A bridge too far: Canon S3? No. Panasonic FZ50? Er, no. Fuji 9600(9100)... er.... um....

Ok, a couple of months ago I bought 4Gb's worth of SD cards to try and
force myself to choose between an S3 and an FZ50 (both take SD). Now,
reluctant to support Panasonic's sensor, and desperate for more EVF
resolution than Canon are prepared to offer, I find myself aiming
towards a Fuji 9600 (9100 in the USA). 235k EVF, manual focus, similar
size to FZ50 sadly (ie DSLR sized), superior ISO performance helping
compensate for the lack of IS. Oh, and it doesn't use SD cards. That'll
teach me.

Still, at least I have CF cards already from my Canon S1.

Anyone have any thoughts? Apart, that is, from "stop dithering and just
make a choice you idiot! None of them are bad cameras!"

Andrew McP... off to find a three sided coin to toss.

PS Of course I could always gamble the money on England winning the
Ashes instead. I could retire on the odds being offered now. ;-)

 

For me, the lack of IS would make the far end of the zoom useless without a
tripod. I owned the little cousin of it (S5100) until the electronics
developed a mind of their own and it was returned to the store. I bought it
for my girlfriend, and for snapping up close, it was fine. I already had a
Sony DSC-H1 with IS and 12X zoom. I could not duplicate the clarity of
pictures with the Fuji that the Sony could produce. And to be honest, the
Sony rivals the clarity of my 350D with my 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lens
attached. Now, to be fair, I do have a slight shake in the hands that I have
had since I was a kid. Nothing serious or Parkinson-like, but it is there.
Sure, the high ISO will help some, but it would seem to me that you lose
some of the P&S capabilities that are available when you have a good IS.
YMMV.

Oh, and if you find and extra three sided coin, save it for me, as I have a
lens decision to make in the near future.

 

That is, sadly, the one thing making me hold back. My S1 has spoiled me,
and I'm very used to taking shots in what I used to consider impossible
situations.

On the flip side I get 28mm wide angle (which I've missed greatly from
my SLR days). It does seem that there's a conspiracy to produce cameras
which contain nearly every feature I want.... and another feature I
really *don't* want!

I promised myself I'd stick with the S1 until someone remedied that. But
that doesn't stop me hanging around review sites like a drooling dog
waiting for his dinner.

Andrew McP

 

I have a similar camera, Andrew, the Panasonic FZ5, and I don't want to
let go of IS either. For wide-angle work, I have the Nikon 8400 with has
a 24mm (eq) lens and swivel LCD etc. Great.

For a low-cost DSLR approach to the same tasks, I am considering the new
Nikon D40 with the 18 - 200mm (24 - 300mm eq) VR (image-stabilised) lens.
However, this does nothing for me at the wide-angle end, but might provide
better pictures in low-light conditions.

Cheers,
David

 

-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk (David J

Nice range on that camera. I've realised I miss wide angle flexibility
far more compared to the rare occasions when I *really* need the 420 end
of a modern zoom. Besides, more pixels (compared to my S1) will give me
a free zoom factor anyway.

That lens sounds expensive. But that's a superb range, so dust
shouldn't be an issue... you'd never need to take it off!

Andrew McP

 

There is a program out there which will analyse a batch of photos and give
you a histogram of (amongst other things) the focal length used.

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

It was running that which convinced me about the need for wider angles.
Of course, in some cases you can stitch together to emulate the wide-angle
shot.

Yes, I was thinking one camera and one lens, otherwise I get into carrying
round an outfit, and if that gets too heavy it gets left at home or in the
hotel, and no photos is the result..... No dust is another benefit!

Cheers,
David

 

I too went through the same dilema searching for the right camera for
me be it prosumer P&S or dslr. In my case, IS was of utmost importance
followed by IQ and a long zoom for travel photgraphy. Read all the
reviews and liked the FZ50 with some trepidations of the sensor. This
ended once I went to Dp reviews Panasonic forum and saw the shots taken
with this camera. One poster took the same shot with the FZ50 and the
Canon 30D. After many guesses, it was about even as to which was the
30D!

I suggest you visit DP reviews camera brand specific forums for great
input from owners.

Also try this web site, it's in French but easy to get around, where
you can compare cameras against each other taking the same set of
photos.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=60&mo1=233&p1=1323&ma2=1&mo2=214&p2=1088&ph=16

After several months of research, I went with the FZ50 and have no
regrets whatsoever. The Leica lens is just supurb unmatched by any
other non-dslr. In fact better than low end dslr lenses.

Regarding the Fuji, they are good cameras, however my first prosumer
was the finepix 6900. Good camera in most respects, took many good
pictures, but also many bad ones, that plus thelack of IS dropped Fuji
from my list. High ISO is better than Panny, but still more grain.
The Panny IS gets you a couple of stops so the image can be taken at
lower ISO. Actually I have only taken a few shots at 200 or higher ISO
on this and my old Fuji.

Good luck in your search and let us know what you decide.

JerryB in Colorado

 

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
Very useful, thanks for the link. It confirms that 40% of my shots are
at the 35mm end of the spectrum, with a fairly even spread up the scale
to a blip at the max zoom.

You've led me to do some study of 18-200/250/300 lenses. A Pentax K100D
has been on my fantasy shopping list for a while (as I have PK lenses
already) but dust is my biggest concern. I spent too long trying to
remove dust from my slide scanner & scanned photos to want to play that
game. But an "all-in-one" lens would probably suit my fairly humble needs.

Of course, then I wouldn't be using the various lenses I already own, so
don't need to restrict myself to Pentax. So...

Mmm... you close one door of choice and another one opens!

Andrew McP

 

I did have my eye on a second hand FZ30 at one stage, which seems no
worse than the 50 overall. But the price was too high (considering the
lack of warranty).

It was only considering the FZ range which led me towards the Fuji and
its superior (for my needs) zoom range, because previously it was the
size of the camera which put me off. Price is not my biggest concern
(though I like value for money!) and a DSLR+18-250Tamron wouldn't be
much more of a handful than the FZ50 now that I can see its advantages
from a low dust risk point of view.

I've also now noticed the older Fuji 9500 is available at Canon S3
prices. That would leave me a significant chunk of money in the bank
ready for next year's crop of bridge updates which may get closer to
what I'm after.

Andrew McP

 

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
....snip..

You can't retire on nothing !

David (in Australia)

 

I'm glad the program helped, Andrew.

Yes, there's a lot of choice right now, and perhaps more coming. I found
the Sony DCS-R1 (APS sensor with fixed lens) camera a big disappointment,
and I see it's now discontinued. With the corrections which can be done
in software (and perhaps firmware in the future) for barrel an pincushion
distortion, the idea of an almost "fixed lens" DSLR becomes more viable.
Just the minimum of changing lenses. The other improvement will be to add
a swivel LCD finder to those situations where direct view is inconvenient
or impossible, and that's starting to appear as well.

Cheers,
David

 

Ok, fair point.

Andrew McP

 

David J Taylor je napisao/la:

Just out of curiosuty - why was R1 such a disappointment? I bought
recently and found it's incredible camera, unless one need 300mm and
more...

Zoran

 

Mostly size and weight. I get a very similar coverage in the Nikon 8400,
113 x 82 x 75mm weighing just 470g. The Sony is 138 x 168 x 97mm and
weighs 995g. It's an big, ugly brute. Nice lens, perhaps. No image
stabilisation (which I have come to value a lot on my Pansonic FZ5, which
goes up to 432mm eq.). Once you add an extension lens to the Sony to try
and approach the longer focal length, it just gets even more bulky and
doesn't even match the 432mm of the Panasonic. Of course, you have to
give up movies with the Sony, as well.

My guess is that you could get a DSLR with a similar coverage lens for the
same weight, more compact, and have the extra versatility of
interchangeable lenses. You loose the movies, though.

I was also disappointed that the 4/3 format didn't allow designers to
shrink the overall size as much as they might have done. Perhaps the lens
mount doesn't allow that.

I'm sure the Sony is a fine camera providing that what it offers meets
your requirements. It just didn't suit me (and that's without handling
one).

David

 

David J Taylor je napisao/la:

Yep, that's true. My biggest concern was the size, but since DSLRs fall
within same league, and I don't need long focal length, I picked R1.

But somehow I think they are discontinuing it to make more room for
Alpha, too bad

 

The reason you give up movies with the Sony is no doubt due to the
superior sensor, which many Panasonic owners would love to have in
their larger FZs despite losing video capability. Don't try to
disagree, as I'll just hear it as more Panasonic "noise". <g>

But can people really afford to get Sony add-on lenses? I saw a
couple on display in SonyStyle about a month ago that appeared to be
for a camera smaller than the R1 (one WA and the other TELE) and
IIRC, the combined price was somewhere between $600 and $700. I did
pick up their little tabletop tripod, which someone else in the ng
recently recommended as being well designed. It is. Or at least
it's *much* better than an old tabletop tripod I purchased from
Kodak. I don't know who made it for Kodak, but it's very crude,
with heavy stamped steel legs, and it couldn't support even a tiny
camera until I added a metal washer as a shim above its ball joint.

 

ASAAR wrote:
[]

Putiing it another way - the small-sensor camera already has adeqaute
sensitivity for video, where the resolution is limited (e.g. to 640 x 480
or 320 x 240 pixels). The Sony sensor simply hasn't been designed to have
a fast enough readout rate - that improvement could come with time
(particularly if the resolution reduction for video were done on-chip).

By the time you have DSC-R1 + WA + tele lenses, you possibly have a more
expensive, heavier and less versatile kit than a Nikon D40 with 18 - 200mm
image stabilised lens. You trade the flip LCD screen and freedom from
dust for convenience. Your choice.

David

 

Spinning it another way, you mean, to avoid acknowledging the
superior sensor when used for its primary purpose - still
photography. As I indicated, I'm sure that the majority of FZ30 and
FZ50 owners would gladly trade up to an FZ70 if it used the R1's
sensor even if it meant giving up video. They wouldn't say "I'll
stick with the FZ30 instead of upgrading to an FZ70 because the FZ30
has adequate sensitivity for video" unless they know as much about
photography as Bush knows about waging war in Iraq.

I've tried shooting video a couple of times but it's more a
novelty than anything else. If I was an owner of the hypothetical
FZ70 and had a slight need or desire for video and wasn't too put
off by the limitations of P&S video, I'd either use my S5100, get a
cheap, small, pocketable dcam, or get Canon's S2 IS or S3 IS, which
don't have the video constraints of most (or all) other dcams.

I've never purchased nor used a Sony dcam nor do I see buying one
as anything other than very unlikely, so it's no more my choice than
yours, with a higher probability that you'll purchase one first,
even though it doesn't have a Panasonic logo. As much as my
preference for a DSLR would be towards small and lightweight, the
D40 doesn't seem particularly appealing with it's relatively low-res
sensor and limited compatibility with older AF lenses. I'll wait to
see how it does in reviews before ruling it out, though.

 

With storage so cheap I've got quite attached to being able to take
movies as well as stills. However I'm increasingly drawn to the two
camera solution. A tiny, "always in the pocket" camera with decent video
capability, and a larger bridge or DSLR for pure photography. It's
something I've resisted before (two batteries, possibly two card
formats, etc) and I've enjoyed my Canon S1 because it manages to be
fairly pocketable while covering all the bridge bases.

But the S3 has failed to deliver features I really want (mainly an
improved EVF) hence the apparently never ending quest for a replacement.

Andrew McP

 

ASAAR wrote:
[]

No, simply that for video with its lower resolution you don't need the
bigger sensor. For still photography in lower light conditions the larger
sensor has a benefit. I am avoiding nothing.

I own both Nikon and Panasonic cameras right now, and have owned SLRs and
other brands in the past. I choose the most appropriate tool for the job
in hand. I don't have a set of particular make lenses limiting my choice.
By the way, brand independence is one of the attractive features of the
4/3 system.

David