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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Andrew MacPherson, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. Andrew MacPherson

    ASAAR Guest

    I disagree, but I've seen you do this before. Namely, respond to
    one topic by ignoring it and substituting another topic that better
    supports your bias/preference. Nobody was talking about video at
    all until you used it as a way to make Panasonic's low sensitivity
    sensor a bit more attractive, and better able to measure up to
    Sony's R1 with its much larger sensor. But *most* P&S cameras have
    video capable sensors, and if you need to use video capability as a
    crutch to help support your P&S's poorer low light sensitivity (for
    STILL pictures, we weren't talking about video), that's your choice.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 28, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wow! What I have done to upset you now? Yes, most small-sensor cameras
    can do video. Panasonic is actually mentioned in the topic title.

    I made a choice based on a total system, one which suits my own needs. Of
    course, I would like the better sensitivity of the larger sensor but, at
    the moment, I am not prepared to pay the size and weight penalty either in
    the Sony DSC-R1 or in a DSLR outfit of similar capability. Other people
    will have different criteria. My choice is not fixed, and might be
    different were I purchasing afresh today.

    Actually, I didn't really consider video capabilities when buying either
    of my present cameras, although I knew they were there and what they were.
    What I have learned in the last couple of years is how much even a few
    seconds of video or sound can add to your memories of a place, or provide
    an enhanced impression when sharing a place with others. I would miss
    that were I to change to a camera without video.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 28, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andrew MacPherson

    ASAAR Guest

    Upset? Moi? Hardly. I'm just calling it the way it is, what a
    number of others have also recognized as what can be described as
    stubbornness combined with excessive brand chauvinism.

    "Wow" right back atcha. You're doing it again. :) I did not say
    that mentioning Panasonic was in any way unacceptable. What you
    insist on averting your eyes from is that in comparing the Sony R1
    with other cameras (Panasonic FZ7 and Nikon 8400) you strained to
    find ways to dismiss the R1. One was "It's an big, ugly brute.
    Nice lens, perhaps. No image stabilisation". Yes, it's big and
    heavy. An "ugly brute"? That's a bit over the top. No IS is fair,
    but why the "perhaps"? Every review I've read has mentioned that
    the R1's strong point is its excellent Carl Zeiss T* lens. Your
    "perhaps" seems intended to cast some doubt on this. Panasonic's
    Leica designed lenses also have good reputations, and if someone had
    said of them "nice lens, perhaps" one would have to question their
    knowledge of cameras or else wonder what was behind such a dubious
    statement.

    To top it off, you added "Of course, you have to give up movies
    with the Sony, as well." So I pointed out that by giving up movies,
    the R1 gains the pronounced advantage of its much larger sensor.
    This is what you didn't care to acknowledge. Did you say "well,
    yes, Sony's larger APS sensor does have superior resolution and low
    light performance"? No. All you said was that the Panasonic's
    sensor had adequate sensitivity for video and that Sony's sensor
    hadn't been designed to have a readout rate fast enough for video.
    Well duh, whether that's true or not is besides the point. Canon's
    30D and Nikon's D200 have larger sensors with no video capability,
    and I doubt that anyone owning one would take you seriously if you
    said that the Panasonic's small sensor had good enough sensitivity
    for video, implying that it was a fair tradeoff, somehow making up
    for the tremendous difference in quality and sensitivity between the
    DSLR sensors and the tiny one in the Panasonic. Spin. That's what
    it is, and it's embarrassingly obvious. As you seem to have
    forgotten, here's part of what was said about the R1's sensor/lens:
    and some of these conclusions:
    The conclusions included a number of "cons" in addition to the
    "pros". But nowhere amongst the "cons" was any mention of the lack
    of video capability, or in the Overall Conclusion that started with
    this:
    But it's good to know that, as you said:
    I guess that puts the small-sensor camera on an even footing with
    the R1, especially since they may both have nice lenses, perhaps.
    <g>
     
    ASAAR, Nov 28, 2006
    #23
  4. ASAAR wrote:
    []

    I really don't know why you want to attack me instead of engaging in
    discussions, but you seem to turn everything I say against me. I don't
    have the time to argue this point-by-point.

    I am quite happy with the points I made. I looked at the DSC-R1 and
    decided it wasn't the camera for me.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 28, 2006
    #24
  5. Andrew MacPherson

    ASAAR Guest

    You weren't attacked, unless you feel that questioning your
    dubious opinions is an attack. When you make more reasonable
    statements I'll agree (and have done so in the past), so thinking
    that I turn everything you say against you is only in your
    imagination. Those that recall your virtually non-ending
    whitewashing of Microsoft's failure to fix Windows inability to use
    amounts of memory that other OSs do might be surprised by your
    sudden lack of enough time to argue points. I'm not complaining. :)

    That's certainly valid and I've never tried to suggest that you
    made an inappropriate choice of cameras or that the R1 would have
    suited you better. I've mentioned several times that the R1 is too
    massive a camera for me, that I don't need a dual purpose camera
    that is also good for pounding tent pegs into the ground. But if
    told that its sensor and lens were superior to my Fuji S5100's, I
    wouldn't respond as you did by saying that the S5100's sensor had
    good enough sensitivity for video, and try to explain why the R1's
    sensor wasn't suited for video. Had I done so, it might also have
    been fair to accuse me of brand chauvinism.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 28, 2006
    #25
  6. I am quite happy to continue reasoned arguments.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 28, 2006
    #26
  7. Andrew MacPherson

    ASAAR Guest

    That does occur from time to time, and I see no reason why it
    won't continue. From time to time. :)
     
    ASAAR, Nov 28, 2006
    #27
  8. for starters, the FZ-50 has 10mp and a flash hot-shoe, the S3 does not!
    and a 2.0-inch flip-out 207k high resolution LCD .
    the fz-50 is 35-420mm equivalent 12x optical zoom and Full resolution
    ISO settings up to 1600 with IS.
    but the 9100 is wider at 28-300mm.

    I see no other advantage that the 9100 has(besides a slightly bigger
    sensor).

    go with the FZ-50.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Nov 28, 2006
    #28
  9. you might consider the Kodak P712.
    IS, long zoom, 7.1mp. hot shoe. all for just $400.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Nov 28, 2006
    #29
  10. Great!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 28, 2006
    #30
  11. Hot shoe doesn't really bother me, and the 50's 10MP is very contentious.
    Besides, I'd be happy with 3MP again to be honest, so MP count isn't a
    concern either. It's things like manual focus, EVF quality, and now
    access to 28mm which are leading me towards an upgrade.

    At the moment I'm leaning towards a fairly cheap refurbished Fuji
    9000/9500 as a stopgap purchase. The FZ50 would cost me significantly
    more (360ukp v 234ukp from Fuji UK). "All" I'll be missing is IS, and
    given that neither camera is small I'll have to carry my bigger bag
    anyway. Carrying my monopod around as well would be no great hardship,
    given I'm moving away from pocketable photography anyway.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Nov 29, 2006
    #31
  12. A second-hand Minolta A2 suit you? You won't find a better EVF anywhere,
    it has 28mm wide-angle (IIRC) and image stabilisation for those
    longer-zoom shots (up to 200mm).

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 29, 2006
    #32
  13. A second-hand Minolta A2 suit you?

    LOL! Just what I needed David, another option. :) Still, I appreciate
    the offer. That camera has some incredible features actually; it's a
    shame Minolta went by the wayside despite such well designed cameras.

    But I think dropping down to a 200mm top end might be a bit of a
    disappointment after the 380 on my S1 (even if it accounts for a
    relatively small percentage of my shots). The 300 on the 9500/600 seems
    close enough to not feel like a downgrade... especially with that 28mm
    wide end in exchange.

    I also worry that the A2's EVF might spoil me forever. That's one heck
    of an EVF, even after allowing for a little marketing spin.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Nov 29, 2006
    #33
  14. Andrew MacPherson wrote:
    []
    Just one look would be enough. I used to have one of these cameras.....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 29, 2006
    #34
  15. I used to have one of these cameras

    Ah, sorry. I thought you had one collecting dust somewhere.

    I've noticed the 2nd hand Fuji I was looking at only has a 6 month
    warranty. It seems to me that if Fuji had that much confidence in their
    "good as new" kit they'd offer the full year.

    I can sense some more procrastination coming on. Still, everyone should
    have a talent and mine is definitely indecision.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Nov 30, 2006
    #35
  16. .... and next year there will be even better cameras available! Well,
    perhaps ones with more Mega Pixels [marketing speak] anyway! <G>

    At least Nikon with the D40 have made their camera better value for money
    rather than increasing the pixel count.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 30, 2006
    #36
  17. In my defence I'd say most of the cameras on my list are only one
    feature away from covering everything I want. I have high hopes for the
    next crop of releases. (Famous last words!) And when all's said & done I
    can still take good pictures with my S1. It'd help if it'd die, then I'd
    have to replace it. :)

    This morning, however, I've found that Jessops (UK) have the Pentax
    K100D and 18-55 lens for £399. Great price (Usually about £450). If
    they'd knock £50 off and lose the lens then that 18-200/250 DSLR
    solution might be closer than I expected.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Nov 30, 2006
    #37
  18. Andrew MacPherson

    John Turco Guest

    ASAAR wrote:


    Hello, ASAAR:

    I bought a Kodak "Digital Camera Accessory Kit" (ACC-GN2), at Wal-Mart,
    last week; it was only $10, on clearance. It contains a KLIC 5000 Li-Ion
    rechargeable battery (used by both my P850 and DX6490), a molded camera
    case (which fits my CX6200 perfectly) and a 12" tabletop tripod.

    Curious about your harsh comments, above, I just mounted the DX6490 (a
    somewhat bulky 10x zoom model) on that final item in question. Even with
    the legs fully extended, it freely supported the digicam.

    So, I must assume, your old tripod was far different from my new one.
    Mine is aluminum and nicely finished, and not at all "crude."


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Nov 30, 2006
    #38
  19. Andrew MacPherson

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Mr.Bolshoyhuy:

    I must respectfully disagree. The P850 still offers the "best bang for
    the buck," among Kodak's "ultra zoom" digicams.

    It matches the P712 in nearly every area, its 5.1MP resolution is not
    vastly lower, and the P850 is now typically priced far cheaper.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Nov 30, 2006
    #39
  20. Andrew MacPherson

    ASAAR Guest

    This tripod has no identification so I'm sure Kodak had nothing to
    do with its design. Just a cheapie that they were offering on their
    website. The only reason I found it was because I was looking for a
    SCSI PCMCIA adapter and finally came up with a link pointing to
    Kodak's web site. It was a real bargain, selling for about $50 when
    of all the alternatives I found, they were all several hundred
    dollars more expensive. This also wasn't a Kodak labeled part,
    coming in a box identifying it as an ADTRON Accent "SCSI PC Card
    Reader". It worked perfectly from the start I didn't at all mind
    ending up with a terrible tripod. Now that I've fixed the thing I
    use it occasionally around the house, but don't take it with me on
    hikes because the thing probably weighs nearly as much as my little
    Fuji. The small Sony tripod I recently bought is much nicer, as one
    would expect from a labeled Sony product.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 30, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.