From: Wally on 2 Dec 2009 12:07
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul
>In article <gd1ch59pq53vu0o8i893o10mai9k7cfq2t(a)4ax.com>,
>Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote:
>>Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
>>demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
>>becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
>>sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
>>shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
>My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of
>flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small
>sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It
>makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I
>understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was
>not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available.
Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may
be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20.
From: Paul Ciszek on 3 Dec 2009 01:21
In article <oi7dh5t4333vck54agsqes9msjbk0ig5cv(a)4ax.com>,
Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote:
>>My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of
>>flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small
>>sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It
>>makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I
>>understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was
>>not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available.
>Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may
>be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20.
It worked fine for closeups of flowers and lichen; it sucked at
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
From: -hh on 3 Dec 2009 05:47
On Dec 2, 6:33 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote:
Back again and begging for my attention again, I see.
'Roll Over! Play Dead!'
You're still pwned.
FWIW, an *invisible* P&S camera would solve the light-shadowing
problem I mentioned. Which part of the CHDK hack is that? :-)
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 02:09
"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>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:
> 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?
I just recently bought a Panasonic FZ35 myself, and like it very much so far
though I haven't as yet done much shooting with it. (I have at least 25
digital cameras, so generally speaking no one of them sees a great deal of
I have earlier models of Panasonic (FZ15) and Canon (S2 IS) cameras of this
type, and much prefer the Panasonic as the lens appears to me to be
significantly better and the overall build quality seems better too. I do
like the articulating LCD screen of the Canon models and wish the Panasonic
had it, but I still prefer the Panasonic anyway. Apart from seeming to be a
better quality camera all-around, the FZ35 is much smaller and lighter than
the Canon SX20 IS.
I have not done any extreme close-up work with any camera of this type so
cannot comment on that. The cameras I use for that sort of photography are
DSLRs with true macro lenses, but of course that is a much more expensive
proposition. I have no doubt that the FZ35 will work well at close-up within
reasonable limits, and Panasonic makes a close-up accessory lens which can
be attached by means of an adapter tube which presumably is better still. (I
have no experience with that accessory, however.)
If you'd like I can try some close-up stuff with my FZ35 and let you know
how that goes.
From: Bob Larter on 5 Dec 2009 03:57
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:42:52 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
>>> 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;
>> Yes, one the Panasonics I've used the optics are better than Canon, and
>> Panasonic don't do as much image processing, leading to sharper but
>> slightly noisier (more "grain") images. Your choice!
>> To compare features side-by-side:
>> Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider
>> field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and
>> lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will
>> produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you
>> already know that.
> You mean like how these smaller sensor G9 and G11 P&S cameras beat the new
> Canon D7 DSLR?
Except that they don't of course.
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est