Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon S1 IS vs Panasonic FZ20

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?

If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
would be better?

More about : canon panasonic fz20

Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:56:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
> is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
>
> If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes,
> which would be better?

You may want to review some of the discussions in the ZLR newsgroup:

news:rec.photo.digital.zlr

as well as here. I'll set follow-ups there.

The Canon is only 3MP, by the way.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:27:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
> is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
>
> If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
> would be better?

Right now? The Panasonic, no question. I tried both; they're both *good*
cameras, but the Canon's a good 2003 camera and the Panasonic's a good
2004 device. The Panasonic is more capable. Longer reach and better
glass than the Canon, ignoring 5Mp vs 3Mp. ;)  Of course, the Canon is
cheaper and physically smaller, but even the older FZ-10 was a better
camera than the S1 IS.

If you're looking for a Canon to go up against the FZ-20 I suggest you
look at the Pro-1.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Related resources
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:32:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I do not think that the Pro 1 has IS and I think it more expensive
albeit 8MP. That was a very good answer. I am thinking of that
camera. I am concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does not
have the name, build, and quality of Canon in general.

Pete Fenelon wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
>>is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
>>
>>If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
>>would be better?
>>
>>
>
>Right now? The Panasonic, no question. I tried both; they're both *good*
>cameras, but the Canon's a good 2003 camera and the Panasonic's a good
>2004 device. The Panasonic is more capable. Longer reach and better
>glass than the Canon, ignoring 5Mp vs 3Mp. ;)  Of course, the Canon is
>cheaper and physically smaller, but even the older FZ-10 was a better
>camera than the S1 IS.
>
>If you're looking for a Canon to go up against the FZ-20 I suggest you
>look at the Pro-1.
>
>pete
>
>
March 14, 2005 10:32:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

After struggling for eight months with our S1 IS, we finally
decided it is not up to Canon's usual standards with regard
to image quality. Terrible fringing problems, even in cases
where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line: the sensor is too
small in this camera.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:TElZd.18647$Pz7.16670@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> I do not think that the Pro 1 has IS and I think it more expensive
> albeit 8MP. That was a very good answer. I am thinking of that
> camera. I am concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does not
> have the name, build, and quality of Canon in general.
>
> Pete Fenelon wrote:
>
> >measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
> >>is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
> >>
> >>If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
> >>would be better?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Right now? The Panasonic, no question. I tried both; they're both *good*
> >cameras, but the Canon's a good 2003 camera and the Panasonic's a good
> >2004 device. The Panasonic is more capable. Longer reach and better
> >glass than the Canon, ignoring 5Mp vs 3Mp. ;)  Of course, the Canon is
> >cheaper and physically smaller, but even the older FZ-10 was a better
> >camera than the S1 IS.
> >
> >If you're looking for a Canon to go up against the FZ-20 I suggest you
> >look at the Pro-1.
> >
> >pete
> >
> >
March 15, 2005 4:12:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> camera. I am concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does not
> have the name, build, and quality of Canon in general.

the FZ20 is built like a tank. We're not talking canon dSLR robustness (but
then again it doesn't weigh as much either), but it is definitively on the
high end of the sturdy scale when it comes to prosumers/ZLR's.

Tony
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:50:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mikey wrote:

>After struggling for eight months with our S1 IS, we finally
>decided it is not up to Canon's usual standards with regard
>to image quality. Terrible fringing problems, even in cases
>where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line: the sensor is too
>small in this camera.
>
>

Does the Panasonic have a larger sensor?

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:TElZd.18647$Pz7.16670@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>I do not think that the Pro 1 has IS and I think it more expensive
>>albeit 8MP. That was a very good answer. I am thinking of that
>>camera. I am concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does not
>>have the name, build, and quality of Canon in general.
>>
>>Pete Fenelon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
>>>>is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
>>>>
>>>>If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
>>>>would be better?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Right now? The Panasonic, no question. I tried both; they're both *good*
>>>cameras, but the Canon's a good 2003 camera and the Panasonic's a good
>>>2004 device. The Panasonic is more capable. Longer reach and better
>>>glass than the Canon, ignoring 5Mp vs 3Mp. ;)  Of course, the Canon is
>>>cheaper and physically smaller, but even the older FZ-10 was a better
>>>camera than the S1 IS.
>>>
>>>If you're looking for a Canon to go up against the FZ-20 I suggest you
>>>look at the Pro-1.
>>>
>>>pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
March 15, 2005 8:50:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lIuZd.10855$C47.9618@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Mikey wrote:
>
> >After struggling for eight months with our S1 IS, we finally
> >decided it is not up to Canon's usual standards with regard
> >to image quality. Terrible fringing problems, even in cases
> >where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line: the sensor is too
> >small in this camera.
> >
> >
>
> Does the Panasonic have a larger sensor?

Slightly larger (1/2.5" compared to the S1's 1/2.7"), although
the difference in MP (5 vs. 3.2) would negate any advantage
for the FZ20.

It's not that the S1's image quality is particularly bad.. It's just
that we've become spoiled by our previous Canon models --
even our ancient A40 (at less than half the cost of the S1)
absolutely blows away the S1 with regard to chromatic
aberration, noise, and range of conditions under which it
easily produces pleasing images.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:48:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> I do not think that the Pro 1 has IS and I think it more expensive
> albeit 8MP. That was a very good answer. I am thinking of that
> camera. I am concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does
> not have the name, build, and quality of Canon in general.

Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to
cripple their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their DSLRs.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:12:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> measekite wrote:
> > I do not think that the Pro 1 has IS and I think it more expensive albeit
> > 8MP. That was a very good answer. I am thinking of that camera. I am
> > concerned that Panasonic (despite the Leica lens) does not have the name,
> > build, and quality of Canon in general.
>
> Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to cripple
> their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their DSLRs.

They don't have one currently, but with the recent Olympus-Panasonic
announcement, they will have a 4/3 DSLR next year.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:10:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> [David J Taylor:]
> Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to
> cripple their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their DSLRs.

It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with their tiny
sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further crippled so as not to
become a competition to any DSLRs.

Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other EVFs,
whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR product line.

To sum up, the only thing crippled here is your reasoning.

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:17:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
>> [David J Taylor:]
>> Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to
>> cripple their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their
>> DSLRs.
>
> It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with their
> tiny sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further crippled so
> as not to become a competition to any DSLRs.
>
> Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other
> EVFs, whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR
> product line.
> To sum up, the only thing crippled here is your reasoning.
>
> J.S.Pitanga

Well, Canon crippled their 300 to protect their more expensive DLSRs, and
how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range 8800 model
chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture when Panasonic at
about half the price can manage f/2.8, or Canon limiting their one image
stabilised camera to 3MP?

David
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:26:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <39ngb3F639vbtU1@individual.net>, nospam@privacy.net says...
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lIuZd.10855$C47.9618@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > Mikey wrote:
> >
> > >After struggling for eight months with our S1 IS, we finally
> > >decided it is not up to Canon's usual standards with regard
> > >to image quality. Terrible fringing problems, even in cases
> > >where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line: the sensor is too
> > >small in this camera.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Does the Panasonic have a larger sensor?
>
> Slightly larger (1/2.5" compared to the S1's 1/2.7"), although
> the difference in MP (5 vs. 3.2) would negate any advantage
> for the FZ20.
>
> It's not that the S1's image quality is particularly bad.. It's just
> that we've become spoiled by our previous Canon models --
> even our ancient A40 (at less than half the cost of the S1)
> absolutely blows away the S1 with regard to chromatic
> aberration, noise, and range of conditions under which it
> easily produces pleasing images.
>
I think in this case the lens makes the difference, rather than the
sensor size. The FZ20 has a pretty special lens.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to
>>> cripple their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their DSLRs.
>>
> J.S.Pitanga wrote:
>> It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with their
>> tiny sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further crippled so
>> as not to become a competition to any DSLRs.
>>
>> Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other
>> EVFs, whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR
>> product line. To sum up, the only thing crippled here is your reasoning.

> Well, Canon crippled their 300 to protect their more expensive DLSRs, and
> how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range 8800 model
> chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture when Panasonic at
> about half the price can manage f/2.8, or Canon limiting their one image
> stabilised camera to 3MP?

Also, Canon crippled the Pro S1 to protect DSLR sales, or is perhaps
merely incompetent at designing the S1 type of camera.

I wonder if the original poster read any of the S1 reviews on the web.
The FZ series is clearly superior in every way, except (? I dunno).
It's Minolta that provides real competition for the FZ.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> [J.S.Pitanga:]
>> It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with their
>> tiny sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further crippled so
>> as not to become a competition to any DSLRs.
>> Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other
>> EVFs, whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR
>> product line.

> [David:]
> Well, Canon crippled their 300 to protect their more expensive DLSRs,

My point, which you badly missed, is that Panasonic EVFs, with their
minuscule sensors (1/2.5" or less), are no competition to any DSLRs anyway.
Nothing to do with crippling or not another DSLR.

> and how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range 8800
> model chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture when
> Panasonic
> at about half the price can manage f/2.8,

Just meditate on the fact that the Nikon 8800's sensor (2/3") is much bigger
than Panasonic's (1/2.5"), and you will understand. Nothing to do with
crippling or protecting whatever.

> or Canon limiting their one image stabilised camera to 3MP?

One good reason is that it is much better 3mp than 4 or 5mp squeezed in a
tiny 1/2.7" sensor. Anyway, whatever are Canon's reasons, it is ridiculous
to think that such small sensored EVFs might steal the market of any DSLRs.
Besides, there are several 4mp, 5mp, and even 8mp image stabilized EVFs on
the market, even from manufacturers with a DSLR product line.

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 2:45:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
>>> [J.S.Pitanga:]
>>> It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with
>>> their tiny sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further
>>> crippled so as not to become a competition to any DSLRs.
>>> Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other
>>> EVFs, whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR
>>> product line.
>
>> [David:]
>> Well, Canon crippled their 300 to protect their more expensive DLSRs,
>
> My point, which you badly missed, is that Panasonic EVFs, with their
> minuscule sensors (1/2.5" or less), are no competition to any DSLRs
> anyway. Nothing to do with crippling or not another DSLR.

For many people, the Panasonic FZ20 is indeed competitive with the DSLR,
and chose in preference to a DSLR for size, weight, bulk or cost reasons.
Not everyone has the same selection criteria as you.

>> and how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range 8800
>> model chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture when
>> Panasonic
>> at about half the price can manage f/2.8,
>
> Just meditate on the fact that the Nikon 8800's sensor (2/3") is much
> bigger than Panasonic's (1/2.5"), and you will understand. Nothing to
> do with crippling or protecting whatever.

No, that argument doesn't hold water either. The increase in sensitive
area is 58.08 / 20.87 is 2.78 times, but the light loss is 3.44 times. In
any case, the f/2.8 lens allows significantly better bokeh.

>> or Canon limiting their one image stabilised camera to 3MP?
>
> One good reason is that it is much better 3mp than 4 or 5mp squeezed
> in a tiny 1/2.7" sensor. Anyway, whatever are Canon's reasons, it is
> ridiculous to think that such small sensored EVFs might steal the
> market of any DSLRs. Besides, there are several 4mp, 5mp, and even
> 8mp image stabilized EVFs on the market, even from manufacturers with
> a DSLR product line.
> J.S.Pitanga

The fact remains that, despite 20 digital camera releases, there is a
glaring hole in Canon's product line, a hole which several other
manufacturers are only happy to fill.

DSLRs and their attachments are far more profitable for manufacturers,
which is one reason why they will continue to promote them.

David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:16:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Anyway, whatever are Canon's reasons, it is ridiculous
>to think that such small sensored EVFs might steal the market of any
DSLRs.

May be true for Canon, but not for FZ20. I know several FZ20 owners who
choose it in the place as the DSLR alternative. Not as the DSLR
alternative completely. They still want a full-size, justifiable DSLR,
but use the FZ20 as the waiting bar before the dinning table is
available. It is exactly the competition to the tiny sensor DSLRs.

I feel too it's awkward not having the optical finder nor the flexible
LCD on the FZ20. I also don't like the monster size. But all and all,
it can be the best compromised but serious digital camera for a lot of
people. You'll have to to avoid worshipng the number, stick to the
practical. I don't have to repeat its lens quality, the flash usage,
and the big but good ergo handlings. It, however, might be less
competitive to the real tiny, pocketable digital cameras, when it's
more important to be cute than to be picture quality.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Anyway, whatever are Canon's reasons, it is ridiculous
>to think that such small sensored EVFs might steal the market of any
DSLRs.

May be true for Canon, but not for FZ20. I know several FZ20 owners who
choose it in the place as the DSLR alternative. Not as the DSLR
alternative completely. They still want a full-size, justifiable DSLR,
but use the FZ20 as the waiting bar before the dinning table is
available. It is exactly the competition to the tiny sensor DSLRs.

I feel too it's awkward not having the optical finder nor the flexible
LCD on the FZ20. I also don't like the monster size. But all and all,
it can be the best compromised but serious digital camera for a lot of
people. You'll have to to avoid worshipng the number, stick to the
practical. I don't have to repeat its lens quality, the flash usage,
and the big but good ergo handlings. It, however, might be less
competitive to the real tiny, pocketable digital cameras, when it's
more important to be cute than to be picture quality.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:05:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> [J.S.Pitanga:]
>> My point, which you badly missed, is that Panasonic EVFs, with their
>> minuscule sensors (1/2.5" or less), are no competition to any DSLRs
>> anyway. Nothing to do with crippling or not another DSLR.

> [David:] For many people, the Panasonic FZ20 is indeed competitive with
> the DSLR, and chose in preference to a DSLR for size, weight, bulk or cost
> reasons.

In the mind of people without a hint of digital photography, the Panasonic
FZ20 may indeed represent a competition to digital SLRs, because it
resembles them in size, weight, bulk and cost -- and just that.

Otherwise, it is just a slow EVF camera with a minuscule sensor, about 7% of
the sensor area of a typical digital SLR, and represents at best a
competition to other slow small-sensored ultra-zoom EVFs such as the Konica
Minolta Z series, Olympus UZ series, and so forth.

> Not everyone has the same selection criteria as you.

Of course. People needing or wishing a digital SLR select a digital SLR.
People content with a slow, tiny-sensored EVF select a slow, tiny-sensored
EVF. And ignoramuses select a Panasonic FZ20 thinking it is comparable to a
digital SLR (such people like to call their gadget a 'ZLR').

>>> [David:]
>>> and how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range
>>> 8800 model chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture
>>> when Panasonic at about half the price can manage f/2.8,

>> [Julio:]
>> Just meditate on the fact that the Nikon 8800's sensor (2/3") is much
>> bigger than Panasonic's (1/2.5"), and you will understand. Nothing to
>> do with crippling or protecting whatever.

> [David:] No, that argument doesn't hold water either. The increase in
> sensitive area is 58.08 / 20.87 is 2.78 times, but the light loss is 3.44
> times.

Again you badly miss the point and make several mistakes.

Had the Nikon a sensor as small as Panasonic's, its 350mm equiv. maximum
telephoto would be a 536mm equiv., at which point Panasonic hardly could
keep its F2.8 maximum aperture.

Also, had the Panasonic a sensor as big as Nikon's, its 432mm equiv. maximum
telephoto would be a mere 280mm equiv., at which point the Nikon could
easily manage a F2.8 maximum aperture.

Besides, the Panasonic's image circle area (40.511mm2) is about 42% of
Nikon's (95.033mm2), which means that a given amount of light is
concentrated, and thus becomes 2.35 times stronger in the Panasonic than in
the Nikon.

Moreover, what is relevant in terms of light loss is not the sensitive area
as you say, but the image circle, and, as opposed to what you wrongly imply,
the bigger the area the higher the light loss.

Furthermore, since the light rays must hit the photosites vertically, as
opposed to what happens to film cameras, lenses designed for cameras with
different sensor sizes cannot be so lightly compared.

And, as so many mistakes were not enough, a light loss of 1 time is already
absolute darkness, whereby alleging a light loss of '3.44 times' as you do
would deny you approval even in the most elementary school exam.

To sum up, the silly idea that the Nikon 8800 was crippled because of its
lens speed as compared to Panasonic's is almost as silly as the idea that
the Panasonic might somehow compete with a digital SLR.

> In any case, the f/2.8 lens allows significantly better bokeh.

F2.8 allows for less depth of field, and has nothing to do with the quality
of the bokeh, which is determined by other factors.

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:48:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[]
> Of course. People needing or wishing a digital SLR select a digital
> SLR. People content with a slow, tiny-sensored EVF select a slow,
> tiny-sensored EVF. And ignoramuses select a Panasonic FZ20 thinking
> it is comparable to a digital SLR (such people like to call their
> gadget a 'ZLR').

You are rehashing the same tired arguments, and being insutling to people,
a sure sign you have nothing fresh to say. Why not let people who wish to
choose the FZ20 cameras as their preference do so in peace?

[]
> Again you badly miss the point and make several mistakes.
[]
> J.S.Pitanga

No, I simply look at things in a different way to you.

David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> [David:]
> You are rehashing the same tired arguments, and being
> insutling to people, a sure sign you have nothing fresh
> to say.

Rather, I offered fresh evidence of your thorough incompetence to discuss
the subject. Go learn the minimum of maths, optics, and digital imaging
before trying to deceive people with your preposterous misconceptions.

> Why not let people who wish to choose the FZ20 cameras
> as their preference do so in peace?

Are they not doing so in peace? From my side, I've just exposed the gross
mistakes you incurred while making your cheap, repetitive propaganda, and
trying to deceive people about the relative merits of different cameras.

> No, I simply look at things in a different way to you.

You don't look at anything at all. After a '3.44 times light loss' your
darkness is indeed absolute.

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:27:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
>> [David:]
>> You are rehashing the same tired arguments, and being
>> insutling to people, a sure sign you have nothing fresh
>> to say.
>
> Rather, I offered fresh evidence of your thorough incompetence to
> discuss the subject. Go learn the minimum of maths, optics, and
> digital imaging before trying to deceive people with your
> preposterous misconceptions.

You and I simply take different interpretations of the data. I am quite
happy with my competence in the fields you mention.

>> Why not let people who wish to choose the FZ20 cameras
>> as their preference do so in peace?
>
> Are they not doing so in peace? From my side, I've just exposed the
> gross mistakes you incurred while making your cheap, repetitive
> propaganda, and trying to deceive people about the relative merits of
> different cameras.

More insults?

>> No, I simply look at things in a different way to you.
>
> You don't look at anything at all. After a '3.44 times light loss'
> your darkness is indeed absolute.
>
> J.S.Pitanga

No, I did the maths.

David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[]
> You are joking. The cheapest dSLR around has a sensor area 1387%
> bigger than the FZ20's. However, as far as phallic obsessions are
> concerned, it may indeed be a competition.
>
> J.S.Pitanga

You seem to have difficulty accepting that some people's needs for a long
zoom camera can be met in a way that doesn't involve a DSLR. Why can't
you simply accept that some people may wish to make a different choice to
you? They look at their needs, the results from the cameras that meet
their specifications, purchase the camera, and happily take photographs.

For me, the less conspicuous the camera the better.

David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:18:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[]
> Besides, the Panasonic's image circle area (40.511mm2) is about 42% of
> Nikon's (95.033mm2), which means that a given amount of light is
> concentrated, and thus becomes 2.35 times stronger in the Panasonic
> than in the Nikon.

No, it is the f/number which determines the light flux. Given the same
f/number the light flux is the same (lens transmissions being indentical).

> Moreover, what is relevant in terms of light loss is not the
> sensitive area as you say, but the image circle, and, as opposed to
> what you wrongly imply, the bigger the area the higher the light loss.

I disagree with this. The light flux on the sensor is what matters.

> Furthermore, since the light rays must hit the photosites vertically,
> as opposed to what happens to film cameras, lenses designed for
> cameras with different sensor sizes cannot be so lightly compared.

Of course there are many other factors such as lens transmission that come
into the detailed calculations, but for sensors of comparable technology
these effects will be similar.

> And, as so many mistakes were not enough, a light loss of 1 time is
> already absolute darkness, whereby alleging a light loss of '3.44
> times' as you do would deny you approval even in the most elementary
> school exam.

I am using a ratio, not a percentage, is that not obvious?

David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:36:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>J.S.Pitanga wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>Of course. People needing or wishing a digital SLR select a digital
>>SLR. People content with a slow, tiny-sensored EVF select a slow,
>>tiny-sensored EVF. And ignoramuses select a Panasonic FZ20 thinking
>>it is comparable to a digital SLR (such people like to call their
>>gadget a 'ZLR').
>>
>>
>
>You are rehashing the same tired arguments, and being insutling to people,
>a sure sign you have nothing fresh to say. Why not let people who wish to
>choose the FZ20 cameras as their preference do so in peace?
>
>
I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over. Also, I want a camera I
can take all over with the family and still get great results. I hear
it is one of the best point and shoots for both ease of use and getting
stunning images. One of my concerns is the bulk and size for going on
trips with the family. I would like to know if it is that much better
than the compace point and shoots.




>[]
>
>
>>Again you badly miss the point and make several mistakes.
>>
>>
>[]
>
>
>>J.S.Pitanga
>>
>>
>
>No, I simply look at things in a different way to you.
>
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> [measekite:]
> I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
> considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over. Also, I want a camera I can
> take all over with the family and still get great results. I hear it is
> one of the best point and shoots for both ease of use and getting stunning
> images. One of my concerns is the bulk and size for going on trips with
> the family. I would like to know if it is that much better than the
> compace point and shoots.

Yes, it is one of the best cameras among those with a small (1/2.5") sensor
in terms of features and image quality. Disadvantages are its high noise
levels, bulk, weight, and price. The autofocus is also said to be slower
than KMZ3/Z5.

If you can live without image stabilization and 8x zoom is enough for you,
the KMZ10 is probably the best, cheapest and most compact camera to consider
for trips, family photos etc. Fast response, very low chromatic aberration
and excelent corner-to-corner sharpness, because of its moderate ultra-zoom,
great battery life, and very low noise levels, because of the reasonable
amount of megapixels crammed into the tiny sensor (3, rather than 4 or 5).
Besides, and you can buy 3 of them for the price of one FZ20, or buy just
one and save the rest for your Canon 20D.

And, if you really want stunning images from a long-zoom EVF, may I suggest
the HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality. Its autofocus-assist
lamp is very convenient for family shoots, and its dynamic range is
noticeably increased with digital flash technology (something recent dSLRs
are now imitating). And its prices are getting extremely low, less than half
the FZ20, again leaving nearer your Canon 20D.

The best,

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> [measekite:]
> I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
> considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over. Also, I want a camera I can
> take all over with the family and still get great results. I hear it is
> one of the best point and shoots for both ease of use and getting stunning
> images. One of my concerns is the bulk and size for going on trips with
> the family. I would like to know if it is that much better than the
> compace point and shoots.

Yes, it is one of the best cameras among those with a small (1/2.5") sensor
in terms of features and image quality. Disadvantages are its high noise
levels, bulk, weight, and price. The autofocus is also said to be slower
than KMZ3/Z5.

If you can live without image stabilization and 8x zoom is enough for you,
the KMZ10 is probably the best, cheapest and most compact camera to consider
for trips, family photos etc. Fast response, very low chromatic aberration
and excelent corner-to-corner sharpness, because of its moderate ultra-zoom,
great battery life, and very low noise levels, because of the reasonable
Amount of megapixels crammed into the tiny sensor (3, rather than 4 or 5).
Besides, you can buy 3 of them for the price of one FZ20, or buy just one
and save the rest for your Canon 20D.

And, if you really want stunning images from a long-zoom EVF, may I suggest
the HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality. Its autofocus-assist
lamp is very convenient for family shoots, and its dynamic range is
noticeably increased with digital flash technology (something recent dSLRs
are now imitating). And its prices are getting extremely low, less than half
the FZ20, again leaving nearer your Canon 20D.

The best,

J.S.Pitanga
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:36:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga <(jspitanga)@fastimap.com> wrote:
>
> If you can live without image stabilization and 8x zoom is enough for you,
> the KMZ10 is probably the best, cheapest and most compact camera to consider
> for trips, family photos etc. Fast response, very low chromatic aberration
> and excelent corner-to-corner sharpness, because of its moderate ultra-zoom,
> great battery life, and very low noise levels, because of the reasonable
> amount of megapixels crammed into the tiny sensor (3, rather than 4 or 5).
> Besides, and you can buy 3 of them for the price of one FZ20, or buy just
> one and save the rest for your Canon 20D.

I can't imagine being without image stabilization in a low-end digicam.
A friend of mine has (several) Canon G2 G3 etc. models and almost 95% of
his pictures are blurry because the Gn prefers low ISO and slow shutter
speeds. The KM Z3 and A200, both of which have image stabilization, are
rated only Recommended on dpreview.com. I haven't investigate why the
Panasonic FZ20 is rated higher. The FZ15 costs only about $350.

> And, if you really want stunning images from a long-zoom EVF, may I suggest
> the HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
> 1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
> 2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality.

Can you say payola? Most awards aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
The HP 945 has not been tested by dpreview.com, but the previous 935 model
was rated merely Above Average (in other words, avoid).

> Focus lamp is very convenient for family shoots, and its dynamic range is
> noticeably increased with digital flash technology (something recent dSLRs
> are now imitating). And its prices are getting extremely low, less than half
> the FZ20, again leaving nearer your Canon 20D.

Doesn't the FZ series have focus assist lamp? It's easy to get confused.
B&H sells the HP 945 for $399, more than the FZ15.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:36:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3a3ep7F66fd5uU1@individual.net>, "J.S.Pitanga"
<(jspitanga)@fastimap.com> says...
> And, if you really want stunning images from a long-zoom EVF, may I suggest
> the HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
> 1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
> 2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality. Its autofocus-assist
> lamp is very convenient for family shoots, and its dynamic range is
> noticeably increased with digital flash technology (something recent dSLRs
> are now imitating). And its prices are getting extremely low, less than half
> the FZ20, again leaving nearer your Canon 20D.
>
It seems to me the practical use of a long zoom often requires either:

1. a DSLR with a big sensor allowing high ISO/fast shutter speed to avoid
shake.

or

2. something like the FZ20 with image stabilisation which allows the use
of shutter speeds two or three steps slower and hence low ISO to get
adequate noise performance. (provided subject motion is slow enough)

Of course, both together are nicer still.

So, I won't be buying ANY small sensor, non-IS long zoom camera.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:56:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
[]
> I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I
> am considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over. Also, I want a
> camera I can take all over with the family and still get great
> results. I hear it is one of the best point and shoots for both ease
> of use and getting stunning images. One of my concerns is the bulk
> and size for going on trips with the family. I would like to know if
> it is that much better than the compace point and shoots.

Yes, much better, if you need a long zoom lens for your photography, which
not everyone needs. The actual images will be similar to many good
cameras, it is the extra reach of the long zoom and image stabilised lens
which sets the FZ20 apart. There is a more compact version coming out
soon, the FZ5, but it lacks the manual focus. The FZ20 doesn't have a
swivel LCD viewfinder, and the wide-angle coverage (down to 36mm) is
bettered in some cameras - quite a few having 28mm (equivalent) lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05020807panasonicfz4f...

You will find that the 20D and a few lenses have much greater bulk and
size! And cost!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:56:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <HB__d.971$Ab.748@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> There is a more compact version coming out
> soon, the FZ5, but it lacks the manual focus.
>
I think it will miss out on the flash hotshoe and the ED element in the
lens (both definitely in the FZ20 but not the FZ3). The FZ5 may be the
FZ3 form factor with trimmed FZ20 guts.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:10:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I still have it in my head that Canon is the best of the bunch. I did
like the Canon S1 IS but it is only a 3MP and does not have AF Assist.
I feel that the successor the the S1 will be out before the end of the
year and it may be even better. I know that every 6 months there will
be something better but I feel that I would like to compare a Canon
competitor to the FZ20.

If Canon has AF Assist, a slightly better lens, and a 5 or even 6 MP
then it may be the better choice.

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I
>>am considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over. Also, I want a
>>camera I can take all over with the family and still get great
>>results. I hear it is one of the best point and shoots for both ease
>>of use and getting stunning images. One of my concerns is the bulk
>>and size for going on trips with the family. I would like to know if
>>it is that much better than the compace point and shoots.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, much better, if you need a long zoom lens for your photography, which
>not everyone needs. The actual images will be similar to many good
>cameras, it is the extra reach of the long zoom and image stabilised lens
>which sets the FZ20 apart. There is a more compact version coming out
>soon, the FZ5, but it lacks the manual focus. The FZ20 doesn't have a
>swivel LCD viewfinder, and the wide-angle coverage (down to 36mm) is
>bettered in some cameras - quite a few having 28mm (equivalent) lenses.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05020807panasonicfz4f...
>
>You will find that the 20D and a few lenses have much greater bulk and
>size! And cost!
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
> David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Panasonic does not have a DSLR product line - so they don't have to
> >>> cripple their P&S cameras to protect the profit margin on their DSLRs.
> >>
> > J.S.Pitanga wrote:
> >> It is kind of preposterous to believe that Panasonic EVFs, with their
> >> tiny sensors (1/2.5" or less), would need to be further crippled so
> >> as not to become a competition to any DSLRs.

No argument here, but this is a different story.

I own the FZ10, I am aware if its faults, but the bottom line
is that in good light, if you can use low ISO 50 or 100 this
camera produces splendid results thanks to the fantastic,
incomparable Elmarit zoom and the IS, while the entire package
is still very light (ca. 500g.) The lens is almost impeccable all
the length to 420mm. Just compare its size to a size of any 35mm
400mm zoom, like the 100-400L Canon to see how much you safe in
weight and size. I made a few user comments about FZ10 on:

http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/lumix_fz10_tests

I will not call them tests, just my opinion. My main regret was
that the FZ20 was released literally 2-3 week after I bought the
FZ10 for my wife.

> >>
> >> Besides, features found in Panasonics are also found in many other
> >> EVFs, whether or not they come from a manufacturer having a DSLR
> >> product line. To sum up, the only thing crippled here is your reasoning.
>
> > Well, Canon crippled their 300 to protect their more expensive DLSRs, and
> > how else do you explain why Nikon on their top-of-the-range 8800 model
> > chose to equip it with a lens limited to f/5.2 aperture when Panasonic at
> > about half the price can manage f/2.8, or Canon limiting their one image
> > stabilised camera to 3MP?
>
> Also, Canon crippled the Pro S1 to protect DSLR sales, or is perhaps
> merely incompetent at designing the S1 type of camera.
>
> I wonder if the original poster read any of the S1 reviews on the web.
> The FZ series is clearly superior in every way, except (? I dunno).
> It's Minolta that provides real competition for the FZ.

For me the FZ 10, 15 and 20 are ahead of *any* other EVF
camera in the class of 4..5 Mpi, of course the FZ1 alias
Digilux 2 is excluded. Panasonic's IS challenges Canon IS
and Nikon VR with ease.

Excellent build quality and feeling, Leica glass, image
stabilizer and low weight. My FZ10 works also fine with large
external flash, such as the Nikon SB24.

Of course I am sure that progress in sensor technology will
make FZ10, FZ20 obsolete at some time. I expect less noise
and a better dynamic range in future EVF cameras. Maybe some
of the top rangefinders will come with optical viewfinders.
At the moment these EVF's are clearly inferior.

Thomas
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:50:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The FZ20 Does have AF.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

>J.S.Pitanga <(jspitanga)@fastimap.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you can live without image stabilization and 8x zoom is enough for you,
>>the KMZ10 is probably the best, cheapest and most compact camera to consider
>>for trips, family photos etc. Fast response, very low chromatic aberration
>>and excelent corner-to-corner sharpness, because of its moderate ultra-zoom,
>>great battery life, and very low noise levels, because of the reasonable
>>amount of megapixels crammed into the tiny sensor (3, rather than 4 or 5).
>>Besides, and you can buy 3 of them for the price of one FZ20, or buy just
>>one and save the rest for your Canon 20D.
>>
>>
>
>I can't imagine being without image stabilization in a low-end digicam.
>A friend of mine has (several) Canon G2 G3 etc. models and almost 95% of
>his pictures are blurry because the Gn prefers low ISO and slow shutter
>speeds. The KM Z3 and A200, both of which have image stabilization, are
>rated only Recommended on dpreview.com. I haven't investigate why the
>Panasonic FZ20 is rated higher. The FZ15 costs only about $350.
>
>
>
>>And, if you really want stunning images from a long-zoom EVF, may I suggest
>>the HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
>>1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
>>2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality.
>>
>>
>
>Can you say payola? Most awards aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
>The HP 945 has not been tested by dpreview.com, but the previous 935 model
>was rated merely Above Average (in other words, avoid).
>
>
>
>>Focus lamp is very convenient for family shoots, and its dynamic range is
>>noticeably increased with digital flash technology (something recent dSLRs
>>are now imitating). And its prices are getting extremely low, less than half
>>the FZ20, again leaving nearer your Canon 20D.
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't the FZ series have focus assist lamp? It's easy to get confused.
>B&H sells the HP 945 for $399, more than the FZ15.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:31:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3a3ebkF64am1oU1@individual.net>, J.S.Pitanga
<(jspitanga)@fastimap.com> wrote:

> HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
> 1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
> 2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality

The DIMA awards have not been covered as well as they used to be on the
web, since the DI_W_A ...
I was wondering about a camera taking top awards 2 years in a row, and
thought that I must be reading old news!
I thought that only new cameras were eligible... Thanks for clearing
that up for me.
I have not been paying close attention to the DIMA awards, but it seems
to me that this might be a first?
Cheers,
NB
PS I took a look at an HP 945 at a local store, and the fit and finish
was not up to par for an apparently excellent camera, IMHO....
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:12:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <423c96a9@news.meer.net>, can@spam.co (Bill Tuthill) wrote:

> I can't imagine being without image stabilization
> in a low-end digicam.

Having used a Canon S1 for a while I'm not sure I *ever* want to use a
camera without it again. Which is really annoying, because I'd love to
have an excuse to buy the 'cheap' Pentax DSLR to use with all my old
Pentax SLR kit.

I could always buy a Canon DSLR and some of their IS lenses, but then I
wouldn't be able to afford to eat until roughly 2008, which might affect
my picture-taking skills somewhat ;-)

Andrew McP

PS While I'm in this thread, I love some things about the S1... the
overall picture quality, it's compact size, the AA batteries, and the
640x480 movie option (especially useful for candid stuff* because most
people don't expect something so obviously camera-shaped to be such an
accomplished video camera). But the EVF is too low-res for my liking, and
leads to some out of focus shots. The autofocus time is also often much
worse than I'd hoped for, especially indoors where the lack of AF lamp
hurts performance badly IMO.

I'd certainly buy an FZ20 if I was buying again now, but then I very
nearly bought an FZ10, and was only persuaded to buy an S1 by a very good
price at the time.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 2:31:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bruce Graham wrote:
[]
> So, I won't be buying ANY small sensor, non-IS long zoom camera.

Actually, in good lighting conditions, I have done really well with the
Nikon 5700 which doesn't have IS. You just use the normal rules for
working with ta 350mm lens - keep the exposure to less than 1/350second
(at least nominally).

The IS does extend the operating range rather nicely, though.

Cheers,
David
March 20, 2005 2:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Kad%d.1843$Ab.1401@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> Bruce Graham wrote:
> []
> > So, I won't be buying ANY small sensor, non-IS long zoom camera.
>
> Actually, in good lighting conditions, I have done really well with the
> Nikon 5700 which doesn't have IS. You just use the normal rules for
> working with ta 350mm lens - keep the exposure to less than 1/350second
> (at least nominally).
>
> The IS does extend the operating range rather nicely, though.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>


Even as I get older, I haven't had a problem with 35mm to 350mm (&
equivalent) as far as needing stabilazation. Perhaps I have a steadier hand
than average, or perhaps I have more patience.

IS is nice, but I haven't seen a need for it on any camera I've used until I
break the 350mm "barrier". When shooting with a longer lens than that, I
have used anything and everything (including hanging weights from the camera)
to stabilize for a shot. (most commonly I used sandbags/beanbags or a
tripod).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
[]
> Even as I get older, I haven't had a problem with 35mm to 350mm (&
> equivalent) as far as needing stabilazation. Perhaps I have a
> steadier hand than average, or perhaps I have more patience.

Or perhaps you aren't using cameras which are limited to ISO 50 - 100 for
best image quality? Having said that, yes I have some good shots from my
Nikon 5700 at its 350mm focal length, but bracing and supporting the
camera are more critical at that focal length.

> IS is nice, but I haven't seen a need for it on any camera I've used
> until I break the 350mm "barrier". When shooting with a longer lens
> than that, I have used anything and everything (including hanging
> weights from the camera) to stabilize for a shot. (most commonly I
> used sandbags/beanbags or a tripod).

So IS would may enable you to hand hold without all those gadgets,
increasing the number of photo-opportunities you have. Obviously, IS
doesn't help stop subject movement, and it's not a cure-all, but it is
rather nice to have, particularly at current prices!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:42:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aj__d.20279$Pz7.16136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
> considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over.

Silly question, I suppose... Why would you spend the $600 on the Panasonic,
and not just save that until you're ready to spend the $1500 for the Canon?

dwight
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 5:49:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:46:56 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Forget for now that the Canon is unfortunately a 4MP and the Panasonic
>is a 5MP. Which camera is a superior camera in any respect and why?
>
>If Canon were to update the S1 to 5MP and make now other changes, which
>would be better?


There is a review of both cameras at www.dcresource.com

keith
March 20, 2005 7:12:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <V8e%d.1905$Ab.1421@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> Or perhaps you aren't using cameras which are limited to ISO 50 - 100 for
> best image quality? Having said that, yes I have some good shots from my
> Nikon 5700 at its 350mm focal length, but bracing and supporting the
> camera are more critical at that focal length.
>
> > IS is nice, but I haven't seen a need for it on any camera I've used
> > until I break the 350mm "barrier". When shooting with a longer lens
> > than that, I have used anything and everything (including hanging
> > weights from the camera) to stabilize for a shot. (most commonly I
> > used sandbags/beanbags or a tripod).
>
> So IS would may enable you to hand hold without all those gadgets,
> increasing the number of photo-opportunities you have. Obviously, IS
> doesn't help stop subject movement, and it's not a cure-all, but it is
> rather nice to have, particularly at current prices!
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>

I usually do shoot at ISO 100 or ISO 50 - 60, but haven't ever considered it
a limiting factor. (when I shot film, I used what was in the camera, or threw
away money by changing film).

The point I was trying to make (badly I guess) is that I dont consider IS in
any of its flavors to be a 'MUST HAVE' item, and I am surprised that so many
people do consider it a "Must Have".




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:49:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dwight wrote:
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aj__d.20279$Pz7.16136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
>> considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over.
>
> Silly question, I suppose... Why would you spend the $600 on the
> Panasonic, and not just save that until you're ready to spend the
> $1500 for the Canon?
> dwight

Because you need the camera sooner than you can afford it?

I imagine that a Canon 20D plus image-stablised lenses covering 36 to
432mm would cost a little more than $1500....

David
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:01:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The answer is simple. The FZ costs about $500. The EOS 20D with lenses
will cost me about $3000, that is 6 times as much. I want a camera that
I can take on small trips with the family where I do not have to lug a
lot around. The FZ is a compromise between a sub compact point and
shoot that is more ideal in size and weight and image quality.

The 20D is something I want for more serious and deliberate
photography. I really want both.

dwight wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aj__d.20279$Pz7.16136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue. I am
>>considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over.
>>
>>
>
>Silly question, I suppose... Why would you spend the $600 on the Panasonic,
>and not just save that until you're ready to spend the $1500 for the Canon?
>
>dwight
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
> The answer is simple. The FZ costs about $500. The EOS 20D with lenses
> will cost me about $3000, that is 6 times as much. I want a camera that
> I can take on small trips with the family where I do not have to lug a
> lot around. The FZ is a compromise between a sub compact point and
> shoot that is more ideal in size and weight and image quality.
>
> The 20D is something I want for more serious and deliberate
> photography. I really want both.
>
>

A few years back, I *really* wanted a DSLR that could use my existing
kit of Canon lenses, but at that time the D30 was pretty expensive. So
I bought an early example of the type of camera you're talking about,
the Canon Pro90 IS. I bought it wanting it to be almost a DSLR, and on
paper, the features were almost comparable. But in actual real life, it
was a completely different beast, and so almost completely
unsatisfactory to me. Not that it was a bad camera, lots of people
liked their Pro90s very much.

I bought the Canon S1 as a complement or alternative to my DSLRs, and in
that function, it's perfect. Interestingly, it has features that the
300D lacks, like FEC, a feature I use most of the time. And yet, the
300D is still going to be a different shooting experience than the S1.
Even comparing the S1 to the D30, a camera of similar MP, they're
totally different, and the results are totally different.

In the end, a DSLR truly is a very different tool than even an advanced
non SLR, and a ZLR or EVF camera is not really a viable substitute for a
DSLR. If a DSLR is what you really want most, then you just may not be
satisfied with anything less.

Consider that used DSLRs are an option as well. With the 20D out, the
10D could be an attractive bargain, relatively speaking. I've found
over the years that while my lens kit stays fairly stable, bodies rotate
in and out of the kit every couple of years, or even more often with the
DSLRs.

As an alternative, "smaller" camera, the S1 is great. It's small
enough, but still has a good zoom range, made more usable by IS, has
good control features, and the excellent movie mode has allowed me to
retire the camcorder. 3MP is just about right for snapshots, IMO. They
make good 4x5 prints, a passable 8x10, and are miserly in their use of
CF card space.

Lisa
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dwight wrote:
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aj__d.20279$Pz7.16136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue.
I am
> > considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over.
>
> Silly question, I suppose... Why would you spend the $600 on the
Panasonic,
> and not just save that until you're ready to spend the $1500 for the
Canon?
>
> dwight

Precisely! and why spend $1500 on the down-sized D20 and not just save
that until ready for a $3500, full-sized 36mmx24mm DSLR? You then
really get to enjoy the lens set optmized for that size.

Depends on where is your standard. The downs-sized DSLR has at least
the following draw-back:

1. The lens set for the 36mmx24mm is not optimized for the
down-sized image. When a smaller sensor is used, to get the overall
best image quality, the lens needs to be improved to trade the efforts
from the unused image area to the needed image area. Although a lens
for 36mmx24mm with a 36mmx24mm sensor would generally out perform a
lens for a down-sized image with a down-sized sensor. Crossing the size
domain would be either a big compromise or a waste or both.

2. There is less choice on the wide-angle lenses. Because of
larger-than-1 scale factor.

3. The "narrow-tube" view-finder. This may not be true for all
down-sized DSLR, and how intrusize it is is also very personal.
Perhapes not as awkward as the EVF, but close enough.

My personal preference is the full-size DSLR with prime plus zoom
lenses. In this standard, the diffrence between a seriously optimized
DZLR such as Sony 828 or Pana FZ20 and a down-sized DSLR is very close.
In fact, there are web reviews that show the FZ20 actually outperforms
one of the low end DSLR (Canon 300D, but I believe it's only under the
bright condition, not sure about the low light).
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:04:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Before biting further on this Pitanga troll, you might consider that on
a thread called `Megxon C480` over in rec...ZLR, he was, just a few
months ago, considering buying *that* camera..... (O:

And as recently as December, in that same group in the rather humorous
thread `Panasonic FZ-20 Owners`, Mr Pitanga didn't know that small
sensor size meant high noise (he thought it was faulty or inferior
electronics..). Gosh, how he has learnt, and how cleverly he can now
work out what everyone needs in a camera. And unless he authorises it,
no camera should be purchased for any reasons other than his own..

For anyone who doesn't know what a Megxon C480 is, I suggest you do
your own research. Suffice to say, the guy is a fake, wouldn't know a
good camera from his left elbow (if he could find it), and he's a
pretentious and unpleasant person to go with it, judging from the
completely uncalled-for insults above.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:57:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I might as well not get a camera because I saw a Porche Carera
Convertable V10 for $400,000. Then I should buy a female professional
photographer to go with me on outings.

einst_stein@yahoo.com wrote:

>dwight wrote:
>
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:aj__d.20279$Pz7.16136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>>I really want a Canon 20D and a few lenses. But money is an issue.
>>>
>>>
>I am
>
>
>>>considering getting an FZ20 to tide me over.
>>>
>>>
>>Silly question, I suppose... Why would you spend the $600 on the
>>
>>
>Panasonic,
>
>
>>and not just save that until you're ready to spend the $1500 for the
>>
>>
>Canon?
>
>
>>dwight
>>
>>
>
>Precisely! and why spend $1500 on the down-sized D20 and not just save
>that until ready for a $3500, full-sized 36mmx24mm DSLR? You then
>really get to enjoy the lens set optmized for that size.
>
>Depends on where is your standard. The downs-sized DSLR has at least
>the following draw-back:
>
> 1. The lens set for the 36mmx24mm is not optimized for the
>down-sized image. When a smaller sensor is used, to get the overall
>best image quality, the lens needs to be improved to trade the efforts
>from the unused image area to the needed image area. Although a lens
>for 36mmx24mm with a 36mmx24mm sensor would generally out perform a
>lens for a down-sized image with a down-sized sensor. Crossing the size
>domain would be either a big compromise or a waste or both.
>
> 2. There is less choice on the wide-angle lenses. Because of
>larger-than-1 scale factor.
>
> 3. The "narrow-tube" view-finder. This may not be true for all
>down-sized DSLR, and how intrusize it is is also very personal.
>Perhapes not as awkward as the EVF, but close enough.
>
> My personal preference is the full-size DSLR with prime plus zoom
>lenses. In this standard, the diffrence between a seriously optimized
>DZLR such as Sony 828 or Pana FZ20 and a down-sized DSLR is very close.
>In fact, there are web reviews that show the FZ20 actually outperforms
>one of the low end DSLR (Canon 300D, but I believe it's only under the
>bright condition, not sure about the low light).
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:57:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
[]
> For anyone who doesn't know what a Megxon C480 is, I suggest you do
> your own research. Suffice to say, the guy is a fake, wouldn't know a
> good camera from his left elbow (if he could find it), and he's a
> pretentious and unpleasant person to go with it, judging from the
> completely uncalled-for insults above.

I made the mistake of trying to have an intelligent conversation, only to
be rewarded with insults. Doubtless others will also judge him by his
reactions.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nellybly <nellybly@adephia.net> wrote:
> In article <3a3ebkF64am1oU1@individual.net>, J.S.Pitanga
>
>> HP Photosmart 945 which, with its bright F2.8/3.1 8x zoom and a bigger
>> 1/1.8" sensor, has just garnered for the second consecutive year (2004 and
>> 2005) the DIMA-PMA top honors for best image quality

> The DIMA awards have not been covered as well as they used to be on the
> web, since the DI_W_A ...
> I was wondering about a camera taking top awards 2 years in a row, and
> thought that I must be reading old news!
> I thought that only new cameras were eligible... Thanks for clearing
> that up for me.
> I have not been paying close attention to the DIMA awards, but it seems
> to me that this might be a first?

Certainly the Photosmart 945 produces nice images:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/hp945_sampl...

Macbeth chart colors in HPIM0145.JPG are close to perfect, detail is good
and noise is relatively low.
!