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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2006, 7:56 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Telecorder wrote:
Quote:
I had the ocassion to try and do some shots of my grandson's dance recital in a new kindergarden auditorium from the 2nd row. I had to go to ISO400 to get the shutter speed up but it still could only get me to - ISO 400, f/4 and 1/8-second shutter... not enough shutter speed to stop the action, barely enough to hand hold w/the OIS (I had it on a monopod). Flash not allowed... Even then, I don't know if it would have helped much... given the distances :sad:
Dance recital, huh?

f/2.8 would have got you shutter speeds twice as fast (up to 1/16 second in the lighting you're describing), which is what I was explaining above about favoring a solution with a brighter lens. f/2.8 is exactly twice as bright as f/4

Then, doubling ISO speed from ISO 400 to ISO 800 (as with a model like the Fuji S5200) would have gotten you another stop (doubling shutter speeds again to around 1/30 second).

Get close to the stage so that you don't have to zoom in as much using a model that loses a lot of light at longer focal lengths like your FZ30.

Here's a photo I took with a Konica Revio KD-510z (a.k.a., Minolta DiMAGE G500), a 5 Megapixel Pocket Camera.

So that I wouldn't need to zoom in any (losing light since most compact cameras have lenses that are about 3 times as bright on their widest zoom setting versus their longest zoom setting), I crouched under the bottom of the stage on the left hand side to take some photos. :-)

95 out of 100 were blurry from motion blur. But, I did get a couple of keepers when I caught them perfectly still. Using burst mode helps (take more than one before releasing the shutter button), paying attention to your breathing and "trigger finger" technique to be as smooth as possible. lol

I got close by crouching under the corner of the stage in front (and fortunately, nobody complained) so that I didn't have to zoom in any losing light so that I'd have f/2.8 (which is twice as bright as f/4). But, at shutter speeds this slow, don't expect many keepers.

Sorry about the size. I'm out of town on dialup and can't resize it better.

Konica KD-510z, hand held 1/15 second, ISO 200, f/2.8 without flash. But, light is better on the stage there than it's going to be in gym + you have to catch subjects perfectly still to get any shots at shutter speeds this slow, even if you can hold a camera steady enough.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2006, 11:41 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Telecorder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 490
Default

For the record, not sure where 'Steve' came into the picture, my first name is Dave...:lol:



Kriptone-

Many thanks for interjecting a reasoned voice, requestand opinion.. How are you getting about these days?



JimC-

No disagreement here. AsI indicated and believe its well documented, the FZ line is a light hog and, while it can be used in low light conditions, its not the best or easiest to takegoodindoor/low light photos. Like you, I had one or two 'keepers' but knew going in it wouldn't be as good as a dSLR would be capable of.



ET-

Glad to see you that you've apparently backed off somewhat on your condenscending arrogance in this and other posts regarding this apparently, for you,contentious issue.

For the record, I was instrumental in assisting a broadcast of a solar eclipse in the early 1990's that had ourlocalelementary school's 14" celestron telescope and 5" helioscope broadcasting live images of the eclipse, including the minimal solar flares present, throughout the US (when the national TV's signal from Hawaii went down).

Our groups' involvement led to the donation of, andwas one of the first amateur facilities to utilize, a ST-8 CCD Camera for high resolution recording of extremely faint objects via the 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope in the 5-meter rotating dome back in the early 1990's.

I was also part of the volunteer astronomical group that assisted in this same elementary school acquiring operational control of a Goldstone Deep Space radio telescope... a 34-meter radio telescope that, until recently, was part of NASA's Deep Space Network. http://www.lewiscenter.org/gavrt/about.phpI've been an invited guest and have attended the JPL Pasadena facilities during some of their space probe milestone achievements (and misfortunes). So I feel that I have some fairly extensive experience and understanding of optics and optical systems.

I understand and appreciate your position and 'hard-line' opinionon the Panasonic's 'Extended Optical Zoom' . You are correct in that the same image that is exposed on the center 5-MP or 3-MP portion of the 8-MP chip when employing the EOZ feature is the same data, albeit at an apparently reduced IQ as is present if the full 8-MP image were exposed.

But, please note that I did not make any reference to this IQ aspect -- whether it was better, equal or worse. I merely stated the true issue in that, when utilizing the EOZ feature one is afforded an image that is equivalent to 635mm. ie, the Field of View with this image is equivalent to a 635mm lens on a 35mm film. The image recorded is via an optical zoom and is not digitally interpolated upward in size. So it is not a 'digital zoom' in that sense, it is an image produced by an optically zoomed Leicalens in the case of the Pany FZ30 model.

At this point, if you still have issues with my opinion, so be it. Lets agree to disagree between ourselves. I believe we've done enough hijacking of this OP's topic...

And by the way, while I have my own personal opinions about the current state of our American education system, as you apparently have your own, I'd point out that I'm a product of the 'system' from the late 60's/early 70's when it was recognized as the envy of the world and afforded the world's humanity the awe and thrill ofa humanleaving footprints on the moon.... Quite possibly before you were born. Feel free to correspond privately if you desire additional rational and respectful discourse on the subject(s).


Telecorder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 10:44 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11
Default

Might I add that nobody actually answered this guys question? This two bit pissing contest is silly, just state your opinion about the friggen cameras boys and leave the bickering to your wives.



Ciao
Malakei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 10:46 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11
Default

Sorry thats not true Jim has noted everything he needs to know in full detail, i think i missed it cuz of the picture of this goof in the astronaut suit.
Malakei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 10:58 PM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I was out of town when I made my last post to this thread (using a dialup connection), and I didn't take the time to notice the bickering going on.

But, now that I do see it.. Let's keep it civil guys.

Healthy Debate is fine.

But, no name calling and personal attacks (and let's keep politics out of discussions in the forums).

Thanks.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2006, 5:37 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

If i may interupt with something remotely based on the subject

i currently own the fz30. image quality is excellent. But as i am now vernturing quite seriously into portrait photography indoors i find the lack of higher iso, lo noise performance a large hurdle to overcome

I limit my iso usage to iso100 tops, to try to keep noise to a minimum. The OIS works a treat as long as your model or whoever can stay still.

I take indoor portraits under heavy tungsten light (3x 200w) and am metering the following:
iso100
F stop: 3.6
Shutter: 1/20-1/30

1/20 shutter speed is fine to work with as long as the person is posing for a shot. Candid shots of kids playing etc, unfortunately its just too slow.

I have seen some impressive iso400 shots taken from the s9x000. After using the fuji it just didnt feel right.

I have overcome the hurdle of lo shutter. It has forced me to develop other skills. in situations of indoor sports etc, like your indoor basket ball,i thikn hi iso is the only answer. And if we are comparing iso for iso, im afraid i have to say the fuji

as mentioned by other users the fz series are a noisey series of cams. And i think the 30 is right at the top. But at the same time when used well it produces exceptional results.

I find the vast range in the lens (35-420) to be awesome. So versatile with such a long reach. In the lens department i think its all to the leica.



i suggest shooting to your local store, hold em and mess around. As soon as i felt the fuji and played with it i felt it wasnt the cam for me. It was the opposite for the pana.

all the best

ken




kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 8:34 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
waltervp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
Default

tdweiss1 wrote:
Quote:
My requirements are:... image-stabilization at long zoom.
I have thought about this question too... Been extremely happy with my S7000, but took some test shots in the shop (I know, hardly a test)... I really wanted to go for D-SLR to get a bigger CCD/CMOS and I feel Img.Stab. is very important too. In the end I decided that lenses on D-SLRs were too big and heavy (needed for the larger sensors) and switching lenses was impractical for me in the bush. Also, the only D-SLR I could afford with Img.Stab. was the older Konica Minolta D7 or D5. D5 had poor reviews and D7 is a giant! So the choice was same as yours: Fuji S9000 or Panasonic FZ30

I choose the FZ-30 as it had the Img.Stab. and the S9000 does not have it!!

I took a few test shots inside the shop, and the Z30's pictures were noticeably better in this random experiment which included one D-SLR! Also, the Z30 is a fair bit lighter in weight. The S9000 *may* be better as the higherISO settings produce less noise and you can go up to 1600 (if you dare) compared to 400 on theFZ30. Image Stab. is not going to help you when you have jumping subjects, but will work AWESOME on the baseball field! So my bet is theFZ30 for you! We'll soon hear about its replacement too... but I just ordered myFZ30 this week!

I am awaiting delivery of the camera now...

Walter----
waltervp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 10:42 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Telecorder wrote:
Quote:
For the record, not sure where 'Steve' came into the picture, my first name is Dave...:lol:


I think he was referring to the Steve in Steve's Digicams.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 10:48 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Telecorder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 490
Default

well, duuh... reading in the context of forum moderating, you're correct...:-)

I guess I had a tunnel vision mindset, as it were, at the time...



Thanks for the clarification...
Telecorder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 5:45 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Back to the original question - here's my 2 cents. I owned an FZ30 for a month and didn't get out of it what I wanted. I ended up buying a dSLR and have been far happier. Since you need low-light capability, a dSLR would probably be much better (for the reasons already given above).

But as far as these 2 cameras go, they are very close to each other. The FZ30's biggest asset is the Leica lens - it's better than the Fuji (that's what I thought looking at sample pictures posted on various reviews). The disadvantage is that the camera does little noise-reduction and since it is a small camera, it has quite a bit of noise. I looked at sample raw photos taken by both cameras, and they are both noisy, the nature of the small sensor. Fuji does quite a bit of in-camera noise reduction, allowing you to shoot jpg at higher ISOs and use the product without playing with them - a big advantage to someone who doesn't like to deal with software. You can get the same excellent results from the FZ30 by using software (especially if you are good at it) and you can control the end result, balancing the loss of detail vs. the amount of noise for each photo, something you can't do with the Fuji unless you shoot raw. I never thought there was a clear winner between the two cameras, only personal preference as to how much control one wants over the final result.

Neither of them will match the low-light capability of any of the budget dSLRs. Right now there's a $100 rebate on the Pentax DL so it's a very good buy. If you don't mind focusing manually, you can pick up an old manual 50mm 1.7 lens for not much money on ebay and it will work on the DL. It might not be the best dSLR for your purposes because I'm told the AF is a bit slower than the Nikon. However, if you want to save money and have good quality photos (better than either the Fuji or the Panny) then its worthy of consideration.
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 6:53 PM.