Which camera to get?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Muso, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. Muso

    Muso Guest

    Hi People

    Yes, it's the big $64,000 question.

    I'm tossing up between the Panasonic FZ-20 and the Canon EOS 300d. I realise
    they're quite different cameras but I would appreciate whatever feedback you
    can give.

    I'm looking for a camera that will be a very good multi-purpose camera,
    since I can't afford to get 2 or 3 cameras the way pro's might.

    I would be using the camera in taking photos for a school newsletter plus
    taking pictures of anything and everything in the way that you do when its
    not film you're using. I have a particular interest in wildlife nature and
    landscape photography. At some point in the future I would like to do time
    lapse photography also.

    One of major differences for me between the two is the large IS zoom on the
    Panasonic. If I could make do with the smaller zoom on the Canon I would
    definitely go straight for it, but I think that the large zoom would be very
    handy in some circumstances (eg sports action).

    Then again, the Panasonic is very new and I am naturally hesitant to get
    anything electronic that has just been released. a) for price and b) any
    teething problems there might be. Plus the Canon I'm sure would have
    markedly better image quality.

    I'm not a professional or even a 'prosumer' but would like to get into
    photography a bit more than I can with my Kodak DX3215.

    Many thanks for all your help.

    Mark.
    Muso, Sep 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    Not knowing the Panasonic, I can say that your generaly better off
    getting a DSLR. Canon has a HUGE line of lenses you can pick from, so
    don't think you just have to use what comes in the kit.

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:59:27 +1200, "Muso" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi People
    >
    >Yes, it's the big $64,000 question.
    >
    >I'm tossing up between the Panasonic FZ-20 and the Canon EOS 300d. I realise
    >they're quite different cameras but I would appreciate whatever feedback you
    >can give.
    >
    >I'm looking for a camera that will be a very good multi-purpose camera,
    >since I can't afford to get 2 or 3 cameras the way pro's might.
    >
    >I would be using the camera in taking photos for a school newsletter plus
    >taking pictures of anything and everything in the way that you do when its
    >not film you're using. I have a particular interest in wildlife nature and
    >landscape photography. At some point in the future I would like to do time
    >lapse photography also.
    >
    >One of major differences for me between the two is the large IS zoom on the
    >Panasonic. If I could make do with the smaller zoom on the Canon I would
    >definitely go straight for it, but I think that the large zoom would be very
    >handy in some circumstances (eg sports action).
    >
    >Then again, the Panasonic is very new and I am naturally hesitant to get
    >anything electronic that has just been released. a) for price and b) any
    >teething problems there might be. Plus the Canon I'm sure would have
    >markedly better image quality.
    >
    >I'm not a professional or even a 'prosumer' but would like to get into
    >photography a bit more than I can with my Kodak DX3215.
    >
    >Many thanks for all your help.
    >
    >Mark.
    >
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Muso

    Skip M Guest

    "Muso" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:Ca6d.7550$...
    > Hi People
    >
    > Yes, it's the big $64,000 question.
    >
    > I'm tossing up between the Panasonic FZ-20 and the Canon EOS 300d. I

    realise
    > they're quite different cameras but I would appreciate whatever feedback

    you
    > can give.
    >
    > I'm looking for a camera that will be a very good multi-purpose camera,
    > since I can't afford to get 2 or 3 cameras the way pro's might.
    >
    > I would be using the camera in taking photos for a school newsletter plus
    > taking pictures of anything and everything in the way that you do when its
    > not film you're using. I have a particular interest in wildlife nature and
    > landscape photography. At some point in the future I would like to do time
    > lapse photography also.
    >
    > One of major differences for me between the two is the large IS zoom on

    the
    > Panasonic. If I could make do with the smaller zoom on the Canon I would
    > definitely go straight for it, but I think that the large zoom would be

    very
    > handy in some circumstances (eg sports action).
    >
    > Then again, the Panasonic is very new and I am naturally hesitant to get
    > anything electronic that has just been released. a) for price and b) any
    > teething problems there might be. Plus the Canon I'm sure would have
    > markedly better image quality.
    >
    > I'm not a professional or even a 'prosumer' but would like to get into
    > photography a bit more than I can with my Kodak DX3215.
    >
    > Many thanks for all your help.
    >
    > Mark.
    >
    >


    Canon 300D with a 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS will run more money than the
    Panasonic, but will give you better range and optical quality, and still
    give you image stabilization.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 28, 2004
    #3
  4. GT40 wrote:
    > Not knowing the Panasonic, I can say that your generaly better off
    > getting a DSLR. Canon has a HUGE line of lenses you can pick from, so
    > don't think you just have to use what comes in the kit.


    I think it depends whether you want an all-in-one, easy to carry, camera
    at a very good price, or a bagfull of expensive camera and lenses which
    will probably produce a better result. Is the better result worth all the
    bother of lugging the bigger camera around? That's something only you can
    decide. If you need the long telephoto, what are the comparative costs
    and weights?

    I would recommend that you try both cameras to see how well they suit you,
    and how easy they are to drive.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:26:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >> Not knowing the Panasonic, I can say that your generaly better off
    >> getting a DSLR. Canon has a HUGE line of lenses you can pick from, so
    >> don't think you just have to use what comes in the kit.

    >
    >I think it depends whether you want an all-in-one, easy to carry, camera
    >at a very good price, or a bagfull of expensive camera and lenses which
    >will probably produce a better result. Is the better result worth all the
    >bother of lugging the bigger camera around? That's something only you can
    >decide. If you need the long telephoto, what are the comparative costs
    >and weights?
    >
    >I would recommend that you try both cameras to see how well they suit you,
    >and how easy they are to drive.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >


    You need to get the best camera for the job, and the Digital Rebel,
    10D, 20D from Canon are small cameras. P&S cameras are too small
    IMHO.
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Muso

    Matt Ion Guest

    Muso wrote:
    > Hi People
    >
    > Yes, it's the big $64,000 question.
    >
    > I'm tossing up between the Panasonic FZ-20 and the Canon EOS 300d. I realise
    > they're quite different cameras but I would appreciate whatever feedback you
    > can give.


    Well, you can do a LOT better than that for $64,000!
    Matt Ion, Sep 28, 2004
    #6
  7. Muso

    swingman Guest

    > Then again, the Panasonic is very new and I am naturally hesitant to get
    > anything electronic that has just been released. a) for price and b) any
    > teething problems there might be. Plus the Canon I'm sure would have
    > markedly better image quality.


    For more information about the Panasonic FZ20 check out the Panasonic forum at www.dpreview.com I've been reading threads there for a month and there hasn't been much in the way of complaint RE the FZ20. People love it, and there are many photos on the site to view. It's hard to beat given the features (for well under $600 from some sites).
    swingman, Sep 28, 2004
    #7
  8. GT40 wrote:
    []
    > You need to get the best camera for the job, and the Digital Rebel,
    > 10D, 20D from Canon are small cameras. P&S cameras are too small
    > IMHO.


    The "best" camera may not be the most appropriate. The OP's requirements
    included:

    "I would be using the camera in taking photos for a school newsletter plus
    taking pictures of anything and everything in the way that you do when its
    not film you're using. I have a particular interest in wildlife nature and
    landscape photography. At some point in the future I would like to do time
    lapse photography also."

    "Newsletter" and general telephoto photography is suggested, so I ask
    again how much does that Canon 280mm f/2.8 IS lens cost?

    What I don't know is whetehr the FZ20 can be remotely controlled for
    time-lapse. That /might/ be the deciding factor. For all the cost that
    the FZ20 is, I would suggest get one of those now, and see if later you do
    actually need the more expensive kit.
    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2004
    #8
  9. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:53:51 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >[]
    >> You need to get the best camera for the job, and the Digital Rebel,
    >> 10D, 20D from Canon are small cameras. P&S cameras are too small
    >> IMHO.

    >
    >The "best" camera may not be the most appropriate. The OP's requirements
    >included:
    >
    >"I would be using the camera in taking photos for a school newsletter plus
    >taking pictures of anything and everything in the way that you do when its
    >not film you're using. I have a particular interest in wildlife nature and
    >landscape photography. At some point in the future I would like to do time
    >lapse photography also."
    >
    >"Newsletter" and general telephoto photography is suggested, so I ask
    >again how much does that Canon 280mm f/2.8 IS lens cost?


    Far as I know the Canon lens would be a 200mm 2.8 and is about $660.

    I would say you dont need a 200mm 2.8 lens for a newsletter. Maybe
    better off with a 70-200mm 4.0 lens
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #9
  10. GT40 wrote:
    []
    > Far as I know the Canon lens would be a 200mm 2.8 and is about $660.


    With image stabilisation?

    > I would say you dont need a 200mm 2.8 lens for a newsletter. Maybe
    > better off with a 70-200mm 4.0 lens


    Again, at what cost?

    Be getting the Canon DSLR, you are giving up quite a lot, if price
    matters.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2004
    #10
  11. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:14:59 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >[]
    >> Far as I know the Canon lens would be a 200mm 2.8 and is about $660.

    >
    >With image stabilisation?


    IS isn't really needed on a 200mm 2.8 lens

    >
    >> I would say you dont need a 200mm 2.8 lens for a newsletter. Maybe
    >> better off with a 70-200mm 4.0 lens

    >
    >Again, at what cost?
    >
    >Be getting the Canon DSLR, you are giving up quite a lot, if price
    >matters.


    Giving up quite a lot? What are you giving up? You get what you pay
    for
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #11
  12. GT40 wrote:
    []
    >> With image stabilisation?

    >
    > IS isn't really needed on a 200mm 2.8 lens
    >
    >>
    >>> I would say you dont need a 200mm 2.8 lens for a newsletter. Maybe
    >>> better off with a 70-200mm 4.0 lens

    >>
    >> Again, at what cost?
    >>
    >> Be getting the Canon DSLR, you are giving up quite a lot, if price
    >> matters.

    >
    > Giving up quite a lot? What are you giving up? You get what you pay
    > for


    But what you are comparing then, is a costly, bulky DSLR kit with no image
    stabilisation versus a P&S offering 12:1 zoom range out to 420mm with
    image stabilisation. That's either giving up quite a lot, or having to
    pay a lot more. It would be interesting to know what the OP makes of the
    two extremes of choice. The DSLR is not the automatic choice.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2004
    #12
  13. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:55:38 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >[]
    >>> With image stabilisation?

    >>
    >> IS isn't really needed on a 200mm 2.8 lens
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> I would say you dont need a 200mm 2.8 lens for a newsletter. Maybe
    >>>> better off with a 70-200mm 4.0 lens
    >>>
    >>> Again, at what cost?
    >>>
    >>> Be getting the Canon DSLR, you are giving up quite a lot, if price
    >>> matters.

    >>
    >> Giving up quite a lot? What are you giving up? You get what you pay
    >> for

    >
    >But what you are comparing then, is a costly, bulky DSLR kit with no image
    >stabilisation versus a P&S offering 12:1 zoom range out to 420mm with
    >image stabilisation. That's either giving up quite a lot, or having to
    >pay a lot more. It would be interesting to know what the OP makes of the
    >two extremes of choice. The DSLR is not the automatic choice.


    Btw, the lens isn't a 2.8 at the 12:1 range its a 4.6.

    Unless you get a 1D series the Canon DSLR's aren't bulky at all.

    I think you missed the point, just becuase its cheaper doesn't make it
    better.
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #13
  14. GT40 wrote:
    []
    > Btw, the lens isn't a 2.8 at the 12:1 range its a 4.6.


    No, it's f/2.8

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072104panasonicfz20.asp

    > Unless you get a 1D series the Canon DSLR's aren't bulky at all.


    Compare an SLR with a 420mm f/2.8 IS lens (i.e. 280mm f/2.8 lens to
    provide the same coverage). There is /considerable/ bulk difference.

    > I think you missed the point, just becuase its cheaper doesn't make it
    > better.


    I don't doubt that an expensive DLSR can take better pictures. Just
    because it's a DLSR doesn't make it any more suitable.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Muso

    GT40 Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:18:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >[]
    >> Btw, the lens isn't a 2.8 at the 12:1 range its a 4.6.

    >
    >No, it's f/2.8
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072104panasonicfz20.asp


    Ok, I was looking at the wromg camera before.

    >
    >> Unless you get a 1D series the Canon DSLR's aren't bulky at all.

    >
    >Compare an SLR with a 420mm f/2.8 IS lens (i.e. 280mm f/2.8 lens to
    >provide the same coverage). There is /considerable/ bulk difference.
    >
    >> I think you missed the point, just becuase its cheaper doesn't make it
    >> better.

    >
    >I don't doubt that an expensive DLSR can take better pictures. Just
    >because it's a DLSR doesn't make it any more suitable.


    It does in this case, not all cases.
    GT40, Sep 28, 2004
    #15
  16. GT40 wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:18:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>GT40 wrote:
    >>[]
    >>
    >>>Btw, the lens isn't a 2.8 at the 12:1 range its a 4.6.

    >>
    >>No, it's f/2.8
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072104panasonicfz20.asp

    >
    >
    > Ok, I was looking at the wromg camera before.
    >
    >
    >>>Unless you get a 1D series the Canon DSLR's aren't bulky at all.

    >>
    >>Compare an SLR with a 420mm f/2.8 IS lens (i.e. 280mm f/2.8 lens to
    >>provide the same coverage). There is /considerable/ bulk difference.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I think you missed the point, just becuase its cheaper doesn't make it
    >>>better.

    >>
    >>I don't doubt that an expensive DLSR can take better pictures. Just
    >>because it's a DLSR doesn't make it any more suitable.

    >
    >
    > It does in this case, not all cases.


    I agree with GT40.
    Also, what is the shutter lag for the 2 cameras? DSLRs have always
    been faster. 12x optical zoom, but at what quality? High resolution
    images from zoom lenses are usually limited to lenses with 3x
    zoom factors. Finally, the advantage of a DSLR is you can change lenses.
    Buy what you can afford today, upgrade to better tomorrow. For a
    P&S, your stuck with the lens and only that lens. To upgrade
    requires a whole new camera. The main advantage of a P&S is size,
    weight, and convenience, but it comes with a sacrifice in quality,
    flexibility, and versatility.

    I have both, and use what works best for the situation.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 29, 2004
    #16
  17. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    []
    > I agree with GT40.
    > Also, what is the shutter lag for the 2 cameras? DSLRs have always
    > been faster. 12x optical zoom, but at what quality? High resolution
    > images from zoom lenses are usually limited to lenses with 3x
    > zoom factors. Finally, the advantage of a DSLR is you can change
    > lenses. Buy what you can afford today, upgrade to better tomorrow. For a
    > P&S, your stuck with the lens and only that lens. To upgrade
    > requires a whole new camera. The main advantage of a P&S is size,
    > weight, and convenience, but it comes with a sacrifice in quality,
    > flexibility, and versatility.
    >
    > I have both, and use what works best for the situation.
    >
    > Roger


    I'm waiting to hear back from the OP, whether $1400 for the same basic
    capability in a DSLR is worth it over the $450 for the P&S. Remember this
    was for photographs for a "school newsletter" where I guess the camera
    might be handed out to school children from time-to-time.

    I agree with "Buy what you can afford today, upgrade to better tomorrow."
    but my interpretation of that would be to get the P&S today, and the DLSR
    tomorrow.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 29, 2004
    #17
    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. Pipercillin

    Which Canon Camera to get?

    Pipercillin, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    301
  2. Mike

    Which camera to get?

    Mike, Apr 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    290
    Fuzzy Logic
    Apr 22, 2004
  3. MistaCM

    Opinions on which camera I should get please

    MistaCM, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    295
    jspen
    Jun 5, 2004
  4. Muso

    Which camera to get? part 2

    Muso, Oct 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    268
    Linda_N
    Oct 10, 2004
  5. The Jesus of Suburbia

    Microcontrollers: which one ? which language ? which compiler ?

    The Jesus of Suburbia, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    492
Loading...

Share This Page