Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: ransley on 2 Dec 2009 06:10 On Nov 30, 4:46 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon > PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is > supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics; > I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online > review is agreeing with that assessment or not: > > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdo... > > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdi... > > Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape > and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only > about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can > do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role. > > Does anyone here have any personal experience with either (or better > yet, both) of these cameras that they would care to share? > > -- > Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is > pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." > Autoreply is disabled | Since outdoors will be your main use a polariser filter will be real helpfull, can both cameras take filters, I think the Panasonic does. I see AA batteries as a slight benefit, you havnt considered Sony who probably makes the sensors for the other companies and usualy their own cameras have a bit better performance, but only slightly. On Macro you may be dissapointed unless you research more, ive had focusing problems with an older similar camera, maybe by now my issues have been fixed.
From: Pretend-Photographers Is All They Are on 2 Dec 2009 07:53 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:32:43 -0700, Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul >Ciszek) wrote: > >>I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon >>PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is >>supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics; >>I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online >>review is agreeing with that assessment or not: >> >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdoor_results.shtml >> >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdict.shtml >> >>Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape >>and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only >>about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can >>do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role. > >Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a >demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it >becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less >sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera >shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially >quality light. This is the main drawback of all DSLRs. P&S cameras aren't hindered by all these problems. P&S cameras are EXCELLENT for macro and micro photography. But then, you'd have to actually have experience with these fields of photography to learn and know this. I do wish that you inexperienced snapshooters would educate yourselves some day. > >I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography >before deciding which camera to buy. > I suggest that YOU spend some time learning about close-up photography. Because, clearly, you know absolutely NOTHING about it. >To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at >least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting >equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements. > >That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention >will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but >frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them. How very wrong you are. > >Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it? >That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You >will find out in a hurry what you are up against. Yes, you should try that someday. Then you wouldn't be handing out such ignorant snapshooters' nonsense.
From: Paul Ciszek on 2 Dec 2009 11:43 In article <gd1ch59pq53vu0o8i893o10mai9k7cfq2t(a)4ax.com>, Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: > >Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a >demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it >becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less >sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera >shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially >quality light. My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available. I realize now that these better cameras with the larger sensors may not go as close without special lenses. I still don't think I am enough of a photographer to fully utilize, let alone justify, a $ingle Len$ Reflex camera. >Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it? >That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You >will find out in a hurry what you are up against. The decision had to be made in time for Christmas ordering, alas. It sounds like I will have to become a more experienced photographer in order to regret getting the Panasonic. Except for the battery bullshit. I may end up regretting that on Christmas morning. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Wally on 2 Dec 2009 13:47 On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >In article <gd1ch59pq53vu0o8i893o10mai9k7cfq2t(a)4ax.com>, >Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: >> >>Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a >>demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it >>becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less >>sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera >>shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially >>quality light. > >My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of >flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small >sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It >makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I >understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was >not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available. Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20. Wally
From: Scott W on 2 Dec 2009 13:50
On Dec 1, 8:32 pm, Wally <Wa...(a)luxx.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul > > Ciszek) wrote: > >I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon > >PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is > >supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics; > >I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online > >review is agreeing with that assessment or not: > > >http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdo... > > >http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdi... > > >Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape > >and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only > >about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can > >do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role. > > Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a > demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it > becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less > sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera > shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially > quality light. > > I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography > before deciding which camera to buy. > > To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at > least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting > equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements. > > That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention > will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but > frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them. > > Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it? > That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You > will find out in a hurry what you are up against. > > Wally I have had a number of P&S cameras that have done a great job at close up photogrpahy. I love my DSLR for most things, but for close up photograph my P&S is often the better choice. Scott |