Sony H1, Canon S2, Panasonic FZ20, Minolta Z5

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
> Popular photography recently (August 2005) compared these 4 5MP EVF
> image-stabalized ultra-zooms.
>
> Here are some conclusions:
>
> Sony H1: Only 2 AA batteries, no hot shoe or flash connector, and no
> RAW.
>
> Canon S2: Small LCD, no ext flash.
>
> Panasonic FZ20: HIGH digital noise, even at low ISOs.
>
> Monolta Z5: Has hot shoe and dedicated external flash option. No
> negatives.
>
> Some people recently doubted MacWorld's recent camera review, so here
> is a photography magazine review.


Simply from what you list, I would have a number of reservations about its
completeness and accuracy. Do you have the full URL for this review, or
is it not available online?

David

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
[]
> I subscribe to the magazine. The website (www.popphoto.com) is mainly
> to solicit new subscriptions.

Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very happy with
the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder and movie mode on
the Canon might make up for the poorer image quality depending on one's
priorities!

Cheers,
David

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

The LCD on the Canon S2 IS is smaller than the Sony H1. However, it
swivels and rotates, which allows me to take some very interesting
shots with the subject well framed.

None of these super-zooms are perfect. I chose the Canon S2 IS as a
compromise of features, performance and price. So far, I'm fairly happy
with it. And it's likely, in a year, when the Canon S3 IS comes out,
I'll be looking at that one too.

Bye.

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:fkvze.65600>
> Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
> a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very happy with
> the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder and movie mode on
> the Canon might make up for the poorer image quality depending on one's
> priorities!
>
> Cheers,
> David
I think you did fine with your FZ-5. The swivel is a loss, but then again at
least you have TIFF, rather than nothing but JPG. TIFF is not my favourite
but at least the option is there.

The camera that will sell like mad (coming to a store near all of us
hopefully) is a combined wide and zoom, excellent glass, fast focus, IS that
works, better than average ISO performance because of a larger sensor
(or..very high hopes here... the newest small sensor recently tested that is
half the thickness and a fraction of the cost to develop over current sensor
technology...or better yet the phillips liquid gas lens!...hurry, hurry with
that technology) with full RAW, a huge host of manual and auto functions,
swivel (Canon is actually moving away from swivels due to high number of
repair issues and warrenty drains) all wrapped up in a sturdy (the Pan FZ5
is feels flimbsy even if it isn't) yet pocket sized body. Finally it must
have a host of adapter lenses for extending the usage of the camera, and
these lenses do not degrade the quality of the image. All this for a very
affordable price (everyday Joe).

Take care,
Linda

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

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-72928B.14070609072005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> small LCD on S2? Hm...actually it's somewhat bigger than one in S1...and
>> by
>> no means small. All Oly's have smaller...
>
> The other three have 2" monitors, not 1.8" like the S2. That is 24%
> less area.

you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
pixels (H1) ?

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

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message newsighash-D4869B.18341809072005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
> > pixels (H1)
>
> Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
> difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
> the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
> with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'd gladly give up 0.2" (or even 1.0" ) to get Canon's tilt and
swivel LCD. Vastly superior design, especially for waist shots,
over the head/crowd shots and a hundred other cases.

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

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-D4869B.18341809072005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
>> pixels (H1)
>
> Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
> difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
> the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
> with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

you're missing the point .. I'm dumb enough to believe that 115K pixels
smeared over an 1.8" LCD screen will yield a better definition picture than
the same amount of pixels smeared over a 2.5" screen .. and the same goes
for your TV .. it is the present days hype to convince people that their 25"
TV is better than the 18" with the same number of pixels .. consumers are
brainwashed to become uncritical these days and it shows ..

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message news:fkvze.65600>
>> Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
>> a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very
>> happy with the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder
>> and movie mode on the Canon might make up for the poorer image
>> quality depending on one's priorities!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
> I think you did fine with your FZ-5. The swivel is a loss, but then
> again at least you have TIFF, rather than nothing but JPG. TIFF is
> not my favourite but at least the option is there.
>
not many people actually use TIFF. When you can squeeze - what - 30 or 40
shots on 1G card, it becomes useless. Not many people can afford to buy 4G
or more cards - at least not these people who buy this kind of cameras.
Camera with less than - say 100 shots on one card is useless. TIFF is more
usable on higher priced SLR and similar cards, where (to profi's) buying
several 1, 2, 4 or more G cards is not much of a problem.
> Linda

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

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-AFE3C7.11484310072005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote:
>> > "imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with
>> >> 115K
>> >> pixels (H1)
>> >
>> > Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
>> > difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
>> > the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
>> > with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.
>>
>> you're missing the point .. I'm dumb enough to believe that 115K pixels
>> smeared over an 1.8" LCD screen will yield a better definition picture
>> than
>> the same amount of pixels smeared over a 2.5" screen .. and the same goes
>> for your TV .. it is the present days hype to convince people that their
>> 25"
>> TV is better than the 18" with the same number of pixels .. consumers are
>> brainwashed to become uncritical these days and it shows ..
>
> You missed the point. If you put 115k pixels on a pin head, you can't
> see them. You need a screen and pixels which are large enough so they
> can be seen.

irrelevant .. same gag .. if you switch off the lights one doesn't see
anything either ..

For the typical person, a 3 or 4 inch screen would be
> ideal.

assumption based on what standard ? any articles to back that up ?

The normal human eye can't see things much smaller than that as
> well. Since screens that large are not commonly available, those
> closest to that size are best.

it is not a matter of the size that one can see but at what definition it is
seen

>
> When you edit images on your computer, do you reduce the window size to
> 1.8"? I think not. In fact if you put a 115K pixel image on your
> computer screen the optimum size (72-75 dpi) is 4.1" x 5.4".

that is utter nonsense and once again completely irrelevant .. this will
largely depend on a) physical screen size b) screen resolution set for the
video driver
besides there is no such thing as "72-75 dpi" (and it should read PPI) for
computer screens ! make the calculations for yourself using the screen
dotpitch and the screen size .. this is a myth that doesn't want to die !
The closest you can get to 72 PPI if I recall correctly is for a 14" (or
15"?) screen set at 800x600 (having an "old" dotpitch value) and the
mythical 72PPI was indeed born in those dark ages .. (on the Mac if I recall
correctly)
FYI : my 17 inch screen is set at 1152x864 with a viewable frame of
12.36x9.69 inch this yields an horizontal PPI of 93.2 and a vertical PPI of
89.16 .. so much for the mythical 72PPI ! If I set it at 1280x1024 things go
even "worse" .. or just try a 19" at 1640x1280 for fun only :-)
(assuming a square of 115K this would yield a picture of 3.63"x3.8",
assuming a rectangle with the screen ratio 1/1.333 it would yield a picture
of 4.2"x3.2" )
to push this nonsense to the extreme you can calculate the resolution for a
1.8" LCD and for a 2.5" LCD both having 115K px .. and a 4/3 ratio .. I'm
curious to see the results ..
(why am I spending my time at this !)

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:hNdAe.270$cE1.49387@news.siol.net...
>>
> not many people actually use TIFF.

True, though the point was that the Canon S2 IS has JPEG only, no RAW or
TIFF. The Panasonic FZ5 which David has at least offers TIFF for times when
uncompressed is essential. I don't know why Canon didn't add RAW to the S2
IS especially since for some people no RAW means no purchase.

Take care,
Linda

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:35:29 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>True, though the point was that the Canon S2 IS has JPEG only, no RAW or
>TIFF. The Panasonic FZ5 which David has at least offers TIFF for times when
>uncompressed is essential. I don't know why Canon didn't add RAW to the S2
>IS especially since for some people no RAW means no purchase.

Linda,

realistically, JPEG with low compression may be good enough for
everybody. You have to compare the residual JPEG artefacts to
the noise a digital photo has anyway.

Also JPEG spans lossless as well, so if they provided that ...

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:01:46 -0400, Stephen Henning
<pighash@aol.com> wrote:

>Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote:

>> realistically, JPEG with low compression may be good enough for
>> everybody. You have to compare the residual JPEG artefacts to
>> the noise a digital photo has anyway.

>I assume that RAW is not only high resolution, but truly raw with no
>filtering, for color temperature, sharpness, contrast, etc. If not,
>then it is not raw. When I process a photo in PhotoShop to bring out
>shadow detail, and detail in highlights, I notice I am much more
>successful if there has been minimal processing to the photo in advance.
>Such processing seems to destroy both ends of the histogram.

Stephen,

I doubt that there is any such thing as truly raw. Some
processing is probably built into the sensors already, and
probably most cameras do some preprocessing even for raw
formats.

Raw isn't very important. The things you can do with it are
limited. For example, if a photo is slightly underexposed, you
may be able to correct that a tad better in a raw format than,
say, in a TIFF or JPEG format, but if a photo is more than
slightly over- or underexposed, raw will not save it.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

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

"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message
news6afd1lbt7na24pgaeuvcuu4ikm6j6fdcg@4ax.com...
> Linda,
>
> realistically, JPEG with low compression may be good enough for
> everybody. You have to compare the residual JPEG artefacts to
> the noise a digital photo has anyway.
>
> Also JPEG spans lossless as well, so if they provided that ...
>
> Hans-Georg
>

I agree that in most instances high quality (super fine) .jpg meets most
people's needs, especially if the photographer knows photography! (meaning
get the shot right in the camera the first time, no need for editing). I
still prefer RAW for those shots that I absolutely want to get as perfect as
possible though especially if I don't have time to practice shoot so may
have the settings wrong. In instances like these JPG is a more risky turn to
take.

It would not have cost Canon anything to add RAW to the PS S2 IS though
since they already have it in all of their full featured cameras. Plus where
their biggest competitor in this class of ultra zoom, the Panisonic FZ20 has
TIFF, the S2 IS would have had an extra bragging point of having RAW rather
than the bulkier .TIF file format.

Do you suppose JPEG 2000 (uncompressed) is going to survive? I never thought
of it for cameras, but you are right it would be an option better than
regular compressed jpg.

Just thoughts :-)

Take care,
Linda

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:04:09 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote >

>> Raw isn't very important. The things you can do with it are
>> limited.

>One point that is important that needs mentioning. If you know you are going
>to do editing on the photo you are better off shooting in RAW. If you shoot
>JPG the photo is already compressed, and will be compressed again if saved
>for the web in JPEG. That is two image quality degradations. With RAW you
>only end up with one image degradation when saving a copy of the RAW data to
>jpg.
>
>As far as I know the RAW format 'attaches' the 'in camera corrections' (user
>settings like sharpness and saturation for instance) but the data recorded
>to the RAW file itself is purely raw. That is why most quality RAW
>converters allow the user to choose between converting using the current RAW
>software corrective settings, or to convert using the initial settings used
>in camera (in which case the camera info attached to the RAW file is used).

Linda,

you are perfectly correct. However, it is not sure that a second
JPEG compression degrades the picture as much as the first one.
It is just as conceivable that the second compression makes use
of the simplifications that the first one left in the picture.

I really don't know, but would like further information on this.

The other counter-argument would be that two JPEG compressions
degrade the picture, but not by much, particularly if they are
slight, i.e. the camera set to high quality, low compression.

You could even save the altered picture in a lossless format.

In short, this needs to be quantified and compared to the user's
demands.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

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

I agree with you. Panasonic Canada seems to charge way higher than what
Panasonic USA does. The following was what I posted earlier...

http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 4a6d049791

Furthermore, they've confirmed that they don't honor the warranty of
any camera bought outside Canada. (I believe other camera manufacturer
may have different policies)

In fact, I'm also looking for an either FZ5 or FZ20. The hotshoe and
metallic body of FZ20 are really tempting to me. The lowest retail
price that I've found in Canada for FZ5 is around CAD$599 (in BestBuy),
and that for FZ20 is around CAD$749 to CAD$799. They are way
over-priced to me! If any one in Canada can find a good deal, please
post it here. (Honestly, I prefer brick 'n mortar store to online store
mainly because of the exchange policy and convenience)

Dom



Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote >
> > Linda, for your information, I paid GBP 310 including tax for my FZ5 (from
> > a low price Internet store) which is abou $660 CAD. The FZ20 my wife
> > bought a few months earlier, and not from the cheapest store) was GBP 350
> > (so about $750 CAD). I would happily pay a little more to have an FZ5
> > with a full-swivel LCD.
> >
> > We have a phrase "rip-off Britain" because of some high prices - perhaps
> > "rip-off Canada"?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> Wow you paid a lot too for the FZ5. I suspect if the FZ5 were sold here that
> it would come in at the price you mentioned since the FZ4 is selling for
> between $560 and $599. For 1 meg more models the price is normally up $50 to
> $100. You do better on the FZ20 though. Last I checked the lowest price in
> Canada for that models was $999, but Panasonic Canada wanted $1100! What a
> rip.
>
> Yes I think "rip-off Canada" is right on when it comes to 'popular'
> electronics. Especially since it no longer pays to shop across the border
> because by the time the product gets taxed and administration feed to death
> you've paid as much or more than buying locally. It is depressing really
> lol.
>
> Take care,
> Linda

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

Yes, I'm in BC. Are you sure that the price in Eastern Canada is more
expensive than that in Western Canada?

For example, I googled "Panasonic FZ20 Canada" and found the following
deal in Ontario. (I personally don't know anything about this store
though)

http://www.parsonsfoto.com/panason [...] meras.html

FZ20 for CAD$719.99. It's the best deal for FZ20 that I have seen in
Canada so far. I still can't find such a good deal in BC yet (Maybe, I
could have missed it too)

Anyway, the deal of FZ5 for CAD$599.99 only happened when it was on
sale. The regular price is still $699.99

I wonder how much Panasonic Canada will price the latest FZ30. It's
US$700. Let me make a guess here. How about CAD$999?!

Dom



Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> <domtam@hotmail.com> wrote
> >I agree with you. Panasonic Canada seems to charge way higher than what
> > Panasonic USA does. The following was what I posted earlier...
> >
> <some proof snipped for easier reply reading>
> >
> > In fact, I'm also looking for an either FZ5 or FZ20. The hotshoe and
> > metallic body of FZ20 are really tempting to me. The lowest retail
> > price that I've found in Canada for FZ5 is around CAD$599 (in BestBuy),
> > and that for FZ20 is around CAD$749 to CAD$799. They are way
> > over-priced to me!
>
> Hi Dom,
>
> Are you in Western Canada? You tend to get better pricing then here in the
> Eastern end of Canada plus more selection. For instance BestBuy (Still
> called FutureShop here) does not sell the FZ5 they only sell the FZ4 for
> $599 CAD (sometimes the FZ4 is on sale for around $560), so you're still
> better off then me because if the FZ5 hits the shelves here it will likely
> be $660 to $699 CAD. Even with that savings for you over me we [Canadians]
> still pay way too much in comparison to the US. Even when the Canadian
> dollar was at its highest to the USD in some 40years the prices did not
> decline at all.
>
> I hadn't noticed until I read your article that Panasonic had reduced the
> MSRP for the FZ20! That is much better than a few months ago when last I
> looked. At that time it was still over $1100, with most stores retailing it
> at $999. That made no sense since some dSLRs were selling for $999 to $1200.
>
> When I asked one of my contacts at Canon about the large price difference
> between the US and Canada for the same models I was told it was a demand
> issue. There isn't enough demand in Canada to bring the price down. When I
> asked if Canon brought the price down to the level in line with the popular
> Fugi pricing schemes wouldn't they sell more cameras? my contact said 'Yip'
> and then sighed the old red tape type of sigh hahaha.
>
> Take care,
> Linda

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

I saw a FZ30 at a local independent (non-chain) electronic store in
Burnaby, BC. It's $999. My earlier guess of its price is unfortunately
correct :-( Moreover, according to the review in dcresource
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ [...] ndex.shtml

"If the noise levels were lower it would easily be one of the best
cameras on the market, period. But they're not, so keep this in mind if
you think you'll be shooting at the higher ISO sensitivities: if you're
planning to print photos at smaller sizes, I can recommend the FZ30
without hesitation. If you're doing 8 x 10s or larger, decide if you
want to deal with the noise in your prints, post-process them with
noise reduction software, or move up to a digital SLR, which runs
circles around the FZ30 at high ISO settings."

That's the point that I still don't understand. If I just want to print
to small size print (say 4x6), my 2MP Canon A40 does a pretty decent
job too (OK, it doesn't have long zoom). Why do I need a 8MP pixel in
the first place?

BTW, that store sells FZ20 at a pretty reasonable price, $699. Of
course, it's still way more expensive that I could buy it from US.
However, the warranty is still a major concern to me if I buy it from
US.

In addition to Fuji S9000, another candidate is Kodak P880. Optical
Image Stablizer + super wide angle (24mm) + 8.0 MP. Of course, I still
have concerns on the noise level at this class of 8 MP cameras. I hope
any professional review of S9000 or P880 will be available soon.

I'm also considering the lower end megazoom camera such as Fuji S5200
and Kodak P850. I don't really need 8MP. What I really want is the
support for external flash (not slave flash). P850 does support
external flash, but it doesn't seem to have AF illuminator. Sigh...
(S5200 doesn't seem to support external flash)

Dominic

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

I just bought the FZ20 for $700.00 from Henrys. Still learning how to use
it, but at 5 megapixels and 12X optical zoom..seemed like a great deal. I
haven't had much of an opportunity to play with the SCN modes...

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news8VHe.141$P3.589@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> <domtam@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> For example, I googled "Panasonic FZ20 Canada" and found the following
>> deal in Ontario. (I personally don't know anything about this store
>> though)
>>
>> http://www.parsonsfoto.com/panason [...] meras.html
>>
>> FZ20 for CAD$719.99. It's the best deal for FZ20 that I have seen in
>> Canada so far. I still can't find such a good deal in BC yet (Maybe, I
>> could have missed it too)
>>
>> Anyway, the deal of FZ5 for CAD$599.99 only happened when it was on
>> sale. The regular price is still $699.99
>>
>> I wonder how much Panasonic Canada will price the latest FZ30. It's
>> US$700. Let me make a guess here. How about CAD$999?!
>>
>> Dom
>>
>
> hehehe, I mean the real Eastern Canada, like on the East Coast, like the
> Maritimes :-) Yes we tend to be more expensive than the West, which
> includes Ontario in this region.
>
> I would not trust the site you listed. They have the black FZ20 for 719.99
> and the Silver FZ20 799.99, and the Teleconverter for the FZ10/FZ20 for
> 799.99! Those have to be mistakes in my opinion.
>
> A site that looks good, and has free shipping in Canada is:
> http://www.camera-warehouse.ca/pro [...] src=google
>
> The prices are not the cheapest I've seen, but they include a 45x 512mb SD
> card so you are not stuck with the shipped 16mb SD card that panasonic
> ships.
>
> I hope you are not right in your guess about the FZ30. At $999 a person
> could get a dSLR with a kit lens (Pentax and the digital Rebel 300D) both
> sell in that range.
>
> I'm interested in seeing how the Fugi Finepix $9000 does in reviews. It
> claims that its faster shutter speeds and higher ISO levels makes IS not
> necessary. Big claims. If the price is right though I can see it
> outselling the FZ30 which still only has 400 ISO (most likely useless) and
> 1/2000 for shutter speed. the S9000 is 1/4000, plus 1600 ISO.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>