Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 1 Dec 2009 17:24 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >news:hf396a$gld$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >[] >> Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese >> in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if >> they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an >> SLR yet. > >I was responding to your remark about image quality important. Many of >today's DSLRs have an automatic mode which works in a similar way to that >on a compact camera, but you may want to use less automation to get more >control of the settings once you learn more about photography, and that >applies equally to DSLRs as is does to small sensor cameras. > >In ideal taking conditions, small-sensor cameras can produce good quality >images, but if the light is poor, and the camera's sensitivity needs to be >increased (and cameras will do this automatically for you), the "noise" in >the image will increase, leading to a grainy appearance and some loss of >detail. Yet pro photographers have been taking photos on ASA25, ASA64, ASA100, and ASA200 all their lives for nearly a century. Higher ISOs are only required by those that don't know how to use a camera properly--beginner snapshooters. > With a DSLR this grain only appears in much lower lighting >conditions than with a small-sensor camera, enabling you to take good >pictures where otherwise you might only get a blur or a very grainy image. Again proving that you don't even know how to use a camera properly. >The lenses on DSLRs can be changed, so that you can buy ones far better >than those typically supplied on small-sensor cameras. While you miss shots and get dust on your sensor so all the photos that you take for the rest of that session after you have changed your lens are now ruined. If you get any at all, considering by the time you change lenses your chances for having captured that shot are now long gone. > These benefits >come with a size, weight and cost penalty, though. The only real penalty comes from trying to use last-century's DSLR designs. (Would you like to see that 27-points list again? Or did you never read it yet?) Those who know how to use cameras find no penalties and nothing but gains by using high-quality P&S cameras.
From: rwalker on 1 Dec 2009 19:30 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:24:53 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "David J Taylor" ><david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >>"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>news:hf396a$gld$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>[] >>> Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese >>> in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if >>> they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an >>> SLR yet. >> >>I was responding to your remark about image quality important. Many of >>today's DSLRs have an automatic mode which works in a similar way to that >>on a compact camera, but you may want to use less automation to get more >>control of the settings once you learn more about photography, and that >>applies equally to DSLRs as is does to small sensor cameras. >> >>In ideal taking conditions, small-sensor cameras can produce good quality >>images, but if the light is poor, and the camera's sensitivity needs to be >>increased (and cameras will do this automatically for you), the "noise" in >>the image will increase, leading to a grainy appearance and some loss of >>detail. > >Yet pro photographers Oh shut up.
From: ray on 1 Dec 2009 20:12 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote: > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon > PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is supposed > to have better quality optics and faster electronics; I don't know > enough about photography to tell if this online review is agreeing with > that assessment or not: > > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/ outdoor_results.shtml > > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/ verdict.shtml > > Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape and > ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only about the > quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can do on a > computer. I do not expect video to play a large role. > > Does anyone here have any personal experience with either (or better > yet, both) of these cameras that they would care to share? For starters, I can just about guarantee that the salesman knows less about it that you do. Your best bet: handle them both - see which one feels better and has more intuitive (to you) menus.
From: SMS on 1 Dec 2009 21:15 Paul Ciszek wrote: <snip> > I care only about the quality of the captured image; Clearly you _do not_ care about the quality of the captured image if you're choosing between the FZ35 and the SX20. What you're doing requires a D-SLR for quality images. There's no nice way to put it.
From: Paul Ciszek on 1 Dec 2009 21:50
In article <0O3Rm.10423$Ym4.3597(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >To compare features side-by-side: > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sx20is%2Cpanasonic_dmcfz35&show=all Something that article doesn't address: Has Panasonic stopped pulling the "proprietary batteries only" trick? I just found out about it AFTER ordering batteries from Amazon that were advertized as "fitting" the FZ35. The ad may even have been honest as far as it goes...the batteries *fit* in the right place, they have the right voltage, they just don't have the coded chip. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled | |