Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Wally on 7 Dec 2009 01:11 On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:55:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >Smaller sensors on most of today's DSLRs complicate the matter still >further, since a 1:1 lens on an APS-C camera achieves a magnification (final >image size) equal to 1:0.66 or so on a full-frame camera. How the hell can that be? The image size of the subject will be the same whether it is cropped or not. Wally
From: David J Taylor on 7 Dec 2009 03:00 "Wally" <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote in message news:a27ph5dvbqosf0s8dec0km08vlapm93f2i(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:55:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >>Smaller sensors on most of today's DSLRs complicate the matter still >>further, since a 1:1 lens on an APS-C camera achieves a magnification >>(final >>image size) equal to 1:0.66 or so on a full-frame camera. > > How the hell can that be? The image size of the subject will be the > same whether it is cropped or not. > > Wally But on the smaller sensor camera a 36 x 24mm subject more than fills the frame - the area will be 23.6 x 15.8 mm (on a Nikon). Yes, it's still 1:1 magnification, but with a smaller object size filling the frame. David
From: rwalker on 7 Dec 2009 09:31 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:00:13 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >"Wally" <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote in message >news:a27ph5dvbqosf0s8dec0km08vlapm93f2i(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:55:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Smaller sensors on most of today's DSLRs complicate the matter still >>>further, since a 1:1 lens on an APS-C camera achieves a magnification >>>(final >>>image size) equal to 1:0.66 or so on a full-frame camera. >> >> How the hell can that be? The image size of the subject will be the >> same whether it is cropped or not. >> >> Wally > >But on the smaller sensor camera a 36 x 24mm subject more than fills the >frame - the area will be 23.6 x 15.8 mm (on a Nikon). Yes, it's still 1:1 >magnification, but with a smaller object size filling the frame. > >David And if we're talking about the old definition of macro: the item is life size on the film or sensor,then the size of the film or sensor doesn't matter. A three mm. long ant at 1:1 will be three mm. long on an APSC sensor, or a 36 x 24 mm sensor, or on a 9x7 medium format negative or on a 110 negative. People get themselves all confused worrying about "crop factors" and holding the old 35 mm. negative size as some kind of holy relict.
From: J. Clarke on 7 Dec 2009 10:27 David J Taylor wrote: > "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message > news:eL6dnaLm4LAL84HWnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> Yes, and probably not the FZ35 he was thinking of. Some of my older >> Coolpix models actually are *much* better at close-up work than the >> FZ35, to my surprise. > > Nikon Coolpix 990 comes to mind: > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/ > > An object 19mm wide fills the frame in Macro Mode: > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/page12.asp > > Sample image: > > http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/original.asp?review=nikoncp990&orig=/reviews/nikoncp990/Samples/Macro/000415-1655-05.jpg I've got an FZ-20 and a Coolpix 990 and agree--the old Coolpix is a remarkably good camera for macro photography despite the by today's standards tiny pixel count. There's even a ringlight for it that still occasionally is offered for sale. I've not used a Canon SX series so can't say for sure how they compare, but its ability to focus to 0 cm (and supposedly it really _can_ shoot a fingerprint on the lens) would make it superior to the Panasonic however on older models that capability was at the wide end of the range only and I presume this carries through to the SX-20--this is limiting in that you don't get a lot of working distance. While the Panasonic can't fill the frame with an object as small as the Canon, the ability to get as close as 2 meters at the long end of the zoom range gives a useful capability with a working distance that in some cases is more convenient. Another big downside on the Panasonic is that it's in the lower of the two FZ bridge camera lines--that means no hot shoe and you need an extra piece to mount filters--there's no threaded ring on the lens barrel itself and the filter has to mount to an extender that screws into a ring on the body and moves it out far enough for the lens to move behind it. The lack of a hot shoe means that external flash has to be triggered with an optical slave--not a huge deal but can be annoying--if the onboard flash is putting light where you don't want it you have to block it while still allowing enough light leakage to trigger your external flash. Unfortunately the higher end of their bridge camera range seems to have been discontinued in favor of their micro 4/3 cameras. However for macro work, if one is serious about it, the camera is just the iceberg tip. One also needs decent and somewhat specialized lighting and proper camera supports. For studio use where you can set something up and leave it you can put together quite decent setups with pieces from Harbor Freight and Home Depot, but for a portable rig things can get expensive fast.
From: Chris Malcolm on 7 Dec 2009 10:58
Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Bart Bailey <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>01:59:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Begin >> >>>How do >>>you attach a studio flash system to a P&S camera. >> >>Use a slave trigger. > Now how do you attach a studio flash to a P&S without having the > camera's flash screw up the lighting? Reduce the power enough. If the camera controls can't do that enough, stick a bit of white paper over it. If you know enough about light and exposure to be using a studio flash in the first place then it should be trivially easy to solve this problem experimentally with the kind of stuff lying around in the your studio or kitchen. -- Chris Malcolm |