Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 2 Dec 2009 15:40 On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. I had a Nikon P&S that I used to close-up photograph a number of US gold coins. It was much easier to set up for this purpose than my current Nikon dslr. The photographs were just as good as the ones I've taken later with the dslr. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Wally on 2 Dec 2009 15:43 On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. Well, I have the Canon G7, a great P&S, but it really sucks at close-up. Wally
From: NameHere on 2 Dec 2009 16:38 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:43:07 -0700, Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: >On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: > >>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. > >Well, I have the Canon G7, a great P&S, but it really sucks at >close-up. > >Wally IT doesn't suck at close-up photography -- YOU DO. There's a huge difference.
From: -hh on 2 Dec 2009 18:01 Wally <Wa...(a)luxx.com> wrote: > Paul Ciszek wrote: > > >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. I think that the two main questions are going to be: a) camera vs camera ... minimum focus distances b) regardless of camera ... providing sufficient illuminiation, especially fill to eliminate shadows from the proximity of the camera itself. On the latter, I've done some ad hoc macro work with a P&S, and have frequently encountered issues with getting the lighting sorted out: use of the built-in flash often causes wash-out, and trying to offset this by going natural light can precipitate the P&S camera itself blocking off illumination within the field of view. Something to potentially consider would be a bright white light and flexible mounting system ... the latter to help compose, and the former to provide a constant (not flash) light source so as to more easily sort out proper exposure (camera can pretend its 'natural' light). -hh
From: SMS on 2 Dec 2009 18:12
Wally wrote: > Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may > be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20. Yes, this is true. When the original poster stated "I care only about the quality of the captured image" it made it sound like he was looking for very high quality images, which would necessitate the use of D-SLR in this case. Clearly "quality" is a relative term! Here's what one of the foremost experts in digital photography says about the issue of macro work on P&S versus D-SLRs: "Macro work requires precise focusing, which is not possible on a P&S camera. It would be possible to put a very high resolution LCD on a P&S in order to make precise focusing possible, but that would add a lot of cost to the camera." |