Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Paul Ciszek on 30 Nov 2009 17:46 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. 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 |
From: David J Taylor on 1 Dec 2009 02:42 "Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:hf1i10$kb1$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon > PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is > supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics; Yes, one the Panasonics I've used the optics are better than Canon, and Panasonic don't do as much image processing, leading to sharper but slightly noisier (more "grain") images. Your choice! To compare features side-by-side: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sx20is%2Cpanasonic_dmcfz35&show=all Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you already know that. Cheers, David
From: NameHere on 1 Dec 2009 06:53 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:42:52 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >news:hf1i10$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? http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/ Or how this very small sensor SX10 beats another DSLR? http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml Or maybe you meant this page, where a small sensor P&S camera can now compete with a medium-format Hasselblad, even when that Hasselblad is securely mounted on a tripod and the shutter tripped by a remote-release. Yet the P&S camera is only balanced on top and the shutter pressed with a finger. And still they can't tell the images apart between the two based on image quality alone. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml Is that what you meant by not being able to produce "as good" image quality as a DSLR, because smaller sensor P&S cameras can actually create BETTER image quality than a DSLR? Is that what you meant? You must have. Only an idiot troll with no real photography experience would try to say something that is in direct opposition to all the real evidence.
From: Paul Ciszek on 1 Dec 2009 09:28 In article <0O3Rm.10423$Ym4.3597(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >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. 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. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: David J Taylor on 1 Dec 2009 09:40
"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. With a DSLR this grain only appears in much lower lighting conditions than with a small-sensor camera, enabling you to take good pictures where otherwise you might only get a blur or a very grainy image. The lenses on DSLRs can be changed, so that you can buy ones far better than those typically supplied on small-sensor cameras. These benefits come with a size, weight and cost penalty, though. Probably either model would suit your needs - handle both in the shop and see which you prefer. Cheers, David |