|
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the
Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? TIA -- F |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 26/05/2010 23:58 John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:19:01 +0100, Fnews@nowhere wrote in : I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? I think it unlikely for the Panasonic to be replaced anytime soon. Thanks. I wasn't sure whether or not Panasonic released updated/new models every 12 months. -- F |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:19:01 +0100, F news@nowhere wrote:
I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? TIA Both are excellent cameras. Depending on your level of photography skills and level of creativity, you might want to consider too that the SX1 has had CHDK ported to it (nearing the end of its beta phase at the moment, just a few CHDK features are not enabled yet). See links below. Keep in mind though that most of the features of CHDK are for *very* advanced photographers (browse the online user's manual). It may be something that would be of no use to you. In that case the FZ38 would be just as good. Don't bother waiting on replacements, that's a fool's game. Unless you know for certain something is being released in a set amount of time with a feature that you've been waiting for your whole life. Even then, newer is not always better. I have found it is often better to buy the tried, true, and tested camera of this or last year at a lower price than the next model that has had features crippled or the manufacturer cut quality to cut costs. I still have one camera made in 2003 with an image quality that still can't be beat by today's models. Another point in the SX1's favor is that I found it is best to switch manufacturers every other camera. Features from one camera company will often compliment features on another manufacturer's cameras. For example, I bought a Sony for its infrared-capabilities, an excellent camera, but it lacked things like stereo video recording, almost essential to the nature documentary photographer. So my next camera included a CD quality stereo feature, but that had to be obtained from a different maker. I now have both capabilities at my disposal. Since you already have the FZ30, the SX1 might give you some features that are lacking in the Panasonic line. Then you'll have a choice of whichever features you need between the two. I found too that by becoming comfortable with any camera from any maker that I am then more spontaneous and creative in using any of them. The camera no longer becomes such an important part of the photography process. It becomes just something that exists between you and the photograph that you want to create. I also don't become stuck in a photographic rut by taking all my images the same way, constrained by that one maker's features or limitations. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_User_Manual |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 26/05/10 3:19 PM, F wrote:
I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? The SX2 IS is overdue but it won't necessarily be any better and could be worse. Not every new model is better than the previous model, especially on P&S cameras where the manufacturers get into megapixel wars and end up with ridiculously tiny pixels and high noise. Canon actually went backward from the G10 to the G11 in terms of pixels, which was move forward in terms of quality. The FZ38 is noisier than the SX1 IS, not surprising given Panasonic's long history of noise boxes. Don't get the FZ38 if you plan on doing anything in low light/higher than 100 ISO. Some reviews complain about noise even at 80 ISO! One advantage of most Canon P&S models is the availability of the free CHDK software which adds some extra capabilities that more sophisticated photographers may find useful. See "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". There's a beta version available for the SX1 IS. I helped write some of the CHDK documentation and I'm a big fan (and user) of it. One advantage of the Panasonic is that it uses a Li-Ion battery, while Canon cut costs by using AA batteries. Bottom line, the FZ38 while it has impressive specs on paper, disappoints in actual use. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:48:48 -0700, SMS wrote:
One advantage of most Canon P&S models is the availability of the free CHDK software which adds some extra capabilities that more sophisticated photographers may find useful. See "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". There's a beta version available for the SX1 IS. I helped write some of the CHDK documentation and I'm a big fan (and user) of it. You don't have it on any camera. You can't even tell someone how it works. We've already tested and proved that about you. And the WIKI history PROVES that you've NEVER contributed even ONE WORD to the documentation, you useless psychotic troll. LOL! |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 5/26/2010 6:19 PM, F wrote:
I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? TIA According to the Canon site, the SX1 IS is replaced by SX20 IS. This seems to be essentially the same except for HD video and more pixels which it didn't need anyway. There may also be an update to the processor. Although Canon dosen't list the SX1 IS, reviews state it's still available. My A95 went kaput and I'm back to using the old A40, a 2mp camera that takes excellent shots withing it's limitations. It's that 2mp that convinces me that ever more pixels are just a marketing gimmick plus the reinforcement of comments in this group from people who are more dedicated photographers than myself. If I do upgrade again, I would get the SX20 unless the SX1 IS were available at worthwhile cost saving. I don't find the AA batteries to be a disadvantage except for a little more size and weight and I insist on having some form of viewfinder, something that seems to be omitted from more and more p&s's. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 27/05/10 8:07 AM, Dave Cohen wrote:
On 5/26/2010 6:19 PM, F wrote: I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months? TIA According to the Canon site, the SX1 IS is replaced by SX20 IS. This seems to be essentially the same except for HD video and more pixels which it didn't need anyway. The SX1 IS does higher resolution HD video than the SX20 IS. There may also be an update to the processor. Although Canon dosen't list the SX1 IS, reviews state it's still available. My A95 went kaput and I'm back to using the old A40, a 2mp camera that takes excellent shots withing it's limitations. Yeah, I have an old A60 that I got my son many years ago. Great camera, but I upgraded the kids to two of the A570 IS because of the IS and the video capability. There's also no CHDK available for the A60, and since I helped write the documentation for CHDK I wanted cameras that it supported. It's that 2mp that convinces me that ever more pixels are just a marketing gimmick plus the reinforcement of comments in this group from people who are more dedicated photographers than myself. There's definitely some negatives as the pixel count goes up and the pixel size goes down, but it wasn't reached at 2MP for the P&S cameras. I really like the Canon models with the 7.1MP sensor, a sweet spot in P&S for Canon. I also have an SD800 IS which was the only pocket camera with a wide angle lens AND an optical viewfinder. It was also the only P&S I ever saw go UP in price during its lifteime, because it was in very high demand. There is no replacement for it--there are pocket models with wide angle-lens but no viewfinder, and models with a viewfinder but no wide-angle lens. If I do upgrade again, I would get the SX20 unless the SX1 IS were available at worthwhile cost saving. I don't find the AA batteries to be a disadvantage except for a little more size and weight and I insist on having some form of viewfinder, something that seems to be omitted from more and more p&s's. Good points, though I find a Li-Ion battery preferable because a) it lasts much longer, b) it's more reliable in terms of the physical design of the contacts and battery holder, and c) you get a much better indication of the remaining energy in the battery because the Li-Ion battery has a linear voltage/capacity curve. If there are after-market Li-Ion packs for the camera they're also generally cheaper than buying the same capacity in Sanyo Eneloops or other low-discharge AA NiMH cells. Even with the CHDK battery feature on AA powered Canon cameras, which gives you more information about the state of the battery, it still can't fix the inherent flat discharge curve of an NiMH battery (if you use disposable Lithium AA batteries then you don't have the problem). I'd be very wary of the SX20 IS in terms of noise. It uses a higher resolution sensor, and it's CCD not CMOS. The SX1 IS is pretty good in terms of noise because of the CMOS sensor and because they didn't go crazy in terms of megapixels. In any case, the original poster should just get the SX1 IS. The battery type is a minor issue. Even if Panasonic comes out with an FZ-38 replacement it will likely suffer the same noise problems as the FZ-38 unless Panasonic does some radical shift in their designs. It's a shame about Panasonic because if you look just at the specifications they have some compelling models that seem like just the perfect camera with combinations of features that you often can't get from other manufacturers. But they just have never been able to get a handle on their noise problems. The most amusing review I read of the FZ-38 was the faint praise that 'the noise is not much higher than the FZ-28'! Yeah, I guess that's a good thing, LOL. One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get around the basic physics. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
In article , John Navas
wrote: One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get around the basic physics. Total nonsense. it's not nonsense. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS wrote:
Yeah, I have an old A60 that I got my son many years ago. Great camera, but I upgraded the kids to two of the A570 IS because of the IS and the video capability. There's also no CHDK available for the A60, and since I helped write the documentation for CHDK I wanted cameras that it supported. You don't have it on any camera. You can't even tell someone how it works. We've already tested and proved that about you. And the WIKI history PROVES that you've NEVER contributed even ONE WORD to the documentation, you useless psychotic pretend-photographer troll. LOL! |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS wrote:
I'd be very wary of the SX20 IS in terms of noise. It uses a higher resolution sensor, and it's CCD not CMOS. The SX1 IS is pretty good in terms of noise because of the CMOS sensor and because they didn't go crazy in terms of megapixels. Proving yet again that you just make up all these things out of your delusional pea-brain. CMOS are slightly more noisy than CCD, due to the smaller photosite sizes caused by the extra circuitry required between photosites. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:16:02 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS wrote in : One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get around the basic physics. Total nonsense. Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:
Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera and it can have no faults. Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 27/05/2010 16:07 Dave Cohen wrote:
If I do upgrade again, I would get the SX20 unless the SX1 IS were available at worthwhile cost saving. I don't find the AA batteries to be a disadvantage except for a little more size and weight and I insist on having some form of viewfinder, something that seems to be omitted from more and more p&s's. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and pointers. I now have an SX1 IS on order. I was more than pleased with my FZ30, it did all that I wanted of it, and it did it well. My main reasons for seeking a replacement were not because I was disappointed with it but because the flash release button had come away and was going to cost too much to repair, some images were starting to be corrupted when they were saved and I wanted a longer zoom. The possibility of HD video was also a temptation. The temptation to wait for the next new iteration, however, was never very strong. I was just concerned that if I bought today and a new one was announced tomorrow I might just have missed something that was 'better'. Note the *might*! As for the SX1, as well as good reviews, it's very 'controllable', it has a fast burst mode, it has a viewfinder (which I consider vital), the LCD can be rotated (again, very useful and missing on the later Panasonics) and it uses AA batteries. Oh, and there's currently a £50 cashback offer on it from Canon. The only downside I can see is that, like the later Panasonics, it doesn't have the manual zoom ring of the FZ30. Time will tell on whether or not I made the right decision... -- F |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in : On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:16:02 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS wrote in : One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get around the basic physics. Total nonsense. Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with the FZ35. Nah, it's configured just fine. Every time we go down this road I ask you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. Some other time, John. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS
wrote: On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote: Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera and it can have no faults. Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote:
snip As for the SX1, as well as good reviews, it's very 'controllable', it has a fast burst mode, it has a viewfinder (which I consider vital), the LCD can be rotated (again, very useful and missing on the later Panasonics) and it uses AA batteries. Oh, and there's currently a £50 cashback offer on it from Canon. The only downside I can see is that, like the later Panasonics, it doesn't have the manual zoom ring of the FZ30. Yeah, manual zoom rings are great, but unfortunately that's a feature that's been decontented out of most ZLRs. Good choice. Consider trying CHDK on it. The SX1 already has many of the features that CHDK provides to the lower end Canon models, but there's still some useful stuff in there. If you have any questions on CHDK let me know. I wrote a lot of documentation for it and I'm very familiar with it. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:
Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:59:11 -0700, SMS wrote:
On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote: snip As for the SX1, as well as good reviews, it's very 'controllable', it has a fast burst mode, it has a viewfinder (which I consider vital), the LCD can be rotated (again, very useful and missing on the later Panasonics) and it uses AA batteries. Oh, and there's currently a £50 cashback offer on it from Canon. The only downside I can see is that, like the later Panasonics, it doesn't have the manual zoom ring of the FZ30. Yeah, manual zoom rings are great, but unfortunately that's a feature that's been decontented out of most ZLRs. Good choice. Consider trying CHDK on it. The SX1 already has many of the features that CHDK provides to the lower end Canon models, but there's still some useful stuff in there. If you have any questions on CHDK let me know. I wrote a lot of documentation for it and I'm very familiar with it. Oh, PLEASE do ask SMS how to use any part of CHDK. This is a laugh whenever this happens. This psychotic SMS troll who has NEVER touched CHDK doesn't know a damn thing about it. Even if you ask him how to install it he gets that wrong! Dozens of people have asked him things about CHDK in the past and he conveniently ignores their questions, pretending he never saw them. LOL! |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser wrote in : On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in : Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with the FZ35. Nah, it's configured just fine. Apparently not. Every time we go down this road I ask you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. Some other time, John. I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. OK, just this once: You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II. When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 that match the 5D II. We're all waiting. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:00 -0400, Bowser wrote in : Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' And your evidence is....where? |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote:
snip The temptation to wait for the next new iteration, however, was never very strong. I was just concerned that if I bought today and a new one was announced tomorrow I might just have missed something that was 'better'. Note the *might*! We're really at the point now where there's not going to be any significant improvements unless there is some new sensor technology that emerges. Other than SLRs with larger sensors, even the megapixel wars seem to have mostly ended because the manufacturers don't want to further reduce the high ISO performance or increase noise. Also, what often happens is the replacement model is worse than the one it replaces, not better, because features that are deemed too costly are removed, i.e. optical viewfinder, articulated LCD, etc. The interchangeable lens non-DSLRs are the new market segment that Sony and the Micro 4:3 consortium is trying to promote but it's unclear that there's any demand for such a system that lacks many of the advantages of D-SLRs, and addresses only the question of physical size. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"SMS" wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. Take Care, Dudley |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
In article XNTLn.5310$z%6.360@edtnps83, Dudley Hanks
wrote: The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers don't use compact digicams. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be better. For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros and cons, and why they made their selection. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote: On May 28, 2:40*am, John Navas wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS wrote in : On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote: Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera and it can have no faults. Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR? DanP I sold my favorite one (and gave a couple away) when I found out that high-quality P&S cameras were far more adaptable and versatile with just as good, if not better, image quality in some of them. You might want to actually compare cameras some day and put them through their paces instead of listening to all the insecure trolls online trying to justify why they wasted so much money trying to get their DSLRs to get decent snapshots. If you had as many wide-ranging creative requirements as I do for my photographic gear, and could actually think for yourself, you'd ditch your DSLRs too. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 18:18:31 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: "SMS" wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. And you would know this because .... You actually see the images you take? News Flash: Blind Photographer hired by DPReview to do all their latest camera and lens reviews. Word has it that he's even better than their present camera reviewers. (Actually, there wouldn't be much difference.) LOL! |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:31:52 -0700, nospam wrote:
In article XNTLn.5310$z%6.360@edtnps83, Dudley Hanks wrote: The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers don't use compact digicams. More words coming from a role-playing pretend-photographer troll. MANY Pros use P&S cameras. I being one of them. You forget, nospam, that we've PROVED that you have never used any camera in your lifetime. You only know about the imaginary ones you hold inside that little head of yours. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:11 -0700, SMS wrote:
On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be better. For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros and cons, and why they made their selection. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. That's all complete and total nonsense coming from a troll that has never used any of these cameras. EVER. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"SMS" wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: wrote in message ... On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be better. For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros and cons, and why they made their selection. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi. It goes without saying that, if I were to pick up a f/2.8 70 - 200mm EOS lens, the situation would quickly reverse itself, as the quicker DSLR performance, lower noise sensorand superior optics of the lens could not be surpassed in a $250 P&S package. Also, given I don't have a macro lens for the XSi, it's pretty easy for the SX120 to beat the XSi in that catagory. :) As an aside, I've had good feedback, initially, about the SX120's HDR-like wider latitude than the XSi. It seems to do a good job of pulling out shadow detail and keeping highlights from blowing in most situations. But, my XSi is a few years old, and newer DSLR's in that price range are quite likely to have better dynamic range than my cam. On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about these problems. It's a good thing my aim isn't spot on at longer focal lengths, so I'm unlikely to shoot many pics in the longer zoom range. Take Care, Dudley |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:29:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about these problems. I highly doubt that anyone in your family would know what you were talking about (judging by the poor quality of photos that they let you post to the net) let alone them knowing how to compare those things between different cameras. You truly are blind. In more ways than one. As are any that would believe your equipment reviews. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"LOL!" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 May 2010 18:18:31 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: "SMS" wrote in message .. . On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art / science of picture taking. As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens interchangeability. And you would know this because .... You actually see the images you take? News Flash: Blind Photographer hired by DPReview to do all their latest camera and lens reviews. Word has it that he's even better than their present camera reviewers. (Actually, there wouldn't be much difference.) LOL! It's comments like that that expose your narrow-minded, more-than-a-bit-out-of-touch mentality for what it is: socially limiting and not conducive to technical innovation... There's an old saying in the armed forces: "If you want to know the easiest and quickest method of how to get something done, assign the problem to the laziest troop in the platoon." Regarding myself, if my limited sight sees something better in one camera / image over another, then there is obviously something desirable there. For instance, I shot a pic the other night of Mich wandering off-leash as I took the garbage out. It's a shot you would call "a crap shot," but it caught my eye as I was reviewing it because my eye, with its weird way of seeing things, picked out part of Mich's silhouette superimposed over a sidewalk, and a highlight along the edge of his tail. To me, Mich was delinieated by both shadow and highlight. Later, when my son was looking at the same picture, he saw an underexposed pic of Mich, with neither the silhouette or the tail highlight drawing much attention. So, what does this have to do with what a sighted person would care about in the purchase of a camera, or in reflecting upon the work of a blind photographer? Well, The pic illustrates the nice dynamic range of the SX120. Even in an extremely low-light situation, outdoors with the light of only a single bulb , it can produce some very delicate highlight detail in shadow areas. So delicate in fact that sighted persons might not even notice, but which still have the potential of making a good pic better than it otherwise would have been. Take Care, Dudley |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"Jeff Jones" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:29:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about these problems. I highly doubt that anyone in your family would know what you were talking about (judging by the poor quality of photos that they let you post to the net) let alone them knowing how to compare those things between different cameras. You truly are blind. In more ways than one. As are any that would believe your equipment reviews. Who said I was referring to family members? And, who says they "let" me post pics? I choose what to show after asking a variety of questions to various friends and family members. They are encouraged not to express a personal preference, only to convey to me as objectively as possible what they see in the image. After an image is posted, I receive feedback from persons who post responses to the host where I placed my links, and also from users who e-mail their responses. You might be surprised at who views my shots... Take Care, Dudley |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: You might be surprised at who views my shots... I wouldn't be surprised at all. I've already seen the kind of dreck crapshots posted by those that encourage you here. Why should others that do the same (encourage you) be any less terrible at their own photography because they use email. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"Jeff Jones" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: You might be surprised at who views my shots... I wouldn't be surprised at all. I've already seen the kind of dreck crapshots posted by those that encourage you here. Why should others that do the same (encourage you) be any less terrible at their own photography because they use email. Jeff / LOL / GR, the difference between you and I is that you start with your own ideas / opinions / prejudices and devote your energy to bringing the world down to your level, while I start with my own abilities and consult the world in order to improve both my abilities and the understanding of others as to the arbitrary nature of societies understanding of persons with disabilities. Take Care, Dudley |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:14:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: the difference between you and I is that you start with your own ideas / opinions / prejudices and devote your energy to bringing the world down to your level Quite the contrary. I short out the wheat from the chaff. I'm a photographer. I find those rarest of gems in the most unlikely places. It's part of being a photographer. Looking for gold amongst the world's trash. Your photography is trash. That simple. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:14:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: the difference between you and I is that you start with your own ideas / opinions / prejudices and devote your energy to bringing the world down to your level Quite the contrary. I sort out the wheat from the chaff. I'm a photographer. I find those rarest of gems in the most unlikely places. It's part of being a photographer. Looking for gold amongst the world's trash. Your photography is trash. That simple. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:IQULn.5311$z%6.2582@edtnps83... [] In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi. Nor do you with the SX120 - at its longest focal length (60mm, 360mm equivalent), it's f/4.3, not f/2.8. The ISO 3200 image I found with a quick search was not full resolution, but 1600 x 1200. Cheers, David |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
|
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 5/28/10 10:02 AM, in article , "SMS" wrote: On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me. I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at first, then as you stated, it gets boring. Yep. He bounces from group to group. When he make a big enough ass of himself in one, he leaves and shows up at another. The guy needs a life. |
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com