Sony H1, Canon S2, Panasonic FZ20, Minolta Z5

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stephen Henning, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. Popular photography recently (August 2005) compared these 4 5MP EVF
    image-stabalized ultra-zooms.

    Here are some conclusions:

    Sony H1: Only 2 AA batteries, no hot shoe or flash connector, and no RAW.

    Canon S2: Small LCD, no ext flash.

    Panasonic FZ20: HIGH digital noise, even at low ISOs.

    Monolta Z5: Has hot shoe and dedicated external flash option. No
    negatives.

    Some people recently doubted MacWorld's recent camera review, so here is
    a photography magazine review.

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
    Stephen Henning, Jul 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stephen Henning wrote:
    > Popular photography recently (August 2005) compared these 4 5MP EVF
    > image-stabalized ultra-zooms.
    >
    > Here are some conclusions:
    >
    > Sony H1: Only 2 AA batteries, no hot shoe or flash connector, and no
    > RAW.
    >
    > Canon S2: Small LCD, no ext flash.
    >
    > Panasonic FZ20: HIGH digital noise, even at low ISOs.
    >
    > Monolta Z5: Has hot shoe and dedicated external flash option. No
    > negatives.
    >
    > Some people recently doubted MacWorld's recent camera review, so here
    > is a photography magazine review.



    Simply from what you list, I would have a number of reservations about its
    completeness and accuracy. Do you have the full URL for this review, or
    is it not available online?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    > Stephen Henning wrote:
    > > Popular photography recently (August 2005) compared these 4 5MP EVF
    > > image-stabalized ultra-zooms.
    > >
    > > Here are some conclusions:
    > >
    > > Sony H1: Only 2 AA batteries, no hot shoe or flash connector, and no
    > > RAW.
    > >
    > > Canon S2: Small LCD, no ext flash.
    > >
    > > Panasonic FZ20: HIGH digital noise, even at low ISOs.
    > >
    > > Monolta Z5: Has hot shoe and dedicated external flash option. No
    > > negatives.
    > >
    > > Some people recently doubted MacWorld's recent camera review, so here
    > > is a photography magazine review.

    >
    >
    > Simply from what you list, I would have a number of reservations about its
    > completeness and accuracy. Do you have the full URL for this review, or
    > is it not available online?


    I subscribe to the magazine. The website (www.popphoto.com) is mainly
    to solicit new subscriptions.

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
    Stephen Henning, Jul 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Stephen Henning wrote:
    []
    > I subscribe to the magazine. The website (www.popphoto.com) is mainly
    > to solicit new subscriptions.


    Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
    a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very happy with
    the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder and movie mode on
    the Canon might make up for the poorer image quality depending on one's
    priorities!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Stephen Henning

    SleeperMan Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Stephen Henning wrote:
    > []
    >> I subscribe to the magazine. The website (www.popphoto.com) is
    >> mainly to solicit new subscriptions.

    >
    > Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
    > a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very
    > happy with the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder
    > and movie mode on the Canon might make up for the poorer image
    > quality depending on one's priorities!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    small LCD on S2? Hm...actually it's somewhat bigger than one in S1...and by
    no means small. All Oly's have smaller...
    I have it and love it. Had S1 before, also loved it, but S2 has all
    negatives from S1 corrected. Image quality is quite good if not excellent
    from other reviews, a tiny bit on the red, but nothing scary. Shooting in
    total darkness is now possible, external flash can be obtained as slave
    unit.
    SleeperMan, Jul 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Stephen Henning

    Guest

    The LCD on the Canon S2 IS is smaller than the Sony H1. However, it
    swivels and rotates, which allows me to take some very interesting
    shots with the subject well framed.

    None of these super-zooms are perfect. I chose the Canon S2 IS as a
    compromise of features, performance and price. So far, I'm fairly happy
    with it. And it's likely, in a year, when the Canon S3 IS comes out,
    I'll be looking at that one too.

    Bye.
    , Jul 8, 2005
    #6
  7. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > None of these super-zooms are perfect. I chose the Canon S2 IS as a
    > compromise of features, performance and price. So far, I'm fairly happy
    > with it. And it's likely, in a year, when the Canon S3 IS comes out,
    > I'll be looking at that one too.
    >
    > Bye.
    >


    The S3 IS will have RAW. Wishful thinking as for some reason, though most
    upper Powershot models have Raw, Canon refuses to put it in the IS series.

    Take care,
    Linda
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 8, 2005
    #7
  8. "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:fkvze.65600>
    > Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
    > a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very happy with
    > the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder and movie mode on
    > the Canon might make up for the poorer image quality depending on one's
    > priorities!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David

    I think you did fine with your FZ-5. The swivel is a loss, but then again at
    least you have TIFF, rather than nothing but JPG. TIFF is not my favourite
    but at least the option is there.

    The camera that will sell like mad (coming to a store near all of us
    hopefully) is a combined wide and zoom, excellent glass, fast focus, IS that
    works, better than average ISO performance because of a larger sensor
    (or..very high hopes here... the newest small sensor recently tested that is
    half the thickness and a fraction of the cost to develop over current sensor
    technology...or better yet the phillips liquid gas lens!...hurry, hurry with
    that technology) with full RAW, a huge host of manual and auto functions,
    swivel (Canon is actually moving away from swivels due to high number of
    repair issues and warrenty drains) all wrapped up in a sturdy (the Pan FZ5
    is feels flimbsy even if it isn't) yet pocket sized body. Finally it must
    have a host of adapter lenses for extending the usage of the camera, and
    these lenses do not degrade the quality of the image. All this for a very
    affordable price (everyday Joe).

    Take care,
    Linda
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 8, 2005
    #8
  9. "SleeperMan" <> wrote:

    > small LCD on S2? Hm...actually it's somewhat bigger than one in S1...and by
    > no means small. All Oly's have smaller...


    The other three have 2" monitors, not 1.8" like the S2. That is 24%
    less area.

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
    Stephen Henning, Jul 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Stephen Henning

    imbsysop Guest

    "Stephen Henning" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > "SleeperMan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> small LCD on S2? Hm...actually it's somewhat bigger than one in S1...and
    >> by
    >> no means small. All Oly's have smaller...

    >
    > The other three have 2" monitors, not 1.8" like the S2. That is 24%
    > less area.


    you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
    pixels (H1) ?
    imbsysop, Jul 9, 2005
    #10
  11. "imbsysop" <> wrote:

    > you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
    > pixels (H1)


    Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
    the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
    with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
    Stephen Henning, Jul 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Stephen Henning

    Rick Guest

    "Stephen Henning" <> wrote in message news:p...
    > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >
    > > you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
    > > pixels (H1)

    >
    > Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    > difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
    > the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
    > with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.


    I'd gladly give up 0.2" (or even 1.0") to get Canon's tilt and
    swivel LCD. Vastly superior design, especially for waist shots,
    over the head/crowd shots and a hundred other cases.
    Rick, Jul 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Stephen Henning

    Guest

    Seems all the disappointment with the Panasonic FZ cameras began when
    they boosted resolution from 4 to 5 MP. I've been using the original
    FZ1 with the FZ2 firmware upgrade and haven't had any issues, although
    that 2MP sensor really isn't up to the best of the best.

    I've noticed a number of people who buy FZ5 and FZ20, then put them up
    for sale, saying they're ready to jump to a DSLR. If you're going to go
    FZ20, you may be better off with a Nikon D50 kit.

    -DK



    Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
    > message news:fkvze.65600>
    > > Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
    > > a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very happy with
    > > the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder and movie mode on
    > > the Canon might make up for the poorer image quality depending on one's
    > > priorities!
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > David

    > I think you did fine with your FZ-5. The swivel is a loss, but then again at
    > least you have TIFF, rather than nothing but JPG. TIFF is not my favourite
    > but at least the option is there.
    >
    > The camera that will sell like mad (coming to a store near all of us
    > hopefully) is a combined wide and zoom, excellent glass, fast focus, IS that
    > works, better than average ISO performance because of a larger sensor
    > (or..very high hopes here... the newest small sensor recently tested that is
    > half the thickness and a fraction of the cost to develop over current sensor
    > technology...or better yet the phillips liquid gas lens!...hurry, hurry with
    > that technology) with full RAW, a huge host of manual and auto functions,
    > swivel (Canon is actually moving away from swivels due to high number of
    > repair issues and warrenty drains) all wrapped up in a sturdy (the Pan FZ5
    > is feels flimbsy even if it isn't) yet pocket sized body. Finally it must
    > have a host of adapter lenses for extending the usage of the camera, and
    > these lenses do not degrade the quality of the image. All this for a very
    > affordable price (everyday Joe).
    >
    > Take care,
    > Linda
    , Jul 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Stephen Henning

    imbsysop Guest

    "Stephen Henning" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >
    >> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
    >> pixels (H1)

    >
    > Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    > difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
    > the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
    > with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.


    you're missing the point .. I'm dumb enough to believe that 115K pixels
    smeared over an 1.8" LCD screen will yield a better definition picture than
    the same amount of pixels smeared over a 2.5" screen .. and the same goes
    for your TV .. it is the present days hype to convince people that their 25"
    TV is better than the 18" with the same number of pixels .. consumers are
    brainwashed to become uncritical these days and it shows ..
    imbsysop, Jul 10, 2005
    #14
  15. "imbsysop" <> wrote:

    > "Stephen Henning" <> wrote:
    > > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with 115K
    > >> pixels (H1)

    > >
    > > Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    > > difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
    > > the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
    > > with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

    >
    > you're missing the point .. I'm dumb enough to believe that 115K pixels
    > smeared over an 1.8" LCD screen will yield a better definition picture than
    > the same amount of pixels smeared over a 2.5" screen .. and the same goes
    > for your TV .. it is the present days hype to convince people that their 25"
    > TV is better than the 18" with the same number of pixels .. consumers are
    > brainwashed to become uncritical these days and it shows ..


    You missed the point. If you put 115k pixels on a pin head, you can't
    see them. You need a screen and pixels which are large enough so they
    can be seen. For the typical person, a 3 or 4 inch screen would be
    ideal. The normal human eye can't see things much smaller than that as
    well. Since screens that large are not commonly available, those
    closest to that size are best.

    When you edit images on your computer, do you reduce the window size to
    1.8"? I think not. In fact if you put a 115K pixel image on your
    computer screen the optimum size (72-75 dpi) is 4.1" x 5.4".

    --
    Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
    Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
    http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
    Stephen Henning, Jul 10, 2005
    #15
  16. Stephen Henning

    SleeperMan Guest

    Rick wrote:
    > "Stephen Henning" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with
    >>> 115K pixels (H1)

    >>
    >> Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    >> difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get
    >> to the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal
    >> vision or with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

    >
    > I'd gladly give up 0.2" (or even 1.0") to get Canon's tilt and
    > swivel LCD. Vastly superior design, especially for waist shots,
    > over the head/crowd shots and a hundred other cases.


    Agreed on that!
    And, as of size...bigger LCD with SAME amount of dots lead to visible dots
    and more grainess. Don't compare this with TV - it's stupid. TV's are meant
    to watch them from certain distance, like (i'll post in metres, but same
    shit) 37cm TVset is meant to be watched from close - like 2m, while 70cm TV
    is meant to be watched from far more distance - like 4-5 m. And with
    distance increasing you don't see that grainess, while you watch cameras
    from same distance no matter how big LCD they have. That's why you SEE
    grainess if they are bigger with SAME pixels.
    SleeperMan, Jul 10, 2005
    #16
  17. Stephen Henning

    SleeperMan Guest

    Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
    > wrote in message news:fkvze.65600>
    >> Thanks, Stephen. I won't be able to comment on the review, then. There's
    >> a new review of the Sony H1 out at DP Review. Leave me very
    >> happy with the Panasonic, to be honest, although the swivel finder
    >> and movie mode on the Canon might make up for the poorer image
    >> quality depending on one's priorities!
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    > I think you did fine with your FZ-5. The swivel is a loss, but then
    > again at least you have TIFF, rather than nothing but JPG. TIFF is
    > not my favourite but at least the option is there.
    >

    not many people actually use TIFF. When you can squeeze - what - 30 or 40
    shots on 1G card, it becomes useless. Not many people can afford to buy 4G
    or more cards - at least not these people who buy this kind of cameras.
    Camera with less than - say 100 shots on one card is useless. TIFF is more
    usable on higher priced SLR and similar cards, where (to profi's) buying
    several 1, 2, 4 or more G cards is not much of a problem.
    > Linda
    SleeperMan, Jul 10, 2005
    #17
  18. Stephen Henning

    SleeperMan Guest

    wrote:
    > The LCD on the Canon S2 IS is smaller than the Sony H1. However, it
    > swivels and rotates, which allows me to take some very interesting
    > shots with the subject well framed.
    >
    > None of these super-zooms are perfect. I chose the Canon S2 IS as a
    > compromise of features, performance and price. So far, I'm fairly
    > happy with it. And it's likely, in a year, when the Canon S3 IS comes
    > out, I'll be looking at that one too.
    >
    > Bye.


    Same here. Had S1, now S2, i bet i'll have S3. What i'd have here is
    .....hmmm...let me think...
    maybe less noise, then...maybe 14x zoom would be nice, ...naahh, i can't
    remember anything else...
    SleeperMan, Jul 10, 2005
    #18
  19. Stephen Henning

    imbsysop Guest

    "Stephen Henning" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Stephen Henning" <> wrote:
    >> > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> you mean a 1.8" LCD with 115K pixels (S2) is worse than a 2.5" with
    >> >> 115K
    >> >> pixels (H1)
    >> >
    >> > Do you mean a 25 in. TV is not better than an 18 in. TV? Same
    >> > difference. If your eyes are not limited in how close they can get to
    >> > the LCD, there is less difference. Those of us with normal vision or
    >> > with reading glasses, BIG DIFFERENCE.

    >>
    >> you're missing the point .. I'm dumb enough to believe that 115K pixels
    >> smeared over an 1.8" LCD screen will yield a better definition picture
    >> than
    >> the same amount of pixels smeared over a 2.5" screen .. and the same goes
    >> for your TV .. it is the present days hype to convince people that their
    >> 25"
    >> TV is better than the 18" with the same number of pixels .. consumers are
    >> brainwashed to become uncritical these days and it shows ..

    >
    > You missed the point. If you put 115k pixels on a pin head, you can't
    > see them. You need a screen and pixels which are large enough so they
    > can be seen.


    irrelevant .. same gag .. if you switch off the lights one doesn't see
    anything either ..

    For the typical person, a 3 or 4 inch screen would be
    > ideal.


    assumption based on what standard ? any articles to back that up ?

    The normal human eye can't see things much smaller than that as
    > well. Since screens that large are not commonly available, those
    > closest to that size are best.


    it is not a matter of the size that one can see but at what definition it is
    seen

    >
    > When you edit images on your computer, do you reduce the window size to
    > 1.8"? I think not. In fact if you put a 115K pixel image on your
    > computer screen the optimum size (72-75 dpi) is 4.1" x 5.4".


    that is utter nonsense and once again completely irrelevant .. this will
    largely depend on a) physical screen size b) screen resolution set for the
    video driver
    besides there is no such thing as "72-75 dpi" (and it should read PPI) for
    computer screens ! make the calculations for yourself using the screen
    dotpitch and the screen size .. this is a myth that doesn't want to die !
    The closest you can get to 72 PPI if I recall correctly is for a 14" (or
    15"?) screen set at 800x600 (having an "old" dotpitch value) and the
    mythical 72PPI was indeed born in those dark ages .. (on the Mac if I recall
    correctly)
    FYI : my 17 inch screen is set at 1152x864 with a viewable frame of
    12.36x9.69 inch this yields an horizontal PPI of 93.2 and a vertical PPI of
    89.16 .. so much for the mythical 72PPI ! If I set it at 1280x1024 things go
    even "worse" .. or just try a 19" at 1640x1280 for fun only :)
    (assuming a square of 115K this would yield a picture of 3.63"x3.8",
    assuming a rectangle with the screen ratio 1/1.333 it would yield a picture
    of 4.2"x3.2")
    to push this nonsense to the extreme you can calculate the resolution for a
    1.8" LCD and for a 2.5" LCD both having 115K px .. and a 4/3 ratio .. I'm
    curious to see the results ..
    (why am I spending my time at this !)
    imbsysop, Jul 10, 2005
    #19
  20. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Seems all the disappointment with the Panasonic FZ cameras began when
    > they boosted resolution from 4 to 5 MP. I've been using the original
    > FZ1 with the FZ2 firmware upgrade and haven't had any issues, although
    > that 2MP sensor really isn't up to the best of the best.
    >
    > I've noticed a number of people who buy FZ5 and FZ20, then put them up
    > for sale, saying they're ready to jump to a DSLR. If you're going to go
    > FZ20, you may be better off with a Nikon D50 kit.
    >
    > -DK
    >


    I have not read too many stating dissatisfaction with any of the Pan FZ
    models (from 1 straight through), but I have read some stating
    disappointment with poor 'red' performance...color bleeding and artifacting.
    I've lots that were happy to find a fireware upgrade basically gave them a
    free FZ2 like you hehe.

    I just wish Panasonic wasn't so darn expensive in Canada. The difference
    between USD and CAD (after conversion) still translates to a few hundred
    dollars more in Canada for the same model. Best Buys/FutureShop has the FZ4
    for $569+tax, but just a few weeks ago it was 599+tax. That's just nuts
    since the FZ5 isn't even selling for that much in the USA (considering
    conversion value in). At one point the FZ20 was a whopping $1200 CAD, though
    it has dropped nearer $1000 now, but still considering the Rebel 300 with
    lens kit can be bought for $1100 down to $999 in some parts of Canada, one
    has to wonder what's up with Panasonic Canada, like maybe they want to go
    out of business.

    Take care,
    Linda
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Jul 15, 2005
    #20
    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. Atreju

    Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z3 vs. Panasonic Lumix FZ20

    Atreju, Aug 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    519
    Christian Ordig
    Sep 3, 2004
  2. Nige

    Panasonic FZ20 or Canon G6

    Nige, Nov 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    442
  3. spodosaurus

    Canon S1 IS versus Panasonic FZ20??

    spodosaurus, Dec 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    481
    Bruce Graham
    Dec 10, 2004
  4. measekite

    Canon S1 IS vs Panasonic FZ20

    measekite, Mar 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    937
    Bill Tuthill
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. Caesar Romano

    Re: Canon S1 IS vs Panasonic FZ20

    Caesar Romano, Mar 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    288
    YAnewswatcher
    Mar 20, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page