Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bowser on 28 May 2010 12:50 On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in ><6mfvv5d0lqkk7q9b2tf9ed9niprg7t1jgd(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas >><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in >>><2kvtv5tpsrnqlso7hg4q3aalcrvq26d593(a)4ax.com>: > >>>>Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >>>>the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >>>>Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. >>> >>>Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed >>>for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you >>>configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. >>>I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the >>>same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with >>>the FZ35. >> >>Nah, it's configured just fine. > >Apparently not. > >>Every time we go down this road I ask >>you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. >>Some other time, John. > >I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you >are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. OK, just this once: You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II. When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 that match the 5D II. We're all waiting.
From: Bowser on 28 May 2010 12:51 On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:06 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:00 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in ><tpfvv5tn0cnukom6neniqc14oa1cta5e1b(a)4ax.com>: > >>Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes >>ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass >>on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore >>me. > >'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, >whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' And your evidence is....where?
From: SMS on 28 May 2010 12:57 On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote: <snip> > The temptation to wait for the next new iteration, however, was never > very strong. I was just concerned that if I bought today and a new one > was announced tomorrow I might just have missed something that was > 'better'. Note the *might*! We're really at the point now where there's not going to be any significant improvements unless there is some new sensor technology that emerges. Other than SLRs with larger sensors, even the megapixel wars seem to have mostly ended because the manufacturers don't want to further reduce the high ISO performance or increase noise. Also, what often happens is the replacement model is worse than the one it replaces, not better, because features that are deemed too costly are removed, i.e. optical viewfinder, articulated LCD, etc. The interchangeable lens non-DSLRs are the new market segment that Sony and the Micro 4:3 consortium is trying to promote but it's unclear that there's any demand for such a system that lacks many of the advantages of D-SLRs, and addresses only the question of physical size.
From: SMS on 28 May 2010 13:05 On 28/05/10 1:52 AM, David J Taylor wrote: > Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good > lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings > (e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8) > available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you > wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided. > > Your needs, your money, your choice. Many people simply don't care all that much about optimal image quality. The ZLR is convenient, relatively inexpensive, and suits their needs. One of my relatives is a Realtor. He needs a wide zoom range for photo tours of houses. He needs video capability. But he doesn't care about noise, he doesn't care about shutter/AF lag, and he definitely does not want to carry around three lenses with him. An SX1 IS was perfect for him. Of course he has a D-SLR as well for times with image quality _is_ the most important factor.
From: John Navas on 28 May 2010 13:21
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:50:35 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in <80tvv55kb4q74ie5gf7v2lrvjpvp7b1jjv(a)4ax.com>: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas ><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you >>are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. > >OK, just this once: > >You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. ... I haven't said that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is your position so weak you have to put words in my mouth? >When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 >that match the 5D II. I have no interest in ISO 3200. Is your position so weak you have to resort to fringe situations? The FZ28 and FZ35 do the job for 99% of the things I want to do, and I'm not terribly concerned about the other 1%. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |