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

 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Dec 1, 8:32*pm, Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (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. *

>
> 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

I have had a number of P&S cameras that have done a great job at close
up photogrpahy. I love my DSLR for most things, but for close up
photograph my P&S is often the better choice.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I have had a number of P&S cameras that have done a great job at close
>up photogrpahy. I love my DSLR for most things, but for close up
>photograph my P&S is often the better choice.


I had a Nikon P&S that I used to close-up photograph a number of US
gold coins. It was much easier to set up for this purpose than my
current Nikon dslr. The photographs were just as good as the ones
I've taken later with the dslr.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Dec 1, 8:32*pm, Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (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. *

>>
>> 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

>I have had a number of P&S cameras that have done a great job at close
>up photogrpahy. I love my DSLR for most things, but for close up
>photograph my P&S is often the better choice.


Well, I have the Canon G7, a great P&S, but it really sucks at
close-up.

Wally
 
Reply With Quote
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:43:07 -0700, Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 1, 8:32*pm, Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (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. *
>>>
>>> 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

>>I have had a number of P&S cameras that have done a great job at close
>>up photogrpahy. I love my DSLR for most things, but for close up
>>photograph my P&S is often the better choice.

>
>Well, I have the Canon G7, a great P&S, but it really sucks at
>close-up.
>
>Wally


IT doesn't suck at close-up photography -- YOU DO. There's a huge
difference.

 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Paul Ciszek 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.


I think that the two main questions are going to be:

a) camera vs camera ... minimum focus distances

b) regardless of camera ... providing sufficient illuminiation,
especially fill to eliminate shadows from the proximity of the camera
itself.

On the latter, I've done some ad hoc macro work with a P&S, and have
frequently encountered issues with getting the lighting sorted out:
use of the built-in flash often causes wash-out, and trying to offset
this by going natural light can precipitate the P&S camera itself
blocking off illumination within the field of view. Something to
potentially consider would be a bright white light and flexible
mounting system ... the latter to help compose, and the former to
provide a constant (not flash) light source so as to more easily sort
out proper exposure (camera can pretend its 'natural' light).


-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
Wally wrote:

> Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may
> be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20.


Yes, this is true. When the original poster stated "I care only
about the quality of the captured image" it made it sound like he was
looking for very high quality images, which would necessitate the use of
D-SLR in this case. Clearly "quality" is a relative term!

Here's what one of the foremost experts in digital photography says
about the issue of macro work on P&S versus D-SLRs:

"Macro work requires precise focusing, which is not possible on a P&S
camera. It would be possible to put a very high resolution LCD on a P&S
in order to make precise focusing possible, but that would add a lot of
cost to the camera."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2009
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:01:49 -0800 (PST), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek 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.

>
>I think that the two main questions are going to be:
>
>a) camera vs camera ... minimum focus distances
>
>b) regardless of camera ... providing sufficient illuminiation,
>especially fill to eliminate shadows from the proximity of the camera
>itself.
>
>On the latter, I've done some ad hoc macro work with a P&S, and have
>frequently encountered issues with getting the lighting sorted out:
>use of the built-in flash often causes wash-out, and trying to offset
>this by going natural light can precipitate the P&S camera itself
>blocking off illumination within the field of view.


Wow, what a moron. IF you have ever actually used a camera, I'm surprised
you even got this far in trying to learn how to use one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2009
Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>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


Go away, asshole troll.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2009
DSLR-Troll Killer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>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


Go away, asshole troll.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2009
On 03 Dec 2009 04:15:51 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>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

>
>Go away, asshole troll.


Your comment is off topic. Please stick to the topic.
 
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