Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:28:24 AM

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

I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.

I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.

For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
DSC-P200.

When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
sensor!

More about : slr equivalent quality

Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:10:45 AM

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

"Prime" <PrimeFactor@primetime.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969CC61C14BDDPrimeFactor@216.196.97.142...
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and heavier
than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and that changes
somewhat.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:18:23 AM

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

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

Larger sensor requires larger, more expensive lenses. The fact is the
current P&S's are good enough for the general public when use under
optimal lighting condition. I wouldn't see the manufacturers want to
sacrifice price and size for the mass market products.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:51:38 AM

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

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

I am sure you will see such cameras in the near future, but right now
the sensors are a bit more expensive than will fit into the current
price niche for P*S cameras. Just be patient for another year or so.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:03:24 PM

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

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point
> and shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want
> to be burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size
> differential of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to
> ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very
> small, 12x optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet
> when I look at sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even
> compared to my Sony DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for
> such a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot
> cameras, but still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry
> about dust on the sensor!

As soon was you make a sensor as big as the one in an SLR, all the lenses
need to be as big and heavy as SLR lenses, so any size advantage is gone.
There is one system (the 4/3 system) which has a sensor half the
dimensions of an SLR, but the lenses so far seem to be about the same size
and weight as SLR lenses so, for me, all the potential gain of the system
is gone.

The best P&S performance so far seems to be from the 7MP sensors, although
the 8MP 8.8mm x 6.6mm sensors can be quite good as well. Look for the
largest physical sensor size you can get. I have the FZ5, which I keep at
its lowest ISO, and noise on prints up to 10 x 8 inches simply isn't an
issue.

David
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:13:10 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
[]
> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
> heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
> that changes somewhat.

Canon 350D - 540g
Panasonic FZ5 - 326g

540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF 75-300mm
f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.

It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all day
have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who want the
better high-ISO performance have that option as well.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:13:11 PM

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:q4IEe.76115$G8.10635@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Skip M wrote:
> []
>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
>> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
>> heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
>> that changes somewhat.
>
> Canon 350D - 540g
> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
>
> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF 75-300mm
> f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
>
> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all day
> have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who want the
> better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't carry this
any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more capable unit than
the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes the equation.
I agree, though, horses for courses...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:39:08 PM

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

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor@primetime.com>
wrote:

>When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>equivalent to one in a digital SLR?

Perhaps wait for the Leica 'Digital M'?

Better start saving for it, in fact...

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:52:09 PM

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

Hi,

Interesting conversation. Right now I'm using the Canon 350XT with the
kit lens (version 2) and a 70-300mm Sigma lens.

I also have a Fuji S7000 fixed lens camera which I enjoy using. It has
an electronic view finder and takes decent pictures. The 6 MB's can be
doubled (with Fuji's camera interpolation) and the camera has many
other interesting features (color, chrome, B/W choices with built-in
filters).

My third camera is a mature Nikon Coolpix 950 which I seldom use
nowadays. It has done wonderful macro work in the past.

I find this a pretty good digital mix for my various activities.

Best,

Conrad


--
Conrad
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 5:26:46 PM

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

> Skip M wrote:
> []
> > Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> > cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> > smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
> > heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
> > that changes somewhat.

How heavy and expensive is a 350D with a F2.4-3.5 28-140 zoom lens ?

Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting, which
is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses and the one of the Canon Pro 1
as well.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 5:26:47 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4d9947d2a5df8e98ac6c@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Skip M wrote:
>> []
>> > Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>> > cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
>> > smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
>> > heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
>> > that changes somewhat.
>
> How heavy and expensive is a 350D with a F2.4-3.5 28-140 zoom lens ?
>
> Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting, which
> is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses and the one of the Canon Pro 1
> as well.

A Canon 350D with a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM would run about $1400 And the
sensor size, which you, Alfred, always seem to discount, will get you,
overall, better images than the FZ, even without considering the difference
between 5mp and 8mp. The Canon's sensor is 22.2mm x 14.8mm. The Panasonics
checks in at, what, 8mm x 6mm? So the better ISO performance of the Canon
will make up for the slower lens. And that lens won't give you any
vignetting on the APS-C sensor. I've had that lens on a 20D for nearly a
year now, and never seen any evidence of vignetting. I did on the wide end,
wide open, with my film cameras, but, for obvious reasons, that hasn't been
a problem with the digital.
Further, the Canon gives you the option of wider, or longer, lenses, and
faster ones, than the Panasonic can.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 5:26:47 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting, which
> is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses

What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:24:05 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:q4IEe.76115$G8.10635@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Skip M wrote:
>> []
>>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter
>>> and smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally
>>> larger and heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add
>>> a lens and that changes somewhat.
>>
>> Canon 350D - 540g
>> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
>>
>> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF
>> 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
>>
>> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all
>> day have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who
>> want the better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
> In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't
> carry this any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more
> capable unit than the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes
> the equation. I agree, though, horses for courses...

Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
capability, so be it.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 6:24:06 PM

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

In article <9wNEe.76254$G8.54717@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
> capability, so be it.

For the next few days I'll have my 10D with Big Ed hanging on my
shoulder. It's no biggie, but then I'm used to packing an electric
Hasselblad around.
July 24, 2005 7:44:00 PM

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

l e o wrote:

> Prime wrote:
>
>> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>>
>> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point
>> and shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want
>> to be burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size
>> differential of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to
>> ignore.
>>
>> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small,
>> 12x optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I
>> look at sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even
>> compared to my Sony DSC-P200.
>>
>> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for
>> such a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot
>> cameras, but still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry
>> about dust on the sensor!
>
>
> Larger sensor requires larger, more expensive lenses. The fact is the
> current P&S's are good enough for the general public when use under
> optimal lighting condition. I wouldn't see the manufacturers want to
> sacrifice price and size for the mass market products.


When a zlr can have an electronic viewfinder that displays at least
close to the full 8mp at 25fps with no (as in practically zero) delay,
then a large sensor zlr makes sense. I'd buy one. The mirror on an slr
is just an necessary evil - noisy, delicate, destined to fail in the
end, and probably a significant cost component of a dslr.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 10:29:35 PM

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

In article <240720050901581727%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>In article <9wNEe.76254$G8.54717@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
>Taylor
><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
>> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
>> capability, so be it.
>
>For the next few days I'll have my 10D with Big Ed hanging on my
>shoulder. It's no biggie, but then I'm used to packing an electric
>Hasselblad around.

Last weekend, I did the Snowdon Horseshoe hike/scramble in Wales. 7 miles,
1000 metres of ascent, and much of it needed to be done on all-fours. It was
sunny and hot (pushing 30 Celsius and quite humid). I did the whole thing
with just shy of 10 kilos of large format gear on my back, as well as a
Mamiya 7 medium format for backup. Heavy, but worth it. Ended up taking
this:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Snowdon.jpg

In the full-res scan, not only can you see individual people on the top of
the mountain (you can just about make out where they are in the JPEG - the
little dots on the ridge are people), you can also distingish their limbs.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:00:17 AM

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

Prime <PrimeFactor@primetime.com> writes:

> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

The sensors of that resolution and quality are large, expensive -- and
have no provision for live video output, hence no ability to drive an
LCD preview monitor. Changing that would lower the quality of the
image (the space has to come from somewhere).

Still, I do think we'll see better sensors in high end P&S cameras in
time.

Also, giving up the ability to change lenses is something no serious
photographer will consider for his main camera. I've got a 29:1 ratio
from longest to shortest lens -- and my shortest lens hardly even
qualifies as wideangle (on a digital body). (That's not counting
teleconverters). I've also owned perspective-control lenses (shift),
and bellows and extension tubes for close-focusing, and strange things
like a pinhole body cap. I'd be very seriously limited by any of the
P&S cameras in the market today (not even getting into responsiveness,
image quality, repeat rate, ability to interface to flash systems, and
many other such issues).

And it's not just that I've accumulated 35+ years worth of equipment
and bad habits. When I was in college, I had an almost 30:1 focal
length ratio for my Pentax, and I had and used extension tubes for
close-up photography, and I used multiple flash, and bounce flash,
routinely.
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:50:38 AM

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

In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
says...

> What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.

The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or
less big vignetting issues. Here is an example:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
"The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
wide angle and maximum aperture"

If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:50:39 AM

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

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
> says...
> > Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting,
> > > which is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses
> >
> > What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> > any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> > vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>
> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or less
> big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
> wide angle and maximum aperture"

So a single lens, at full wide-angle and maximum aperture, exhibited
some vignetting (the same issue you say exists with the C-8080), which
somehow to you means that *most* DSLR lenses have vignetting problems

> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.

This is true of all formats. The bigger the format, the larger the lens
needed. Unless you're doing pinhole photography... But the point is that
if you use a film lens on a digital SLR, vignetting problems pretty much
get cropped away. And if you use the made-for-digital lenses (with their
smaller image circle), then vignetting *might* be an issue.

I have a friend who has the C-8080 and loves it. I was considering
getting one instead of the *ist DS. But the ability to use older lenses
on the DSLR appealed.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:06:17 AM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4e2b7ead53f68b98ac72@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
> says...
>
>> What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
>> any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
>> vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>
> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or
> less big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
> wide angle and maximum aperture"
>
> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

That's nice, Alfred. That also isn't the lens you asked if there was an
equivalent. I said "28-135 IS" you counter with 18-55. Nice way to discuss
things. If you find you are wrong about one lens segue to another without
mentioning that you are talking about another lens.
The 28-135 IS has a diameter of 72mm, which seems perfectly sufficient for
the task at hand. Although I have no idea where you got those
specifications...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:09:18 AM

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

Skip M wrote:
<snip Prime's msg>
>
> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and heavier
> than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and that changes
> somewhat.

If you wish to compare apples to apples, then do so.
To say that the EOS digital is only slightly heavier than the Oly
C-8080 is not comparing it equipped with a similar zoom range lens.
The Oly has a 28mm to 140mm (35mm equiv) zoom lens and weighs 724 g
(1.6 lb) with a battery.
The Canon comes standard with a 18mm to 55mm zoom lens and weighs (with
battery and lens) battery 724g (1.6 lb).
When you add a large zoom lens (or lenses) that will cover the 28mm to
140mm zoom range (of the Oly C-808), then the combined weight is much
greater.
The closest (in zoom range) on the Canon USA website is the EF 28-135mm
IS, it weighs 1.2 lb (540g) on its own!
The total weight for a comparable EOS 350D (to an Oly C-8080) set-up is
2.4 lb (1080g or 1.08 kg).
Comparing EOS 350D at 1.08kg (2.4 lb) to the Olympus C-8080 at 724g
(1.6 lb) is no contest, the Oly wins (is lighter) by 276g (or almost
30% lighter).

If you are comparing bulk (as in volume), then the Oly also wins.
It is 124 x 85 x 99 mm (4.9 x 3.3 x 3.9 in) versus the EOs 360D at 127
x 190.8 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) with the 28 to 135mm lens.
The Oly _still_ wins in the bulk stakes.

Size and weight wise the Oly C-8080 is smaller and _also_ lighter than
a similarly equipped EOS 350D.

What is lost using the Oly Vs the EOS is low light performance.
The 350D is has definitely much, much less noise.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:17:47 AM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
posted the exciting message
news:gXHEe.76112$G8.1726@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> Prime wrote:
>> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>>
>> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point
>> and shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want
>> to be burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size
>> differential of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to
>> ignore.
>>
>> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very
>> small, 12x optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet
>> when I look at sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even
>> compared to my Sony DSC-P200.
>>
>> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image
>> sensor equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major
>> market for such a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and
>> shoot cameras, but still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't
>> worry about dust on the sensor!
>
> As soon was you make a sensor as big as the one in an SLR, all the
> lenses need to be as big and heavy as SLR lenses, so any size
> advantage is gone. There is one system (the 4/3 system) which has a
> sensor half the dimensions of an SLR, but the lenses so far seem to be
> about the same size and weight as SLR lenses so, for me, all the
> potential gain of the system is gone.
>
> The best P&S performance so far seems to be from the 7MP sensors,
> although the 8MP 8.8mm x 6.6mm sensors can be quite good as well.
> Look for the largest physical sensor size you can get. I have the
> FZ5, which I keep at its lowest ISO, and noise on prints up to 10 x 8
> inches simply isn't an issue.
>
> David
>
>
>

David - I'm the original poster. I've actually been looking at cameras
that would give me much of the utility of an SLR with smaller size. I was
close to buying the FZ5 since it offers much of what I seek - high zoom
with OIS, very light weight/size for what it does, good optics. Yet when
I compare the photos on Steve's Digicams from the FZ5 (specifically the
kayak picture) against those from my current Sony DSC-P200 or my former
Canon S410, I see a LOT more noise than from even my existing cameras.
This is one of the reasons I posted the original message. I really like
the FZ5, but the images from it as well as the Sony DSC-H1 and Canon
Powershot S2 are noisy. I like the Oly 8080 from a quality perspective
but I don't really want a camera that large.

How have you found the FZ5 to be in your experience?

Prime
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:19:28 AM

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

<dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122275358.076872.9190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Skip M wrote:
> <snip Prime's msg>
>>
>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
>> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
>> heavier
>> than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and that changes
>> somewhat.
>
> If you wish to compare apples to apples, then do so.
> To say that the EOS digital is only slightly heavier than the Oly
> C-8080 is not comparing it equipped with a similar zoom range lens.
> The Oly has a 28mm to 140mm (35mm equiv) zoom lens and weighs 724 g
> (1.6 lb) with a battery.
> The Canon comes standard with a 18mm to 55mm zoom lens and weighs (with
> battery and lens) battery 724g (1.6 lb).
> When you add a large zoom lens (or lenses) that will cover the 28mm to
> 140mm zoom range (of the Oly C-808), then the combined weight is much
> greater.
> The closest (in zoom range) on the Canon USA website is the EF 28-135mm
> IS, it weighs 1.2 lb (540g) on its own!
> The total weight for a comparable EOS 350D (to an Oly C-8080) set-up is
> 2.4 lb (1080g or 1.08 kg).
> Comparing EOS 350D at 1.08kg (2.4 lb) to the Olympus C-8080 at 724g
> (1.6 lb) is no contest, the Oly wins (is lighter) by 276g (or almost
> 30% lighter).
>
> If you are comparing bulk (as in volume), then the Oly also wins.
> It is 124 x 85 x 99 mm (4.9 x 3.3 x 3.9 in) versus the EOs 360D at 127
> x 190.8 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) with the 28 to 135mm lens.
> The Oly _still_ wins in the bulk stakes.
>
> Size and weight wise the Oly C-8080 is smaller and _also_ lighter than
> a similarly equipped EOS 350D.
>
> What is lost using the Oly Vs the EOS is low light performance.
> The 350D is has definitely much, much less noise.
>
You will note that I did say that "Of course, add a lens and that changes
somewhat."
And check it against the Panasonic FZ30, an 8mp camera, speaking of apples
to apples.
Hmm, the Canon is 540g, vs. the Panasonic at 740g, and in height and depth,
it is smaller.


--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
July 25, 2005 6:18:24 AM

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

Fairly new to this, but your final comment piques my interest. Is it
possible to use existing SLR lenses on most/all DSLR's? Any drawbacks
(or rather, what are the benefits of lenses made for DSLR's? How
about IS lenses?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:46:12 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
>> says...
>> > Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting,
>> > > which is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses
>> >
>> > What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
>> > any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
>> > vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>>
>> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or less
>> big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
>> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
>> wide angle and maximum aperture"
>
>So a single lens, at full wide-angle and maximum aperture, exhibited
>some vignetting (the same issue you say exists with the C-8080), which
>somehow to you means that *most* DSLR lenses have vignetting problems
>
>> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
>> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
>> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
>
>This is true of all formats. The bigger the format, the larger the lens
>needed. Unless you're doing pinhole photography... But the point is that
>if you use a film lens on a digital SLR, vignetting problems pretty much
>get cropped away. And if you use the made-for-digital lenses (with their
>smaller image circle), then vignetting *might* be an issue.
>
>I have a friend who has the C-8080 and loves it. I was considering
>getting one instead of the *ist DS. But the ability to use older lenses
>on the DSLR appealed.

--

Monroe
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:18:25 AM

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

Monroe <minburn1@telus.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:46:12 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
[..]
> >I have a friend who has the C-8080 and loves it. I was considering
> >getting one instead of the *ist DS. But the ability to use older lenses
> >on the DSLR appealed.
>
> Fairly new to this, but your final comment piques my interest. Is it
> possible to use existing SLR lenses on most/all DSLR's? Any drawbacks (or
> rather, what are the benefits of lenses made for DSLR's? How about IS
> lenses?

It depends on the camera, but most DSLRs have a backward-compatible
mount. I have the Pentax *ist DS and use it with lenses from as far back
as the 60s (Aetna-Soligor 135mm/2.8 M42 mount I got at a thrift store
for $6).

Lenses made specifically for DSLRs usually have a smaller image circle,
so using them with a film camera with the same mount will probably work,
but you'll get a round image in the middle of your print. :-)

I've written up some stuff about using the *ist DS with older manual
lenses here:

<http://www.mile23.com/node/26&gt;
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:18:25 AM

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

"Monroe" <minburn1@telus.net> wrote in message
news:e2j8e15fl912bku3d0ecb7ufi2k8moi1cq@4ax.com...
> Fairly new to this, but your final comment piques my interest. Is it
> possible to use existing SLR lenses on most/all DSLR's? Any drawbacks
> (or rather, what are the benefits of lenses made for DSLR's? How
> about IS lenses?
>
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:46:12 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
>

I use all of my Canon EF mount lenses on my 20D, there is no problem. The
possible benefit is that, since the sensor crops the outside edges, light
fall off and softness at the edges becomes less of an issue, at least
theoretically.
Two of the lenses I use are the 28-135 IS and 100-400 IS.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:42:06 AM

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

Skip M wrote:
> <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122275358.076872.9190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > Size and weight wise the Oly C-8080 is smaller and _also_ lighter than
> > a similarly equipped EOS 350D.
> >
> > What is lost using the Oly Vs the EOS is low light performance.
> > The 350D is has definitely much, much less noise.
> >
> You will note that I did say that "Of course, add a lens and that changes
> somewhat."
> And check it against the Panasonic FZ30, an 8mp camera, speaking of apples
> to apples.
> Hmm, the Canon is 540g, vs. the Panasonic at 740g, and in height and depth,
> it is smaller.

Which Canon lens gives you a 15x zoom ratio and how much does it weigh?
The FZ20 (which _is_ for sale now) has a 35 to 420mm f2.8 (constant)
zoom lens.
The closest single lens is the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and it
weighs in at 1670g (3.6 lb) on it's own (and it is _only_ a 10x zoom)!
It is one stop slower (at the wide end) and over twice the weight of
the FZ20!
That is on it's own, with no camera.
The total system weight would be at about 2kg (about 5 lb)!
Is that lighter or heavier than the FZ20?
You can't possibly believe that the EOS with that big, heavy hyperzoom
is going to be lighter than a (relatively) small and light ZLR like the
FZ20?!?
The Panasonic FZ20 would weigh about a quarter of the weight of an EOS
digital with a similar zoom ratio (and stabilised) lens.
Could you be mad to believe otherwise? ;-)

When considering the whole package (as you must when looking at ZLR
digicams), the ZLR wins (in this case) by a factor of 4 in the weight
stakes!
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:02:47 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at
> full wide angle and maximum aperture"
>
> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter
> to have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - are you implying that the 300D has
a sensor which is 8.8 x 6.6mm? If so, you are wrong.

David
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:17:51 PM

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

Prime wrote:
[]
> David - I'm the original poster. I've actually been looking at cameras
> that would give me much of the utility of an SLR with smaller size. I
> was close to buying the FZ5 since it offers much of what I seek -
> high zoom with OIS, very light weight/size for what it does, good
> optics. Yet when I compare the photos on Steve's Digicams from the
> FZ5 (specifically the kayak picture) against those from my current
> Sony DSC-P200 or my former Canon S410, I see a LOT more noise than
> from even my existing cameras. This is one of the reasons I posted
> the original message. I really like the FZ5, but the images from it
> as well as the Sony DSC-H1 and Canon Powershot S2 are noisy. I like
> the Oly 8080 from a quality perspective but I don't really want a
> camera that large.
>
> How have you found the FZ5 to be in your experience?

Prime,

As I said, on prints up to 10 x 8 inches noise from the FZ5 simply isn't
an issue, particularly as I keep the camera on its lowest ISO setting
(80). People make (what to me is) the mistake of looking at images on the
screen at 1:1 zoom - on the 19 inch 1280 x 1024 LCD monitor here that's a
full width of 29 inches. Of course, if you look at a print 29 inches wide
close-up you are going to see every imperfection in gory detail!

So, OK, if you are making massive prints for close-up examination, you
will most likely only be satisfied with a DSLR which has a much larger
sensor. If you are not doing that, then the FZ5 may be all the camera you
need. I have found that the light weight and compact shape of the FZ5
makes me take it with me when my former 35mm SLR camera would have been
left at home.

(One caveat, I also have a Nikon 8400 because of its wide-angle an swivel
LCD, which I bought before the FZ5 came out. Were I buying a single
camera today it might be the new FZ30 because of its wide-angle adapter
and swivel LCD viewfinder. The Canon S2 IS would also be a candidate,
although as far as I can tell the quality of its optics does not match the
Panasonic).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:22:06 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:30:13 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>Monroe <minburn1@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:46:12 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
>> wrote:
>[..]
>> >I have a friend who has the C-8080 and loves it. I was considering
>> >getting one instead of the *ist DS. But the ability to use older lenses
>> >on the DSLR appealed.
>>
>> Fairly new to this, but your final comment piques my interest. Is it
>> possible to use existing SLR lenses on most/all DSLR's? Any drawbacks (or
>> rather, what are the benefits of lenses made for DSLR's? How about IS
>> lenses?
>
>It depends on the camera, but most DSLRs have a backward-compatible
>mount. I have the Pentax *ist DS and use it with lenses from as far back
>as the 60s (Aetna-Soligor 135mm/2.8 M42 mount I got at a thrift store
>for $6).
>
>Lenses made specifically for DSLRs usually have a smaller image circle,
>so using them with a film camera with the same mount will probably work,
>but you'll get a round image in the middle of your print. :-)

With Canon EF-S lenses, Canon specifically warns user to NOT put them
on cameras that are not designed to use them (currently, the DR/300D,
DR XT/350D, and 20D are designed to use the EF-S lenses) because of a
clearance problem between the mirror and the rear of the lens.
Otherwise, EF lenses are interchangable between EF-mount film and
digital cameras.
>
>I've written up some stuff about using the *ist DS with older manual
>lenses here:
>
><http://www.mile23.com/node/26&gt;

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:55:11 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
> says...
>
> > What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> > any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> > vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>
> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or
> less big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
> wide angle and maximum aperture"
>
> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
> --
*All* lenses vignette to some degree, specially WA lenses. But it's
moot, since readily available - some even free - software will remove
vignetting, as well as barrel/pincushion distortion, lateral CA, and
other minor defects in digital images. The two problems software cannot
fully handle are detail vs noise, and too much DoF, and that is where
the large-sensor dslr wins hands down.

Colin D
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:55:12 PM

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

In article <42E41C4F.EA60F70@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D says...

> *All* lenses vignette to some degree, specially WA lenses. But it's
> moot, since readily available - some even free - software will remove
> vignetting, as well as barrel/pincushion distortion, lateral CA, and
> other minor defects in digital images. The two problems software cannot
> fully handle are detail vs noise, and too much DoF, and that is where
> the large-sensor dslr wins hands down.

A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:55:13 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4e4e82deae061b98ac74@news.supernews.com...
>
> A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
> can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
> background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
> noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.


I don't think I'll ever need more DOF than f32 will give me....

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:57:28 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> Skip M wrote:
> > "David J Taylor"
> > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> > wrote in message
> > news:q4IEe.76115$G8.10635@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Skip M wrote:
> >> []
> >>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> >>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter
> >>> and smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally
> >>> larger and heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add
> >>> a lens and that changes somewhat.
> >>
> >> Canon 350D - 540g
> >> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
> >>
> >> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF
> >> 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
> >>
> >> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all
> >> day have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who
> >> want the better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
> >>
> > In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't
> > carry this any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more
> > capable unit than the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes
> > the equation. I agree, though, horses for courses...
>
> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
> capability, so be it.
>
Or 2½ pounds of lead, or feathers ...

Colin D
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:56:06 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kpFEe.18715$HV1.1253@fed1read07...
> "Prime" <PrimeFactor@primetime.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns969CC61C14BDDPrimeFactor@216.196.97.142...
>> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>>
>> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
>> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
>> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
>> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>>
>> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small,
>> 12x
>> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
>> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my
>> Sony
>> DSC-P200.
>>
>> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for
>> such
>> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
>> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
>> sensor!
>
> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
> heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and that
> changes somewhat.


I'm sorry, but what is a ZLR?

Thanks,

Norm
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:24:14 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Prime wrote:
> []
>
>>David - I'm the original poster. I've actually been looking at cameras
>>that would give me much of the utility of an SLR with smaller size. I
>>was close to buying the FZ5 since it offers much of what I seek -
>>high zoom with OIS, very light weight/size for what it does, good
>>optics. Yet when I compare the photos on Steve's Digicams from the
>>FZ5 (specifically the kayak picture) against those from my current
>>Sony DSC-P200 or my former Canon S410, I see a LOT more noise than
>>from even my existing cameras. This is one of the reasons I posted
>>the original message. I really like the FZ5, but the images from it
>>as well as the Sony DSC-H1 and Canon Powershot S2 are noisy. I like
>>the Oly 8080 from a quality perspective but I don't really want a
>>camera that large.
>>
>>How have you found the FZ5 to be in your experience?
>
>
> Prime,
>
> As I said, on prints up to 10 x 8 inches noise from the FZ5 simply isn't
> an issue, particularly as I keep the camera on its lowest ISO setting
> (80). People make (what to me is) the mistake of looking at images on the
> screen at 1:1 zoom - on the 19 inch 1280 x 1024 LCD monitor here that's a
> full width of 29 inches. Of course, if you look at a print 29 inches wide
> close-up you are going to see every imperfection in gory detail!
>
> So, OK, if you are making massive prints for close-up examination, you
> will most likely only be satisfied with a DSLR which has a much larger
> sensor. If you are not doing that, then the FZ5 may be all the camera you
> need. I have found that the light weight and compact shape of the FZ5
> makes me take it with me when my former 35mm SLR camera would have been
> left at home.
>
> (One caveat, I also have a Nikon 8400 because of its wide-angle an swivel
> LCD, which I bought before the FZ5 came out. Were I buying a single
> camera today it might be the new FZ30 because of its wide-angle adapter
> and swivel LCD viewfinder. The Canon S2 IS would also be a candidate,
> although as far as I can tell the quality of its optics does not match the
> Panasonic).
>
> Cheers,
> David


ISO 80?
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:30:12 PM

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

l e o wrote:
[]
> ISO 80?

Yes, that is the lowest setting on the FZ5. I use that setting by
default.

David
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 6:39:43 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> l e o wrote:
> []
>
>>ISO 80?
>
>
> Yes, that is the lowest setting on the FZ5. I use that setting by
> default.
>
> David


I know - just surprise that you can use such a low ISO. You must be
shoot outdoor or stationary photos only.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:16:27 PM

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

l e o wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> l e o wrote:
>> []
>>
>>> ISO 80?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is the lowest setting on the FZ5. I use that setting by
>> default.
>>
>> David
>
>
> I know - just surprise that you can use such a low ISO. You must be
> shoot outdoor or stationary photos only.

It's one of the reasons I want image stabilisation on a small-sensor
camera! My shots of Formula 1 racing cars in action were indeed taken in
sunlight.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:40:50 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>l e o wrote:
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>>ISO 80?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, that is the lowest setting on the FZ5. I use that setting by
>>>default.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>>
>>I know - just surprise that you can use such a low ISO. You must be
>>shoot outdoor or stationary photos only.
>
>
> It's one of the reasons I want image stabilisation on a small-sensor
> camera! My shots of Formula 1 racing cars in action were indeed taken in
> sunlight.
>
> Cheers,
> David


IS doesn't stop action so you must be shooting snails when you're away
from the sun. I have an IS lens so you don't need to prepare a speech
for that.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:44:29 PM

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:H01Fe.76670$G8.12457@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> []
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
>> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at
>> full wide angle and maximum aperture"
>>
>> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
>> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter
>> to have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here - are you implying that the 300D has
> a sensor which is 8.8 x 6.6mm? If so, you are wrong.
>
> David
>
He's wrong, no matter what he means. The implication, here, is that a 58mm
diameter lens will cause vignetting on any sensor larger than 8.8 x 6.6mm.
That would mean that the Canon 100mm f2 (58mm) or the 50mm f1.8 (52mm) would
cause vignetting on film. And the 77mm diameter 24-70 would, too, on film
and on a 1Ds mkII. Which, of course, is nonsense.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:48:50 PM

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

<dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122295326.445909.25780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1122275358.076872.9190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> Which Canon lens gives you a 15x zoom ratio and how much does it weigh?
> The FZ20 (which _is_ for sale now) has a 35 to 420mm f2.8 (constant)
> zoom lens.
> The closest single lens is the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and it
> weighs in at 1670g (3.6 lb) on it's own (and it is _only_ a 10x zoom)!
> It is one stop slower (at the wide end) and over twice the weight of
> the FZ20!
> That is on it's own, with no camera.
> The total system weight would be at about 2kg (about 5 lb)!
> Is that lighter or heavier than the FZ20?
> You can't possibly believe that the EOS with that big, heavy hyperzoom
> is going to be lighter than a (relatively) small and light ZLR like the
> FZ20?!?
> The Panasonic FZ20 would weigh about a quarter of the weight of an EOS
> digital with a similar zoom ratio (and stabilised) lens.
> Could you be mad to believe otherwise? ;-)
>
> When considering the whole package (as you must when looking at ZLR
> digicams), the ZLR wins (in this case) by a factor of 4 in the weight
> stakes!
>

WOULD YOU GUYS PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND????
I SAID "Of course, add a lens and that changes somewhat." And the question
was about a 28-135 lens, not the weirdly wild zoom ratios of the ZLRs. And
do you actually think that the FZ30 is going to get you as good a set of
images as the Canon? Even with the 28-300?


--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:09:05 PM

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

l e o wrote:
[]
> IS doesn't stop action so you must be shooting snails when you're away
> from the sun. I have an IS lens so you don't need to prepare a speech
> for that.

Dogs and children don't form part of my interest!

Having said that, I did take some evening photos of a train ride in the
Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen, where I used the blur caused by the slower
shutter speeds to good effect. That was with a Nikon 5700 where I'd
allowed the ISO to ride to ISO 400 and it still needed 1/10s exposure....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:47:12 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
>> can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
>> background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
>> noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.
>
> I don't think I'll ever need more DOF than f32 will give me....

Lack of DOF isn't a problem, even with MF, if you know what you are doing.
(This one's with 645.)

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:47:13 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D c25em$hn4$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
>>> can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
>>> background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
>>> noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.
>>
>> I don't think I'll ever need more DOF than f32 will give me....
>
> Lack of DOF isn't a problem, even with MF, if you know what you are doing.
> (This one's with 645.)
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

"Not enough DOF" was an odd thing to say, I think.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:52:56 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <42E41C4F.EA60F70@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D says...
>
> > *All* lenses vignette to some degree, specially WA lenses. But it's
> > moot, since readily available - some even free - software will remove
> > vignetting, as well as barrel/pincushion distortion, lateral CA, and
> > other minor defects in digital images. The two problems software cannot
> > fully handle are detail vs noise, and too much DoF, and that is where
> > the large-sensor dslr wins hands down.
>
> A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
> can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
> background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
> noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.
> --
There aren't many situations where more dof is required, specially as
the 1.5 and 1.6-crop cameras already have more dof than full 35mm to
start with. As for using the lowest ISO with P&S's, that gives away
practically all of what advantage a P&S might claim. Using ISO 50 or 64
on a P&S - if indeed it is selectable (not all P&S's allow you to select
ISO) will dictate long exposure times, when a good slr can use 400 or
800, even 1600 ISO.

I don't know if you've actually tried selectively blurring sharp
backgrounds. It's not easy to get progressively more blur with
distance, and where there is fine foreground in-focus detail it's damn
near impossible. A kludge at best.

Colin D.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:52:57 PM

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

Colin D wrote:

>
> I don't know if you've actually tried selectively blurring sharp
> backgrounds. It's not easy to get progressively more blur with
> distance, and where there is fine foreground in-focus detail it's damn
> near impossible. A kludge at best.
>
> Colin D.

It might surprise you to hear Colin, that at least one program I know of
(if I know about it there is probably more than one)which specifically
lets you alter the background focus with a number of options for total
loss of detail to what many call by a name not in the dictionary nor in
Photographic text books and one I can't pronounce so won't even try
here... It's BOKEH.
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:52:58 PM

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

Pixby wrote:
> Colin D wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know if you've actually tried selectively blurring sharp
>> backgrounds. It's not easy to get progressively more blur with
>> distance, and where there is fine foreground in-focus detail it's damn
>> near impossible. A kludge at best.
>>
>> Colin D.
>
>
> It might surprise you to hear Colin, that at least one program I know of
> (if I know about it there is probably more than one)which specifically
> lets you alter the background focus with a number of options for total
> loss of detail to what many call by a name not in the dictionary nor in
> Photographic text books and one I can't pronounce so won't even try
> here... It's BOKEH.


You need to show us some samples. Selecting the subject from background
is time consuming. I have used many masking tools, but none are perfect.
I guess all these P&S people are really ingenious. And especially Alfred
who can flip the facts back and fro to make his points.

I don't think the digital cameras would make bigger sensor for the P&S
market. now even Sony has entered the dSLR market. It's wise to make a
clear distinction of P&S users and pro/semi pro dSLR users. Take a look
at the camcorder market. Sony had a TRV900 with 1/4" sensor. The
replacement, TRV950 has 1/4.7" sesnor. Of course, the low light
performent of the newer camcorder is proportionally poor. Sony wouldn't
care because they know people want high quality would shell out more
money and get a much bulkier VX2000 with 1/3" sensor! Same with P&S and
dSLR market.

The mirror in the dSLR does need improvement, but EVF is NOT the
solution. if you dislike optical viewfind and need to whine about that,
you are free to use many P&S designed just for you.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 9:52:51 PM

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

Leonard wrote:
> dj_nme@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Which Canon lens gives you a 15x zoom ratio and how much does it weigh?
> > The FZ20 (which _is_ for sale now) has a 35 to 420mm f2.8 (constant)
> > zoom lens.
>
> Which FZ20 lens is faster than f2 and how much does it weigh? Which
> gives the angle of view of a 20mm or wider?
>
> - Len

That is not relavent (in this discussion), all I am doing is comparing
like to like.

Did your (or _any_) DSLR come with a 35 to 420mm IS f2.8 (constant) kit
lens?
It didn't, doesn't and wont.
If are going to compare, then you must use a similar setup (lens wise,
at least) on both the ZLR and the DSLR.
Otherwise you are _cheating_ in your (in this case, weight) comparison.

The fact remains that to equip an EOS digital with a lens even close to
the one that is built into (even) the (humble) Panasonic FZ20, it will
weigh about four times as much.
No amount of to-ing or fro-ing on your part will change it.

I don't care what other lenses you can use with your DSLR, it can't
compete on weight _if_ you put a similar zoom lens to the ZLR.
July 25, 2005 10:03:00 PM

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

dj_nme@hotmail.com wrote:

> Which Canon lens gives you a 15x zoom ratio and how much does it weigh?
> The FZ20 (which _is_ for sale now) has a 35 to 420mm f2.8 (constant)
> zoom lens.

Which FZ20 lens is faster than f2 and how much does it weigh? Which
gives the angle of view of a 20mm or wider?

- Len
!