket cameras are getting quite decent resolution and video quality (as well as audio quality). Pretty sure we'll see at least some digital cameras with big lens and very nice video quality in the near future, and with optical zoom. This will happen....just a matter of time.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2008, 12:03 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

brokenbokeh wrote:
Quote:
Why would you need 50fps for conventional viewing? Such a memory hog. 1024x768 is not really a practical and future-aware resolution; widescreen formats are the way to go.
I agree that widescreen format is a way to go as well. I think that some small digital pocket cam have widescreen now, right? 50 fps is a memory hog for sure, but a lot of tv is 50 fps right?
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2008, 12:11 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
brokenbokeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 195
Default

TVquality is generally considered to be30fps (24 for film),perhaps you are thinking of scan rate, which is 60 hz in the USA (and some other parts of the world) and 50 hz in most other countries.

With HD now, 60 fpswill eventually emerge as a standard.
brokenbokeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2008, 12:26 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

brokenbokeh wrote:
Quote:
TVquality is generally considered to be30fps (24 for film),perhaps you are thinking of scan rate, which is 60 hz in the USA (and some other parts of the world) and 50 hz in most other countries.

With HD now, 60 fpswill eventually emerge as a standard.
Oh....true! You're right about that. Before, I just recalled that PAL had 50 frames/sec or something, but turns out it is 50 half-frames per sec, so it's 25 full frames/sec. So 30 fps is great already.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2008, 7:37 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

xo,

On paper, at least, the TZ5 would seem the best fit for you. It is the smallest and lightest, it has the highest resolution LCD, the widest angle lens (28mm), and I believe it is the only one of your choices which can zoom while filming movies.

On the downside, the Panasonics have not been noted for stellar low ligh/high ISO performance. Now while you can compensate for that somewhat by using the built in flash, the flash isn't going to help you when you're taking video. IMHO, cameras that take crappy low light photos also take crappy low light videos...regardless of the video format, the FPS rate, etc - a whole bunch of crappy stills make a crappy movie.

You might want to take a look at the new Fuji F100fd. I'm not recommending it, because I have yet to see a professional review on it, but I have seen some pretty impressive stills taken in low light posted on various sites. It is smaller and lighter than any of your choices, the largest sensor, and has aperture and shutter priority settings. You can't zoom in video mode, and it can't shoot in RAW.

I don't know if you'll be able to find a perfect compact camera that takes great video...you'll have to make concessions somewhere.

Good luck with your search.

the Hun

rinniethehun 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 10:28 AM.