Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic FZ20 vs DSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:09:47 PM

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

Hi,

From what I have read going for the FZ20 seems to make far more
financial sense then getting a DSLR. OK, you have the interchangeable
lenses, ability to use high ISO etc, but with the FZ20 you get the
capability of 420mm telephoto with the option of quickly going to 35mm
for wider angle, and macro shots at 5cm or nearer with the Nikon 6T
converter which I hear is very good. Add to this the quality of the
results you can get straight from camera rather than having to do lots
of manipulations -and let's face it who wants to manipulate all 200+
pics from a holiday or photoshoot? I believe that the results straight
from DSLR is often outclassed by those of good prosumer cameras, useful
if you can just give the memory card to a good photo-developing store
and cheaper on paper and inks.

Cost of FZ20 is around £350 (equiv to approx $650), not sure of sale
price in US, but you are ofter cheaper because we get ripped off here.
Whereas I don't have to say anything about DSLR+lenses+computer, etc

Part of me would love to get a DSLR, but suspect that in a years time
they would be twice as good and half the price! And if a 7Mp version of
the FZ20 came along with that wonderful lens and perhaps one or two
improvements in the body, how tempting would that be??

How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
decided, with reasons why please.

Thanks for your thoughts

Mark

More about : panasonic fz20 dslr

Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:09:48 PM

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

In article <41FCC114.28248676@ntlworld.com>,
"mark.worthington" <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> From what I have read going for the FZ20 seems to make far more
> financial sense then getting a DSLR. OK, you have the interchangeable
> lenses, ability to use high ISO etc, but with the FZ20 you get the
> capability of 420mm telephoto with the option of quickly going to 35mm
> for wider angle, and macro shots at 5cm or nearer with the Nikon 6T
> converter which I hear is very good. Add to this the quality of the
> results you can get straight from camera rather than having to do lots
> of manipulations -and let's face it who wants to manipulate all 200+
> pics from a holiday or photoshoot? I believe that the results straight
> from DSLR is often outclassed by those of good prosumer cameras, useful
> if you can just give the memory card to a good photo-developing store
> and cheaper on paper and inks.
>
> Cost of FZ20 is around £350 (equiv to approx $650), not sure of sale
> price in US, but you are ofter cheaper because we get ripped off here.
> Whereas I don't have to say anything about DSLR+lenses+computer, etc
>
> Part of me would love to get a DSLR, but suspect that in a years time
> they would be twice as good and half the price! And if a 7Mp version of
> the FZ20 came along with that wonderful lens and perhaps one or two
> improvements in the body, how tempting would that be??
>
> How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
> decided, with reasons why please.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
>
> Mark

Have you personally tried this camera out yet?
I followed a very similar line of reasoning as you, and decided that
this would probably be the perfect camera for me based on everything I'd
read-- then I went to a store and took a look at it. I was unhappy with
the apparent build quality. It seemed really flimsy compared to my
comparably priced old Canon G3. Maybe this floor model had just been
heavily abused by the public.
I liked the idea of the manual focus ring on the lens, but it seemed
really fiddly when I tried to use it. The shutter lag seemed
unacceptably slow too, but I didn't get to use it enough to judge that
fairly.
Obviously, a lot of people love this camera, and I may give it
another look at some point, but my first impression really left me cold.

J.S.

--
Actual e-mail: <Firstname> 'dot' <Lastname> @comcast.net
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:30:34 PM

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

mark.worthington wrote:
[]
> How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
> decided, with reasons why please.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
>
> Mark

I used to have 35mm SLR and took slides [transparencies] exclusively, but
found the combination of lenses and flash so heavy that I only carried it
reluctantly. Left it at the hotel in the evening. For me photography is
a hobby, so whilst I appreciate the technical benefits of the DSLR, the
drawbacks are too great. I started with the Nikon 900 and then moved up
to the Nikon 990. The twist body gave me picture taking possibilities
that were undreamed of before. With the Nikon 5700 and 8400 and my wife's
FZ20 now, we cover more range than I had in 35mm, but more importantly I
take more photos and look at them and enjoy them more.

In the relatively young digital photography arena, the larger sensor size
of the DSLR will always win in terms of image quality (other things being
equal), but now you have a lower-cost, more convenient alternative
providing you can live with the restrictions. In turn, because of
features like swivel LCD finders and greater depth-of-field, the P&S
cameras offer picture taking possibilities denied to their larger
brothers.

Your money, your choice!

Cheers,
David
Related resources
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:45:08 PM

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

Hi David,

Have you ever taken any wildlife shots with the FZ20 and had them enlarged
above A4? If so what was the quality like? I have in mind being able to hang a
fairly big picture of a tiger (or tigers, not shot in the wild...as I'm not
that mad) or perhaps a garden bird. Can the FZ20 handle that?

Regards

Mark

David J Taylor wrote:

> mark.worthington wrote:
> []
> > How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
> > decided, with reasons why please.
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts
> >
> > Mark
>
> I used to have 35mm SLR and took slides [transparencies] exclusively, but
> found the combination of lenses and flash so heavy that I only carried it
> reluctantly. Left it at the hotel in the evening. For me photography is
> a hobby, so whilst I appreciate the technical benefits of the DSLR, the
> drawbacks are too great. I started with the Nikon 900 and then moved up
> to the Nikon 990. The twist body gave me picture taking possibilities
> that were undreamed of before. With the Nikon 5700 and 8400 and my wife's
> FZ20 now, we cover more range than I had in 35mm, but more importantly I
> take more photos and look at them and enjoy them more.
>
> In the relatively young digital photography arena, the larger sensor size
> of the DSLR will always win in terms of image quality (other things being
> equal), but now you have a lower-cost, more convenient alternative
> providing you can live with the restrictions. In turn, because of
> features like swivel LCD finders and greater depth-of-field, the P&S
> cameras offer picture taking possibilities denied to their larger
> brothers.
>
> Your money, your choice!
>
> Cheers,
> David
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:56:33 PM

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

mark.worthington wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Have you ever taken any wildlife shots with the FZ20 and had them
> enlarged above A4? If so what was the quality like? I have in mind
> being able to hang a fairly big picture of a tiger (or tigers, not
> shot in the wild...as I'm not that mad) or perhaps a garden bird. Can
> the FZ20 handle that?
>
> Regards
>
> Mark

I've never felt the need to print at any size greater than A4 - more than
90% of our viewing of images is done directly on the computer screen,
albeit sometimes with a little cropping. At arm's length, you can see the
difference between 8MP and 5MP on an A4 print, but it's not a vast
difference. Quoting a print size without a viewing distance is
meaningless, to be honest. Any photo viewed sufficiently close is going
to look blurred.....

When comparing, remember to factor in the cost of that image-stabilised
lens for the DSLR if you need it....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:15:49 PM

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

mark.worthington <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Cost of FZ20 is around £350 (equiv to approx $650), not sure of sale
> price in US, but you are ofter cheaper because we get ripped off here.
> Whereas I don't have to say anything about DSLR+lenses+computer, etc
>
> Part of me would love to get a DSLR, but suspect that in a years time
> they would be twice as good and half the price! And if a 7Mp version of
> the FZ20 came along with that wonderful lens and perhaps one or two
> improvements in the body, how tempting would that be??
>
> How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
> decided, with reasons why please.
>

The amount of zoom photography I do is high (much of it being railway or
motorsports). The cost of a lens that could do what the FZ does, with
IS, for a dSLR is prohibitive. Sure, the pictures would be better, but
I'm by no means a photographic ace, when I do print it's usually no
bigger then 6x4 or 8x10 and I don't fancy carrying around a DSLR body
and a couple of lenses every time I go out.

So the decision to buy something in that class was a no-brainer. In fact
it was the FZ-10 'cos the 20 didn't exist at that point.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:52:58 PM

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

It is amazing how people feel guilty about preferring an EVF camera to a
dSLR. I presume it is due to decades of exposure to the mantra that only
SLRs can be serious cameras for serious people.

Cartier-Bresson was French, so he does not count.Besides, he used Leicas
which are granted special approval as serious cameras.

I use both EVF and dSLRs. If you do not have a good reason why you
specifically want or need a dSLR why would you think twice about getting the
camera you actually prefer? In many ways I prefer my Sony828 to my D70
(despite the closet full of Nikon lenses I could use).

People who have not extensively used EVFs love to rant on this newsgroup but
the truth is that the EVF is a new and evolving form factor whereas the SLR
form factor has been evolving since the 1930s.

As a practical point: most people get more use out of the wide angle end of
a zoom than the telephoto end. The long zoom EVFs that I have seen all seem
to have a wide end that is only a 35mm equivalent, which is very limiting in
general usage.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:49:05 PM

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

I finally decided on a D70.

First, I shoot more wide angle than tele, and most decent prosumers stop at
35mm.
That's just not wide enough for me.
The Nikon 8400 goes to 24mm, so it was on my short list.

Second, the DSLRs are so much faster and responsive it's not funny.

I seldom change lenses so that wasnt a big issue for me.

DSLRs may have an edge in terms of image quality, but even that wasnt an
issue for me as most prosumers are "good enough" for my amateur purposes.

I suggest borrowing a DSLR and trying it out for a few days before you
decide.
The "feel" of a camera is a subjective factor and contributes as much to the
image
as the piece of glass in front of it.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:49:06 PM

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

Eugel Yeo wrote:
> I finally decided on a D70.
>
> First, I shoot more wide angle than tele, and most decent prosumers
> stop at 35mm.
> That's just not wide enough for me.
> The Nikon 8400 goes to 24mm, so it was on my short list.
>
> Second, the DSLRs are so much faster and responsive it's not funny.
>
> I seldom change lenses so that wasnt a big issue for me.
>
> DSLRs may have an edge in terms of image quality, but even that wasnt
> an issue for me as most prosumers are "good enough" for my amateur
> purposes.
>
> I suggest borrowing a DSLR and trying it out for a few days before you
> decide.
> The "feel" of a camera is a subjective factor and contributes as much
> to the image
> as the piece of glass in front of it.

Thanks for reporting back - I do always suggest that people try cameras
before purchase as it can be a very personal thing. Your insight into
response speed was helpful - with my 8400 and previous cameras I did find
myself in shutter-half-pressed mode (pre-focussed and pre-exposed) a lot
of the time simply to minimise any delay.

Cheers,
David
!