«

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (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..._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.

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
quality light.

I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography
before deciding which camera to buy.

To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at
least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting
equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements.

That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention
will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but
frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them.

Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
will find out in a hurry what you are up against.

Wally

"Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
news:hf4klt$66j$...
[]
> 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.

No idea, Paul. The Panasonic cameras I've used had batteries which were
widely obtainable at good quality and a reasonable price. Same with my
Nikon DSLRs.

If your batteries don't work in the FZ35 you would entitled to a full
refund in the UK as the goods would not be "fit for purpose". Let's know
what you find.

Cheers,
David

"Wally" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
> That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
> will find out in a hurry what you are up against.
>
> Wally

Excellent suggestion - although you /can/ take good macro shots with some
small-sensor cameras given enough light. Their larger depth of field can
be an advantage for this application. Out in the field we may not be
talking studio conditions - tripods, focussing rails etc.

Cheers,
David

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:50:37 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <0O3Rm.10423$> ,
>David J Taylor <david-> 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.

Dunno if that's much of an issue now. I bought a spare battery for my
compact ZR-1 from eBay that is as good as its claim that it will work
with the new firmware. Only downside was costing twice as much as the
cheap jobbos, though was still a third the price of genuine.

On Nov 30, 4:46*pm, nos...@nospam.com (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...Z35_FZ38/outdo...
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...Z35_FZ38/verdi...
>
> 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 * * * |

Since outdoors will be your main use a polariser filter will be real
helpfull, can both cameras take filters, I think the Panasonic does.
I see AA batteries as a slight benefit, you havnt considered Sony who
probably makes the sensors for the other companies and usualy their
own cameras have a bit better performance, but only slightly. On Macro
you may be dissapointed unless you research more, ive had focusing
problems with an older similar camera, maybe by now my issues have
been fixed.

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:32:43 -0700, Wally <> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (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..._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.
>
>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
>quality light.


This is the main drawback of all DSLRs. P&S cameras aren't hindered by all
these problems. P&S cameras are EXCELLENT for macro and micro photography.
But then, you'd have to actually have experience with these fields of
photography to learn and know this.

I do wish that you inexperienced snapshooters would educate yourselves some
day.


>
>I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography
>before deciding which camera to buy.
>

I suggest that YOU spend some time learning about close-up photography.
Because, clearly, you know absolutely NOTHING about it.

>To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at
>least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting
>equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements.
>
>That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention
>will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but
>frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them.

How very wrong you are.

>
>Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
>That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
>will find out in a hurry what you are up against.

Yes, you should try that someday. Then you wouldn't be handing out such
ignorant snapshooters' nonsense.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:11:45 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:

>"Wally" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>[]
>> Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
>> That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
>> will find out in a hurry what you are up against.
>>
>> Wally
>
>Excellent suggestion - although you /can/ take good macro shots with some
>small-sensor cameras given enough light. Their larger depth of field can
>be an advantage for this application. Out in the field we may not be
>talking studio conditions - tripods, focussing rails etc.
>
>Cheers,
>David

sigh ... Another idiot spewing out his troll's crap and nonsense. Due to a
P&S camera's extra DOF then you don't NEED to stop down the lens to get
enough DOF. You can take HAND-HELD macro-photography in available light
conditions where you wouldn't even be able to take that same photo with any
DSLR at all, ever. You would need ISO's above 128,000 in those situations
if trying to use a DSLR.

Get your ****ingly useless and ignorant trolls' heads out of your asses.

In article <>,
Wally <> 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
>quality light.

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.

I realize now that these better cameras with the larger sensors
may not go as close without special lenses. I still don't think
I am enough of a photographer to fully utilize, let alone justify,
a $ingle Len$ Reflex camera.

>Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
>That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
>will find out in a hurry what you are up against.

The decision had to be made in time for Christmas ordering, alas.
It sounds like I will have to become a more experienced photographer
in order to regret getting the Panasonic.

Except for the battery bullshit. I may end up regretting that on
Christmas morning.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <>,
>Wally <> 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
>>quality light.
>
>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.

Wally

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <>,
>Wally <> 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
>>quality light.
>
>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.

Wally