Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20

Reply
Thread Tools

Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20

 
 
Paul Ciszek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2009
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/Pa..._results.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa.../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?

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2009
"Paul Ciszek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hf1i10$kb1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...cfz35&show=all

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.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2009
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:42:52 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Paul Ciszek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:hf1i10$kb1$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...cfz35&show=all
>
>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.
>
>Cheers,
>David


You mean like how these smaller sensor G9 and G11 P&S cameras beat the new
Canon D7 DSLR?

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

Or how this very small sensor SX10 beats another DSLR?

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Or maybe you meant this page, where a small sensor P&S camera can now
compete with a medium-format Hasselblad, even when that Hasselblad is
securely mounted on a tripod and the shutter tripped by a remote-release.
Yet the P&S camera is only balanced on top and the shutter pressed with a
finger. And still they can't tell the images apart between the two based on
image quality alone.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Is that what you meant by not being able to produce "as good" image quality
as a DSLR, because smaller sensor P&S cameras can actually create BETTER
image quality than a DSLR? Is that what you meant?

You must have. Only an idiot troll with no real photography experience
would try to say something that is in direct opposition to all the real
evidence.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Ciszek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2009

In article <0O3Rm.10423$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>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.


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.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2009
"Paul Ciszek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hf396a$gld$(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> 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. 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.
The lenses on DSLRs can be changed, so that you can buy ones far better
than those typically supplied on small-sensor cameras. These benefits
come with a size, weight and cost penalty, though.

Probably either model would suit your needs - handle both in the shop and
see which you prefer.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2009
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Paul Ciszek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:hf396a$gld$(E-Mail Removed)...
>[]
>> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
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/Pa...DMC_FZ35_FZ38/

outdoor_results.shtml
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
DSLR-Troll Killer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:15:21 -0800, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.



Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,

Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.

If nothing else, be sure to read reasons 4, 26, and 27. What fun!


1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.

26. A good P&S camera can even rival the images produced by a Medium-Format
Hasselblad H2. Something that no DSLR owner would even think of trying to
do. Even when the Hasselblad is securely mounted on an expensive and hefty
tripod, the mirror locked-up, and using a self-timer and cable-release to
trip the shutter to ensure the utmost in image resolution and clarity;
while the P&S camera was just set on top of the Hasselblad, HAND-HELD, and
the shutter tripped with a finger. The images between the two cameras are
still indistinguishable. Don't believe it? Then you need to enjoy this fun
read. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

27. Even the latest DSLR from Canon, the D7, can't beat the image quality
from their earlier G9 and G11 P&S cameras.
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/


There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
just one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Ciszek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009

In article <0O3Rm.10423$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>To compare features side-by-side:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...cfz35&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 |
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35 Dave Cohen Digital Photography 15 02-28-2011 02:13 AM
Difference Between Canon G11 and PowerShot SX20 IS Bubba Digital Photography 12 04-13-2010 10:42 PM
Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter Paul Ciszek Digital Photography 25 01-28-2010 08:03 PM
DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review Dudley Hanks Digital Photography 12 11-06-2009 07:57 AM
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 vs DMC-FZ35 sobriquet Digital Photography 1 10-04-2009 03:01 PM



Advertisments