Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic FZ3 Vs S1 IS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 2:07:05 PM

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

I am considering buying an Ultra Zoom ZLR camera. Of the few available
I had finally shortlisted FZ3 and S1. From the many reviews and user
experiances that I came across it is very clear that both are
excellent cameras and value for money.
From reviews it is also clear that FZ3 has slight edge over S1 due to
better glass from Leica, my decision will mostly depend on their
capability to take night pictures. The min shutter speed on FZ3 is 8
sec compared to 15 sec for S1. does it means that S1 can take pictures
which otherwise would have remained underexposed on FZ3.
On dcresources there are sample night shots of both the cameras,and
the one from S1 looks much better
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz3-rev...
It is also evident from the above snap that FZ3 shows vignetting.
Based on these two pictures, is it fair to conclude that S1 does a
better job at nocturnal photography.

tks,
Amit

More about : panasonic fz3

Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:15:52 PM

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

Amit Gangrade wrote:
> I am considering buying an Ultra Zoom ZLR camera. Of the few available
> I had finally shortlisted FZ3 and S1. From the many reviews and user
> experiances that I came across it is very clear that both are
> excellent cameras and value for money.

If the two cameras are that close for you, why not visit your photo store
and compare the ergonomics of the cameras? Battery type and memory card
type may also affect your choice. The two night shots you listed are so
dissimilar as to make comparison impossible, I would contend.

Our personal choice was the Panasonic FZ20 over the Canon S1 IS, but they
are not as comparable as the FZ3 and the S1 IS.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:28:55 AM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<36q0jpF54aa5aU1@individual.net>...
> Amit Gangrade wrote:
> > I am considering buying an Ultra Zoom ZLR camera. Of the few available
> > I had finally shortlisted FZ3 and S1. From the many reviews and user
> > experiances that I came across it is very clear that both are
> > excellent cameras and value for money.
>
> If the two cameras are that close for you, why not visit your photo store
> and compare the ergonomics of the cameras? Battery type and memory card
> type may also affect your choice. The two night shots you listed are so
> dissimilar as to make comparison impossible, I would contend.

That seems logical, but the only problem is the place where I am
living, penetration of Panasonic digital cameras is very less. Most
stores are stuffed with Canon and Nikon products. I thought it would
be better to know more abt FZ3 before jumping on to S1 IS.

> Our personal choice was the Panasonic FZ20 over the Canon S1 IS, but they
> are not as comparable as the FZ3 and the S1 IS.

FZ3 with proprietary battery would have done slightly more damage to
my pocket but for better night pictures, those few extra $ were worth
it.

Thnx for your reply. I think I will go ahead and buy S1 next week.

Amit
Related resources
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 9:14:01 PM

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

You might check this written by someone who have tried both cameras:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&m...

I have the S1IS, and apart from some low light focusing problems I'm very
happy with it.

--
Jan Otto

"Amit Gangrade" <amitg@cse.iitb.ac.in> wrote in message
news:ab65c6fa.0502071107.1f4435a3@posting.google.com...
>I am considering buying an Ultra Zoom ZLR camera. Of the few available
> I had finally shortlisted FZ3 and S1. From the many reviews and user
> experiances that I came across it is very clear that both are
> excellent cameras and value for money.
> From reviews it is also clear that FZ3 has slight edge over S1 due to
> better glass from Leica, my decision will mostly depend on their
> capability to take night pictures. The min shutter speed on FZ3 is 8
> sec compared to 15 sec for S1. does it means that S1 can take pictures
> which otherwise would have remained underexposed on FZ3.
> On dcresources there are sample night shots of both the cameras,and
> the one from S1 looks much better
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz3-rev...
> It is also evident from the above snap that FZ3 shows vignetting.
> Based on these two pictures, is it fair to conclude that S1 does a
> better job at nocturnal photography.
>
> tks,
> Amit
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:07:00 AM

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

"Amit Gangrade" <amitg@cse.iitb.ac.in> wrote in message
news:ab65c6fa.0502071107.1f4435a3@posting.google.com...
> I am considering buying an Ultra Zoom ZLR camera. Of the few available
> I had finally shortlisted FZ3 and S1. From the many reviews and user
> experiances that I came across it is very clear that both are
> excellent cameras and value for money.
> From reviews it is also clear that FZ3 has slight edge over S1 due to
> better glass from Leica, my decision will mostly depend on their
> capability to take night pictures. The min shutter speed on FZ3 is 8
> sec compared to 15 sec for S1. does it means that S1 can take pictures
> which otherwise would have remained underexposed on FZ3.
> On dcresources there are sample night shots of both the cameras,and
> the one from S1 looks much better
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz3-rev...
> It is also evident from the above snap that FZ3 shows vignetting.
> Based on these two pictures, is it fair to conclude that S1 does a
> better job at nocturnal photography.

Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:51:50 PM

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

True211 wrote:
[]
> Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.

Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
marginally adequate these days....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:51:51 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3761tnF598jf1U1@individual.net...
> True211 wrote:
> []
> > Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
>
> Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
> marginally adequate these days....

PMA is just around the corner. To be fair, I was comparing the 3MP version
of the Panasonic. Of course, the S1 cannot touch the higher res Panasonics.
Those ZLRs kick ass. I'm not sure, however, if the new cheaper versions of
the FZ20 and FZ15 will hold up to the grade. The images look pretty jaggy
to me in the FZ5 review I posted to this group.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:51:51 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> True211 wrote:
> []
> > Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
>
> Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
> marginally adequate these days....
>

If you mostly make small prints, like 4x6, with an occasional 8x10 and
nothing larger, 3MP is fine, far more than "marginally adequate". If
you don't make larger prints, and don't often crop extensively, the
extra MP don't really get you any real benefit, but do take more space
on memory cards, hard disks, and backup media.

Lisa
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:52:04 PM

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

David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
> Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
> marginally adequate these days....
>

The (potentially affordable!) camera I really wanted was the back end of
a G5 with the lens from an S1 IS. Alas Canon didn't see fit to build it ;P

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:52:05 PM

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

"Pete Fenelon" <pete@stratos.fenelon.com> wrote in message
news:4lqkuc.na7.ln@fenelon.com...
> David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
> > Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is
only
> > marginally adequate these days....
> >
>
> The (potentially affordable!) camera I really wanted was the back end of
> a G5 with the lens from an S1 IS. Alas Canon didn't see fit to build it ;P

Do you like the Pro1? They are heavily discounted now. Rumors say that a
replacement might be in the works.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:06:43 PM

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

True211 wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:3761tnF598jf1U1@individual.net...
>> True211 wrote:
>> []
>>> Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
>>
>> Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP
>> is only marginally adequate these days....
>
> PMA is just around the corner. To be fair, I was comparing the 3MP
> version of the Panasonic.

Accepted - I was moving the conversation in a slightly different
direction....

> Of course, the S1 cannot touch the higher
> res Panasonics. Those ZLRs kick ass. I'm not sure, however, if the
> new cheaper versions of the FZ20 and FZ15 will hold up to the grade.
> The images look pretty jaggy to me in the FZ5 review I posted to this
> group.

The images we're seeing from the FZ20 have no such artefacts. We can
reasonably expect all manufacturers to produce better and better pictures,
but one problem with thw very long zoom cameras is that if the sensor gets
too big (as more megapixels might force it to), the lenses themselves
would get bigger and heavier, and some of the size advantage enjoyed by
the present range of cameras might be lost.

BTW: Canon (as I recall) promise "20 new digital cameras" last year. Did
they deliver on what they promised? (Just for interest - I'm not trying
to say they did or they did not).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:06:44 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3769qkF58km43U1@individual.net...

> BTW: Canon (as I recall) promise "20 new digital cameras" last year. Did
> they deliver on what they promised? (Just for interest - I'm not trying
> to say they did or they did not).

I count 19 announcements in 2004:

Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon PowerShot S410 (Digital IXUS 430)
Canon PowerShot SD110 (Digital IXUS IIs)
Canon PowerShot A75
Canon PowerShot A310
Canon PowerShot S500 (Digital IXUS 500)
Canon PowerShot Pro1
Canon PowerShot S1 IS
Canon PowerShot S60
Canon PowerShot A85
Canon PowerShot G6
Canon EOS 20D
Canon PowerShot A400
Canon PowerShot A95
Canon PowerShot S70
Canon PowerShot SD20 (Digital IXUS i5)
Canon PowerShot SD200 (Digital IXUS 30)
Canon PowerShot SD300 (Digital IXUS 40)
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

I wonder which model didn't make it!?! ;) 
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:49:54 PM

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

True211 wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:3769qkF58km43U1@individual.net...
>
>> BTW: Canon (as I recall) promise "20 new digital cameras" last year.
>> Did they deliver on what they promised? (Just for interest - I'm
>> not trying to say they did or they did not).
>
> I count 19 announcements in 2004:
[]
> I wonder which model didn't make it!?! ;) 

I'll forgive them a 5% error margin! <G>

David
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:49:55 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:376jcjF59rjsvU1@individual.net...
> True211 wrote:
> > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:3769qkF58km43U1@individual.net...
> >
> >> BTW: Canon (as I recall) promise "20 new digital cameras" last year.
> >> Did they deliver on what they promised? (Just for interest - I'm
> >> not trying to say they did or they did not).
> >
> > I count 19 announcements in 2004:
> []
> > I wonder which model didn't make it!?! ;) 
>
> I'll forgive them a 5% error margin! <G>

They were probably planning to get the 8MP followup to the Rebel 300D out
sooner, but it didn't work out. That's my guess.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:36:04 PM

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

Lisa Horton wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> True211 wrote:
>> []
>>> Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
>>
>> Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP
>> is only marginally adequate these days....
>>
>
> If you mostly make small prints, like 4x6, with an occasional 8x10 and
> nothing larger, 3MP is fine, far more than "marginally adequate". If
> you don't make larger prints, and don't often crop extensively, the
> extra MP don't really get you any real benefit, but do take more space
> on memory cards, hard disks, and backup media.
>
> Lisa

Lisa,

I think we are saying the same thing but with a different emphasis - I did
say adequate, but qualified it with marginal because of the cropping and
large print issues you mentioned. Yes, I have seen good 10 x 8 (actually
A4 size) print from 3MP, but going to 5MP or 8MP does give a perceptibly
improved quality. Perhaps "just adequate" would have been a better
description.

Cheers,
David
February 13, 2005 9:33:57 AM

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

Lisa Horton wrote:

>
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
> >
> > True211 wrote:
> > []
> > > Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
> >
> > Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
> > marginally adequate these days....
> >
>
> If you mostly make small prints, like 4x6, with an occasional 8x10 and
> nothing larger, 3MP is fine, far more than "marginally adequate"

That doesn't even come close to 300 PPI, which is a good measure of
"photo quality". I find that 3MP images start to look soft at sizes
larger than 5 X 7.


--

Thaddeus Lipshitz
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:27:45 PM

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

Thad wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > David J Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > True211 wrote:
> > > []
> > > > Go with the Canon. You will not regret it.
> > >
> > > Is it about time that Canon brought out a 5MP camera with IS? 3MP is only
> > > marginally adequate these days....
> > >
> >
> > If you mostly make small prints, like 4x6, with an occasional 8x10 and
> > nothing larger, 3MP is fine, far more than "marginally adequate"
>
> That doesn't even come close to 300 PPI, which is a good measure of
> "photo quality". I find that 3MP images start to look soft at sizes
> larger than 5 X 7.


You sure about that? My 3MP camera produces files that are 2048x1536,
about right for a 4x5 at 300DPI or so.

Otherwise, yes, they do start looking soft at sizes larger than that,
but likely no worse than the typical consumer is used to from their P&S
or disposable.

But the point I was trying to make though, is that if you mainly print
4x6 (or 4x5, as appropriate), and rarely print larger sizes, 3MP is
plenty sufficient for that size of print, without unecessary usage of
storage resources.

Lisa

PS: odd followup you have set there...
!