Looking for a "prosumer" camera recommendation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Recer, Sep 13, 2007.

  1. Ron Recer

    Ron Recer Guest

    "TommyC" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    > by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    > letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    >
    > Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    > didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    >
    > Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    >
    > ======================================================
    > The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    > liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    >
    > - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    > - hot shoe for an external flash
    > - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    >
    > It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    > rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    > mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    >
    > What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    > around a $300 price point.
    > ======================================================
    >
    > The FZ20 is available from Amazon now for $250 or so, so I guess I could
    > easily just buy another one. But I'd researched that one for more than
    > a year before I got it, and I knew what I was getting, and it was
    > (pretty) state of the art when I got it. Today, I am sure better
    > cameras are available for the money. I just don't want to blindly grab
    > one based on ten minutes of "what looks good and what's on sale."
    >
    > I'm really not a megapixel fiend. The 5 MP one I had was fine for me.
    > If I spend a little more for a "better" camera than the FZ20, I'd like
    > the advances to be in areas other than megapixels.
    >
    > Anyway, some good recommendations based on the above would be
    > appreciated.


    Canon has some 10x or 12x zoom cameras, but I am not sure they meet your
    other criteria. Check out the Canon S3 and S5. I am not sure if there was
    an S4 or not.

    Ron
    Ron Recer, Sep 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Recer

    TommyC Guest

    I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.

    Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.

    Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:

    ======================================================
    The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:

    - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    - hot shoe for an external flash
    - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters

    It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.

    What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    around a $300 price point.
    ======================================================

    The FZ20 is available from Amazon now for $250 or so, so I guess I could
    easily just buy another one. But I'd researched that one for more than
    a year before I got it, and I knew what I was getting, and it was
    (pretty) state of the art when I got it. Today, I am sure better
    cameras are available for the money. I just don't want to blindly grab
    one based on ten minutes of "what looks good and what's on sale."

    I'm really not a megapixel fiend. The 5 MP one I had was fine for me.
    If I spend a little more for a "better" camera than the FZ20, I'd like
    the advances to be in areas other than megapixels.

    Anyway, some good recommendations based on the above would be
    appreciated.
    TommyC, Sep 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Recer

    flambe Guest

    The main difference between these cameras is raw or not and lens range.
    Name your poison.
    flambe, Sep 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Ron Recer

    Answer_Man Guest

    On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:32:55 -0500, "Ron Recer" <> wrote:

    >
    >"TommyC" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    >> by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    >> letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    >>
    >> Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    >> didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    >>
    >> Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    >>
    >> ======================================================
    >> The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    >> liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    >>
    >> - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    >> - hot shoe for an external flash
    >> - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    >>
    >> It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    >> rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    >> mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    >>
    >> What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    >> around a $300 price point.
    >> ======================================================
    >>
    >> The FZ20 is available from Amazon now for $250 or so, so I guess I could
    >> easily just buy another one. But I'd researched that one for more than
    >> a year before I got it, and I knew what I was getting, and it was
    >> (pretty) state of the art when I got it. Today, I am sure better
    >> cameras are available for the money. I just don't want to blindly grab
    >> one based on ten minutes of "what looks good and what's on sale."
    >>
    >> I'm really not a megapixel fiend. The 5 MP one I had was fine for me.
    >> If I spend a little more for a "better" camera than the FZ20, I'd like
    >> the advances to be in areas other than megapixels.
    >>
    >> Anyway, some good recommendations based on the above would be
    >> appreciated.

    >
    >Canon has some 10x or 12x zoom cameras, but I am not sure they meet your
    >other criteria. Check out the Canon S3 and S5. I am not sure if there was
    >an S4 or not.
    >
    >Ron
    >


    There was no S4, something about it sounding like "death" in Chinese.

    While those Canon cameras are excellent, I note that his first priority is
    shooting sports. This requires high shutter speeds to stop action in sometimes
    less than adequate lighting situations. While the Canons are fantastic with
    their IS in low-light and long zoom ranges, it won't help to stop fast moving
    subjects. Their higher-ISOs are also quite usable but not without some post
    processing.

    Instead I would recommend one of the Fuji P&S cameras like the S8000 fd (18x
    zoom), or S9100 (has hotshoe but only 10.7x zoom) or similar Fuji cameras. They
    excel at low-noise higher-ISOs for faster shutter speeds under most shooting
    conditions for sports. Any extra range you need can be obtained with
    tel-extenders on the shorter zoom cameras.

    You can sort through them here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/

    If you can't find one of those Fuji cameras that you like within your
    price-range that has a hot-shoe, don't overlook an inexpensive alternative by
    using a small bracket attached to the tripod socket to hold an external flash
    (of any design) with a slave-trigger. I recommend the Speedotron DS-1
    slave-trigger from Adorama for $33 because it compensates for any and all
    pre-flash modes in all digital camera's various shooting modes. It also allows
    you to turn any inexpensive flash into a tilt/swivel bounce-flash. Doing it this
    way has an added benefit of getting the flash even further away from the
    line-of-sight of the lens, than using any camera's hot-shoe, to further prevent
    any red-eye reflection problems.

    I get the feeling that: A) your camera is still not working, B) you still
    haven't given it enough drying time, or C) the main reason you hope it doesn't
    work and have not tested it yet is so you can get a new camera. We promise to
    not tell the wife that you "miraculously" got it working again after you buy the
    new one. Just tell her a week from now that you left it drying out, I mean, just
    accidentally sitting next to a rerun of a Billy Graham crusade and a clove of
    garlic.
    Answer_Man, Sep 14, 2007
    #4
  5. Ron Recer

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Answer_Man wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:32:55 -0500, "Ron Recer" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "TommyC" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    >>> by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    >>> letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    >>>
    >>> Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    >>> didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    >>>
    >>> Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    >>>
    >>> ======================================================
    >>> The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    >>> liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    >>>
    >>> - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    >>> - hot shoe for an external flash
    >>> - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    >>>
    >>> It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    >>> rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    >>> mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    >>>
    >>> What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    >>> around a $300 price point.
    >>> ======================================================
    >>>
    >>> The FZ20 is available from Amazon now for $250 or so, so I guess I could
    >>> easily just buy another one. But I'd researched that one for more than
    >>> a year before I got it, and I knew what I was getting, and it was
    >>> (pretty) state of the art when I got it. Today, I am sure better
    >>> cameras are available for the money. I just don't want to blindly grab
    >>> one based on ten minutes of "what looks good and what's on sale."
    >>>
    >>> I'm really not a megapixel fiend. The 5 MP one I had was fine for me.
    >>> If I spend a little more for a "better" camera than the FZ20, I'd like
    >>> the advances to be in areas other than megapixels.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway, some good recommendations based on the above would be
    >>> appreciated.

    >> Canon has some 10x or 12x zoom cameras, but I am not sure they meet your
    >> other criteria. Check out the Canon S3 and S5. I am not sure if there was
    >> an S4 or not.
    >>
    >> Ron
    >>

    >
    > There was no S4, something about it sounding like "death" in Chinese.
    >
    > While those Canon cameras are excellent, I note that his first priority is
    > shooting sports. This requires high shutter speeds to stop action in sometimes
    > less than adequate lighting situations. While the Canons are fantastic with
    > their IS in low-light and long zoom ranges, it won't help to stop fast moving
    > subjects. Their higher-ISOs are also quite usable but not without some post
    > processing.
    >
    > Instead I would recommend one of the Fuji P&S cameras like the S8000 fd (18x
    > zoom), or S9100 (has hotshoe but only 10.7x zoom) or similar Fuji cameras. They
    > excel at low-noise higher-ISOs for faster shutter speeds under most shooting
    > conditions for sports. Any extra range you need can be obtained with
    > tel-extenders on the shorter zoom cameras.
    >
    > You can sort through them here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/
    >
    > If you can't find one of those Fuji cameras that you like within your
    > price-range that has a hot-shoe, don't overlook an inexpensive alternative by
    > using a small bracket attached to the tripod socket to hold an external flash
    > (of any design) with a slave-trigger. I recommend the Speedotron DS-1
    > slave-trigger from Adorama for $33 because it compensates for any and all
    > pre-flash modes in all digital camera's various shooting modes. It also allows
    > you to turn any inexpensive flash into a tilt/swivel bounce-flash. Doing it this
    > way has an added benefit of getting the flash even further away from the
    > line-of-sight of the lens, than using any camera's hot-shoe, to further prevent
    > any red-eye reflection problems.
    >
    > I get the feeling that: A) your camera is still not working, B) you still
    > haven't given it enough drying time, or C) the main reason you hope it doesn't
    > work and have not tested it yet is so you can get a new camera. We promise to
    > not tell the wife that you "miraculously" got it working again after you buy the
    > new one. Just tell her a week from now that you left it drying out, I mean, just
    > accidentally sitting next to a rerun of a Billy Graham crusade and a clove of
    > garlic.
    >

    This is for Answer_Man. I find the price of that slave very attractive.
    My main problem with p&s is mostly red-eye, at times a longer range
    would be an advantage. Since the camera flash still fires, how does that
    affect red-eye. What about exposure, will my A95 still auto expose
    correctly, if not what do you do. Thanks
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Sep 14, 2007
    #5
  6. Ron Recer

    Answer_Man Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:27:17 GMT, Dave Cohen <> wrote:

    >This is for Answer_Man. I find the price of that slave very attractive.
    >My main problem with p&s is mostly red-eye, at times a longer range
    >would be an advantage. Since the camera flash still fires, how does that
    >affect red-eye. What about exposure, will my A95 still auto expose
    >correctly, if not what do you do. Thanks
    >Dave Cohen


    I half thought of addressing these issues, but there was so much to cover
    concerning them.

    Red-eye is caused (which you probably already know) by the eye reflecting back
    the light source in the very same direction as the source.

    Two things compound this problem. The angle between the light-source, the
    subject, and your point of view (or in this instance, the camera's point of
    view), and the pupil diameter. The larger the pupil the more light will get
    through and reflect back. It's also easier for the camera to record and see when
    the ambient lights in the image are dim due to contrast between the two, and the
    dim lights making everyone's pupils become larger.

    Most cameras use a pre-flash to trigger a person's eyes to briefly close their
    pupils. Someone under the influence of alcohol might have their pupillary
    reaction time being too slow for this to have enough effect, due to the very
    short duration between pre-flash and full-flash. There are many variables that
    can come into play.


    So here are just some general guidelines on ways to prevent it:

    Increase the ambient lights so that all the people's eyes will have their pupil
    size restricted. This even works on the hard-partier.

    Move the flash source as far away from the camera as possible. This is
    especially important when using long-zoom lenses on distant subjects. The
    further away the subject the narrower the angle between the flash, your subject,
    and your camera's lens. This is why the headlights from your car cause an
    animal's eyes to glow in the distance. The headlights of the car are
    (relatively) very far away from your line-of-sight, but the distance to that
    animal is great.

    When using any camera that uses a pre-flash red-eye reduction method it will
    help when the subject is close (and they aren't enjoying a good buzz at a
    party).

    IF the camera's onboard flash unit is small enough, then it going off to trigger
    your slave flash might be too dim to provide enough light for a nasty red-eye
    effect. If your camera's flash is powerful, then the onboard flash will add to
    the problem on distant subjects.

    So, the best thing you can do when using an externally triggered slave-flash is
    to make a small deflector for your camera's flash. A small piece of card or
    reflective plastic attached to your camera's flash so the light from it will go
    sideways and only hit the slave-trigger, masking its light output from your
    subject, instead of it going forward into your subject's eyes. Then the only
    problem with solving red-eye problems will be how far away you can get that
    flash from the camera depending on how far away your subject is from the camera.
    The further away your subject, the further you need to move the flash to
    increase that angle between camera, subject, and flash. If you have that
    slave-trigger attached to your flash unit don't hesitate to remove it from any
    bracket and hold it out to the side as far as you can if needed. I do some
    night-time wildlife photography. Animal eyes have evolved to be even more
    reflective and have larger pupils than humans, so knowing how this all works and
    how to prevent it can be an even larger concern. (Luckily, not many of them
    frequently eat fermented fruit too. :) )

    It's going to be a balancing act no matter what you do, and it varies from
    situation to situation, person to person, even how much they drank at that
    party, on whether or not your onboard flash and red-eye mode is going to help or
    add to the problem. There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution.

    If you now how and why it all works to cause or prevent it, then you have the
    tools you need to control it.

    Don't forget about post-processing too. There are times where you won't be able
    to reduce it much, particularly true when using a high-powered flash on a
    distant subject when using a long-zoom lens. Then you'll have to learn to use an
    editor as your easiest solution.


    Now, as far as auto-exposure is concerned: No, your slave-triggered external
    flash won't be able to use the camera's own auto-flash options. You are now
    relegating your onboard flash as only the trigger to turn on your external
    flash. Most flash units, even very inexpensive ones, usually come equipped with
    a thyristor circuit where they have their own auto-exposure mode(s) built-in.
    You need only set your camera for manual mode, with a shutter speed within range
    of its own flash-sync settings (with many P&S camera's flash-sync works at all
    shutter speeds), then set the camera's ISO and f/stop accordingly. There is
    usually a distance calculator or chart on the back of most auto-flash units that
    tell you what ISO and f/stop is needed for its auto-exposure settings. Keeping
    in mind too that you can always go one ISO level higher plus one f/stop smaller,
    or vice-versa, and have it still work the same. Some of them having switches to
    change between close, mid-range, and distant subjects too. If your camera does
    not have a manual mode on it then you're just going to have to experiment on how
    to balance the camera's flash with that of an external flash and at what
    distances you can use them together effectively.

    It's times like this is when you start learning to become a real photographer.
    Luckily, with digital, all you'd need to do is experiment to see what works and
    does not, with nothing lost but your time. You aren't wasting film to see which
    combos of flash output gets the right exposures with different subject
    distances.

    If having full-auto flash is extremely important to you, and you still need a
    more powerful flash for distant subjects, then you can get some thin fresnel
    lenses stacked together and make an adapter to focus your onboard flash to
    further distances. I use this method on a couple of my cameras. This completely
    does away with having any need for an external flash for more light output. It
    won't help with distant wide-angle subjects but for telephoto uses it's great.
    The further you focus that cone of light from the flash the less to the sides
    will be lit by it. Since I am only using the camera's flash for all the light
    source this way I still get to use the full auto-mode built into the camera. On
    one camera I can use its small flash on subjects up to 90 feet away. This is by
    far the most compact, energy efficient, and affordable solution for most of the
    reasons people want an external flash. Any red-eye from this method (if the
    camera's pre-flash doesn't help) is easily dealt with in editing.
    Answer_Man, Sep 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Answer_Man wrote:
    > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:27:17 GMT, Dave Cohen <> wrote:
    >
    >> This is for Answer_Man. I find the price of that slave very
    >> attractive. My main problem with p&s is mostly red-eye, at times a
    >> longer range would be an advantage. Since the camera flash still
    >> fires, how does that affect red-eye. What about exposure, will my
    >> A95 still auto expose correctly, if not what do you do. Thanks
    >> Dave Cohen

    >
    > I half thought of addressing these issues, but there was so much to
    > cover concerning them.
    >
    > Red-eye is caused (which you probably already know) by the eye
    > reflecting back the light source in the very same direction as the
    > source.
    >
    > Two things compound this problem. The angle between the light-source,
    > the subject, and your point of view (or in this instance, the
    > camera's point of view), and the pupil diameter. The larger the pupil
    > the more light will get through and reflect back. It's also easier
    > for the camera to record and see when the ambient lights in the image
    > are dim due to contrast between the two, and the dim lights making
    > everyone's pupils become larger.
    >
    > Most cameras use a pre-flash to trigger a person's eyes to briefly
    > close their pupils. Someone under the influence of alcohol might have
    > their pupillary reaction time being too slow for this to have enough
    > effect, due to the very short duration between pre-flash and
    > full-flash. There are many variables that can come into play.
    >
    >
    > So here are just some general guidelines on ways to prevent it:
    >
    > Increase the ambient lights so that all the people's eyes will have
    > their pupil size restricted. This even works on the hard-partier.
    >
    > Move the flash source as far away from the camera as possible. This is
    > especially important when using long-zoom lenses on distant subjects.
    > The further away the subject the narrower the angle between the
    > flash, your subject, and your camera's lens. This is why the
    > headlights from your car cause an animal's eyes to glow in the
    > distance. The headlights of the car are (relatively) very far away
    > from your line-of-sight, but the distance to that animal is great.
    >
    > When using any camera that uses a pre-flash red-eye reduction method
    > it will help when the subject is close (and they aren't enjoying a
    > good buzz at a party).
    >
    > IF the camera's onboard flash unit is small enough, then it going off
    > to trigger your slave flash might be too dim to provide enough light
    > for a nasty red-eye effect. If your camera's flash is powerful, then
    > the onboard flash will add to the problem on distant subjects.
    >
    > So, the best thing you can do when using an externally triggered
    > slave-flash is to make a small deflector for your camera's flash. A
    > small piece of card or reflective plastic attached to your camera's
    > flash so the light from it will go sideways and only hit the
    > slave-trigger, masking its light output from your subject, instead of
    > it going forward into your subject's eyes. Then the only problem with
    > solving red-eye problems will be how far away you can get that flash
    > from the camera depending on how far away your subject is from the
    > camera. The further away your subject, the further you need to move
    > the flash to increase that angle between camera, subject, and flash.
    > If you have that slave-trigger attached to your flash unit don't
    > hesitate to remove it from any bracket and hold it out to the side as
    > far as you can if needed. I do some night-time wildlife photography.
    > Animal eyes have evolved to be even more reflective and have larger
    > pupils than humans, so knowing how this all works and how to prevent
    > it can be an even larger concern. (Luckily, not many of them
    > frequently eat fermented fruit too. :) )
    >
    > It's going to be a balancing act no matter what you do, and it varies
    > from situation to situation, person to person, even how much they
    > drank at that party, on whether or not your onboard flash and red-eye
    > mode is going to help or add to the problem. There will never be a
    > one-size-fits-all solution.
    >
    > If you now how and why it all works to cause or prevent it, then you
    > have the tools you need to control it.
    >
    > Don't forget about post-processing too. There are times where you
    > won't be able to reduce it much, particularly true when using a
    > high-powered flash on a distant subject when using a long-zoom lens.
    > Then you'll have to learn to use an editor as your easiest solution.
    >
    >
    > Now, as far as auto-exposure is concerned: No, your slave-triggered
    > external flash won't be able to use the camera's own auto-flash
    > options. You are now relegating your onboard flash as only the
    > trigger to turn on your external flash. Most flash units, even very
    > inexpensive ones, usually come equipped with a thyristor circuit
    > where they have their own auto-exposure mode(s) built-in. You need
    > only set your camera for manual mode, with a shutter speed within
    > range of its own flash-sync settings (with many P&S camera's
    > flash-sync works at all shutter speeds), then set the camera's ISO
    > and f/stop accordingly. There is usually a distance calculator or
    > chart on the back of most auto-flash units that tell you what ISO and
    > f/stop is needed for its auto-exposure settings. Keeping in mind too
    > that you can always go one ISO level higher plus one f/stop smaller,
    > or vice-versa, and have it still work the same. Some of them having
    > switches to change between close, mid-range, and distant subjects
    > too. If your camera does not have a manual mode on it then you're
    > just going to have to experiment on how to balance the camera's flash
    > with that of an external flash and at what distances you can use them
    > together effectively.
    >
    > It's times like this is when you start learning to become a real
    > photographer. Luckily, with digital, all you'd need to do is
    > experiment to see what works and does not, with nothing lost but your
    > time. You aren't wasting film to see which combos of flash output
    > gets the right exposures with different subject distances.
    >
    > If having full-auto flash is extremely important to you, and you
    > still need a more powerful flash for distant subjects, then you can
    > get some thin fresnel lenses stacked together and make an adapter to
    > focus your onboard flash to further distances. I use this method on a
    > couple of my cameras. This completely does away with having any need
    > for an external flash for more light output. It won't help with
    > distant wide-angle subjects but for telephoto uses it's great. The
    > further you focus that cone of light from the flash the less to the
    > sides will be lit by it. Since I am only using the camera's flash for
    > all the light source this way I still get to use the full auto-mode
    > built into the camera. On one camera I can use its small flash on
    > subjects up to 90 feet away. This is by far the most compact, energy
    > efficient, and affordable solution for most of the reasons people
    > want an external flash. Any red-eye from this method (if the camera's
    > pre-flash doesn't help) is easily dealt with in editing.


    Thanks for the treatise on photography. You failed to answer the poster's
    question.
    TommyC, buy an FZ50, you won't regret it. If you must take pictures in the
    rain, there are plenty of old Nikonos out there!
    Dennis Pogson, Sep 14, 2007
    #7
  8. Ron Recer

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:18:33 GMT, Dennis Pogson wrote:

    >> It's times like this is when you start learning to become a real
    >> photographer. Luckily, with digital, all you'd need to do is
    >> experiment to see what works and does not, with nothing lost but your
    >> time. You aren't wasting film to see which combos of flash output
    >> gets the right exposures with different subject distances.

    . . .

    > Thanks for the treatise on photography. You failed to answer
    > the poster's question.


    One of his better replies but still, coming from the CHDK,
    anti-DSLR, PL-32 sock puppet, it's wise to take his bias into
    account. I'd also take some slight exception with its :

    > While the Canons are fantastic with their IS in low-light and long
    > zoom ranges, it won't help to stop fast moving subjects. Their
    > higher-ISOs are also quite usable but not without some post processing.


    Even post processing won't eliminate the noise produced by their
    tiny sensors (S3 IS and S5 IS) at higher ISOs. Noise which can be
    noticeable even in pictures taken in bright light at the camera's
    lowest ISOs. That said, if noise wasn't seen to be a problem with
    the FZ20, it won't be with the S3 or S5, which are both pretty good
    cameras. They're quite similar, and while I'd go with the S3 over
    the S5 due to intervalometer shooting being removed from the S5, the
    OP may find the S5's flash hot shoe makes it a better choice.

    Not surprisingly, one of the answers omitted by Answer_Man was to
    get a small DSLR, which would not only provide better image quality
    in many situations, would have much better high ISO quality,
    important for allowing higher shutter speeds often needed for sports
    photography. They'd also allow many more shots per charge than the
    500+ claimed for the FZ20, and would allow for much better flash
    control using higher power external flashes, which would eliminate
    practically all redeye. Higher cost would be a disadvantage, but
    the less expensive P&S cameras would completely miss many "action"
    shots that would be no problem for DSLRs

    > TommyC, buy an FZ50, you won't regret it. If you must take pictures
    > in the rain, there are plenty of old Nikonos out there!


    An FZ20 may be the best solution for a camera upgrade. The OP may
    not recognize the "Nikonos" name (I used to own one), the type of
    "sensor" it uses, nor the limited zoom range of its lens. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 14, 2007
    #8
  9. On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:03:22 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:18:33 GMT, Dennis Pogson wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for the treatise on photography. You failed to answer
    >> the poster's question.

    >


    On the contrary, you failed to read it properly to realize that the answer was
    addressing Dave Cohen's question. He wasn't trying to answer TommyC's question
    in this one.

    There must be a stupidity-wave passing through this part of the galaxy at the
    moment. I've never seen so much ignorance and stupidity being posted by so many
    in such a short span of time.


    >
    > Even post processing won't eliminate the noise produced by their
    >tiny sensors (S3 IS and S5 IS) at higher ISOs. Noise which can be
    >noticeable even in pictures taken in bright light at the camera's
    >lowest ISOs. That said, if noise wasn't seen to be a problem with
    >the FZ20, it won't be with the S3 or S5, which are both pretty good
    >cameras. They're quite similar, and while I'd go with the S3 over
    >the S5 due to intervalometer shooting being removed from the S5, the
    >OP may find the S5's flash hot shoe makes it a better choice.
    >
    > Not surprisingly, one of the answers omitted by Answer_Man was to
    >get a small DSLR, which would not only provide better image quality
    >in many situations, would have much better high ISO quality,
    >important for allowing higher shutter speeds often needed for sports
    >photography. They'd also allow many more shots per charge than the
    >500+ claimed for the FZ20, and would allow for much better flash
    >control using higher power external flashes, which would eliminate
    >practically all redeye. Higher cost would be a disadvantage, but
    >the less expensive P&S cameras would completely miss many "action"
    >shots that would be no problem for DSLRs
    >
    >> TommyC, buy an FZ50, you won't regret it. If you must take pictures
    >> in the rain, there are plenty of old Nikonos out there!

    >
    > An FZ20 may be the best solution for a camera upgrade. The OP may
    >not recognize the "Nikonos" name (I used to own one), the type of
    >"sensor" it uses, nor the limited zoom range of its lens. :)


    Another idiot.

    The OP didn't want any overpriced, noisy, and clunky DSLR or he would have
    stated that line of cameras in his interests.

    Why is it that those who are foolish enough to buy a DSLR always want to
    encourage everyone else to join them in their stupidity. Misery must love
    company.
    IFoundMoreIdiots!, Sep 14, 2007
    #9
  10. Ron Recer

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:09:53 GMT, The wavicle formerly known as
    IFoundMoreIdiots! wrote:

    > There must be a stupidity-wave passing through this part of the galaxy
    > at the moment. I've never seen so much ignorance and stupidity being
    > posted by so many in such a short span of time.


    A little self reflection will show that the incredible stupidity
    that you're observing is just a reflection. Yours, sock puppet. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 14, 2007
    #10
  11. Ron Recer

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:16:44 -0400, TommyC wrote:

    > I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    > by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    > letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    >
    > Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    > didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    >
    > Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    >
    > ======================================================
    > The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    > liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    >
    > - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    > - hot shoe for an external flash
    > - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    >
    > It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    > rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    > mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    >
    > What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    > around a $300 price point.
    > ======================================================
    >
    > The FZ20 is available from Amazon now for $250 or so, so I guess I could
    > easily just buy another one. But I'd researched that one for more than
    > a year before I got it, and I knew what I was getting, and it was
    > (pretty) state of the art when I got it. Today, I am sure better
    > cameras are available for the money. I just don't want to blindly grab
    > one based on ten minutes of "what looks good and what's on sale."
    >
    > I'm really not a megapixel fiend. The 5 MP one I had was fine for me.
    > If I spend a little more for a "better" camera than the FZ20, I'd like
    > the advances to be in areas other than megapixels.
    >
    > Anyway, some good recommendations based on the above would be
    > appreciated.


    The Kodak P series meets the requirements you've stated. With the caveat
    that you'd need to purchase the lens adapter for filter threads. I
    purchased a P850 last winter from the Kodak online web site (refurb) for
    $250 including the printer dock. IMHO - it's worth a look.
    ray, Sep 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Ron Recer

    John Turco Guest

    ray wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:16:44 -0400, TommyC wrote:
    >
    > > I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    > > by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    > > letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    > >
    > > Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    > > didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    > >
    > > Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    > >
    > > ======================================================
    > > The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    > > liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    > >
    > > - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    > > - hot shoe for an external flash
    > > - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    > >
    > > It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    > > rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    > > mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    > >
    > > What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    > > around a $300 price point.


    <edited, for brevity>

    > The Kodak P series meets the requirements you've stated. With the caveat
    > that you'd need to purchase the lens adapter for filter threads. I
    > purchased a P850 last winter from the Kodak online web site (refurb) for
    > $250 including the printer dock. IMHO - it's worth a look.



    Hello, Ray:

    As a fellow P850 owner, I concur with your recommendation. It's simply
    a shame that Kodak discontinued its "P" series of advanced digicams,
    recently.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Sep 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Ron Recer

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:38:09 -0500, John Turco wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >>
    >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:16:44 -0400, TommyC wrote:
    >>
    >> > I'd posted separately in rec.photo.digital about screwing my camera up
    >> > by being in the rain with it, then repeatedly turning it on without
    >> > letting it dry. Dumb mistake, and lesson learned.
    >> >
    >> > Part of that thread asked for a recommendation for a new camera, but I
    >> > didn't get any meaningful response from that, so I'm asking here.
    >> >
    >> > Here is what I'd asked about, copied from that thread:
    >> >
    >> > ======================================================
    >> > The camera I had was an FZ20 from the Panasonic Lumix line. What I
    >> > liked about it, and have come to rely on, were:
    >> >
    >> > - 12x zoom - I shoot a lot of sports
    >> > - hot shoe for an external flash
    >> > - threaded lens barrel, for lens hood and/or filters
    >> >
    >> > It used an SD card, which I know is pretty common. The proprietary
    >> > rechargeable battery was always good for 500+ shots (many done in burst
    >> > mode). I think most of what else it had is common in cameras.
    >> >
    >> > What are some good cameras to consider as replacements? I'm thinking of
    >> > around a $300 price point.

    >
    > <edited, for brevity>
    >
    >> The Kodak P series meets the requirements you've stated. With the caveat
    >> that you'd need to purchase the lens adapter for filter threads. I
    >> purchased a P850 last winter from the Kodak online web site (refurb) for
    >> $250 including the printer dock. IMHO - it's worth a look.

    >
    >
    > Hello, Ray:
    >
    > As a fellow P850 owner, I concur with your recommendation. It's simply
    > a shame that Kodak discontinued its "P" series of advanced digicams,
    > recently.


    I was not aware they had. I'll have to look into that. IMHO a fine EVF.


    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>
    ray, Sep 17, 2007
    #13
  14. Ron Recer

    John Turco Guest

    ray wrote:
    >
    > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:38:09 -0500, John Turco wrote:


    <edited, for brevity>

    > >> The Kodak P series meets the requirements you've stated. With the caveat
    > >> that you'd need to purchase the lens adapter for filter threads. I
    > >> purchased a P850 last winter from the Kodak online web site (refurb) for
    > >> $250 including the printer dock. IMHO - it's worth a look.

    > >
    > >
    > > Hello, Ray:
    > >
    > > As a fellow P850 owner, I concur with your recommendation. It's simply
    > > a shame that Kodak discontinued its "P" series of advanced digicams,
    > > recently.

    >
    > I was not aware they had. I'll have to look into that. IMHO a fine EVF.



    Hello, Ray:

    Personally, I was shocked to learn of it, earlier this month. I'd been
    on Kodak's Web site, at the time, and saw that the "P" cameras were no
    longer listed among the company's current products.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Sep 19, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JoeG

    I've been looking for a prosumer "sports" camera

    JoeG, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    565
    Samuel Paik
    Feb 15, 2004
  2. Fred
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    410
  3. JoeG

    I'm looking for a prosumer "sports" camera

    JoeG, Nov 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    738
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: I'm looking for a prosumer "sports" camera

    David J Taylor, May 17, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    330
    Robert Sneddon
    May 20, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    865
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page