Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter on 5 Dec 2009 03:59 Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> "Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:hf396a$gld$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> [] >>> Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese >>> in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if >>> they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an >>> SLR yet. >> I was responding to your remark about image quality important. Many of >> today's DSLRs have an automatic mode which works in a similar way to that >> on a compact camera, but you may want to use less automation to get more >> control of the settings once you learn more about photography, and that >> applies equally to DSLRs as is does to small sensor cameras. >> >> In ideal taking conditions, small-sensor cameras can produce good quality >> images, but if the light is poor, and the camera's sensitivity needs to be >> increased (and cameras will do this automatically for you), the "noise" in >> the image will increase, leading to a grainy appearance and some loss of >> detail. > > Yet pro photographers have been taking photos on ASA25, ASA64, ASA100, and > ASA200 all their lives for nearly a century. Not at night, they haven't. > Higher ISOs are only required > by those that don't know how to use a camera properly--beginner > snapshooters. Ever heard of Tri-X? -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 5 Dec 2009 04:08 Pretend-Photographers Is All They Are wrote: > 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. Got some samples to show us of your (no doubt) excellent work? -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 5 Dec 2009 04:09 -hh wrote: > On Dec 2, 6:33 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >> [...] > > Back again and begging for my attention again, I see. > > 'Roll Over! Play Dead!' > > You're still pwned. > > > FWIW, an *invisible* P&S camera would solve the light-shadowing > problem I mentioned. Which part of the CHDK hack is that? :-) *snicker* -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: -hh on 5 Dec 2009 08:47 Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > -hh wrote: > > > > FWIW, an *invisible* P&S camera would solve the light-shadowing > > problem I mentioned. Which part of the CHDK hack is that? :-) > > *snicker* Actually, I was reminded of it because a college buddy of my brother went to work for Kodak and his project involved some work on their competitor to Polaroid Instamatic ... he had a Kodak prototype that used all-translucent plastics. It was fun to watch it work the transport mechanism, etc....but it took lousy pictures. -hh
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 09:33
-hh wrote: > Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, an *invisible* P&S camera would solve the light-shadowing >>> problem I mentioned. Which part of the CHDK hack is that? :-) >> >> *snicker* > > > Actually, I was reminded of it because a college buddy of my brother > went to work for Kodak and his project involved some work on their > competitor to Polaroid Instamatic ... he had a Kodak prototype that > used all-translucent plastics. It was fun to watch it work the > transport mechanism, etc....but it took lousy pictures. Nice solid black negatives, I would imagine, if it was made of all-translucent plastics. |