Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Dec 2009 12:28 "rwalker" <rwalker(a)despammed.com> wrote in message news:nd4qh5lav8ld2v9o2ae22n3undq3oqjgr0(a)4ax.com... > 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. All of which will produce very different *final image* sizes of the ant, assuming the full format in each case is used to make that final image. So saying they are all 1:1 becomes rather meaningless as far as the image people will actually see is concerned. > People get themselves all confused > worrying about "crop factors" and holding the old 35 mm. negative size > as some kind of holy relict. It's not that the 35mm size is "holy," it's that it's a familiar standard and is very useful in establishing what one may expect in terms of angle of view for focal length with the current multitude of format sizes. Its use in this way actually preceded digital cameras by several years -- photography magazines often referred to "35mm equivalence" in mentioning focal lengths for APS cameras (which had a 1.25 lens factor).
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 7 Dec 2009 14:15 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. Nice preflashes does that P&S have. And the full frontal flash from the P&S does wonders for bad shots. Sure, you can put something over it --- but at some point it won't fire the studio flashes, and still disturb the image. That's assuming the P&S in question can even be turned to manual mode --- many (most?) cannot. -Wolfgang
From: Scott W on 7 Dec 2009 19:20 On Dec 7, 9:15 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > Bart Bailey <m...(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. > > Nice preflashes does that P&S have. > > And the full frontal flash from the P&S does wonders for bad shots. > Sure, you can put something over it --- but at some point it > won't fire the studio flashes, and still disturb the image. > > That's assuming the P&S in question can even be turned to manual > mode --- many (most?) cannot. > > -Wolfgang The pre-flash is the biggest headache, there are slaves that can ignore it but more slave flash united will not. As for the light from the flash messing up the shot, it takes very little flash to trigger the slaves, I normally shoot the flash on the camera straight up. The flash also puts out a lot of IR, so you could put a IR passing / visible blocking filter in front of the flash. But the number of reason that a P&S is not go for most pros is way long. Sure there are a few pros shooting with P&S cameras, in some cases the small size and very low noise is a real plus. But for sports or studio work I just dont see it. Scott
From: Ray Fischer on 8 Dec 2009 01:31 Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >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 that's even an option. > If the camera controls can't do that enough, >stick a bit of white paper over it. Seems like it'd be a lot easier to use a better camera. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. on 8 Dec 2009 16:31
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:57:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >NameHere wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:42:52 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:hf1i10$kb1$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>>> 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; >>> Yes, one the Panasonics I've used the optics are better than Canon, and >>> Panasonic don't do as much image processing, leading to sharper but >>> slightly noisier (more "grain") images. Your choice! >>> >>> To compare features side-by-side: >>> >>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sx20is%2Cpanasonic_dmcfz35&show=all >>> >>> Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider >>> field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and >>> lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will >>> produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you >>> already know that. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >> >> You mean like how these smaller sensor G9 and G11 P&S cameras beat the new >> Canon D7 DSLR? > >Except that they don't of course. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic." <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer> "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer." |