Panasonic FZ20 vs DSLR

Hi,

From what I have read going for the FZ20 seems to make far more
financial sense then getting a DSLR. OK, you have the interchangeable
lenses, ability to use high ISO etc, but with the FZ20 you get the
capability of 420mm telephoto with the option of quickly going to 35mm
for wider angle, and macro shots at 5cm or nearer with the Nikon 6T
converter which I hear is very good. Add to this the quality of the
results you can get straight from camera rather than having to do lots
of manipulations -and let's face it who wants to manipulate all 200+
pics from a holiday or photoshoot? I believe that the results straight
from DSLR is often outclassed by those of good prosumer cameras, useful
if you can just give the memory card to a good photo-developing store
and cheaper on paper and inks.

Cost of FZ20 is around £350 (equiv to approx $650), not sure of sale
price in US, but you are ofter cheaper because we get ripped off here.
Whereas I don't have to say anything about DSLR+lenses+computer, etc

Part of me would love to get a DSLR, but suspect that in a years time
they would be twice as good and half the price! And if a 7Mp version of
the FZ20 came along with that wonderful lens and perhaps one or two
improvements in the body, how tempting would that be??

How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
decided, with reasons why please.

Thanks for your thoughts

Mark

mark.worthington wrote:
Cost of FZ20 is around £350 (equiv to approx $650), not sure of sale
price in US, but you are ofter cheaper because we get ripped off here.
Whereas I don't have to say anything about DSLR+lenses+computer, etc

Part of me would love to get a DSLR, but suspect that in a years time
they would be twice as good and half the price! And if a 7Mp version of
the FZ20 came along with that wonderful lens and perhaps one or two
improvements in the body, how tempting would that be??

How many of you have pondered over this dilemma and what have you
decided, with reasons why please.


The amount of zoom photography I do is high (much of it being railway or
motorsports). The cost of a lens that could do what the FZ does, with
IS, for a dSLR is prohibitive. Sure, the pictures would be better, but
I'm by no means a photographic ace, when I do print it's usually no
bigger then 6x4 or 8x10 and I don't fancy carrying around a DSLR body
and a couple of lenses every time I go out.

So the decision to buy something in that class was a no-brainer. In fact
it was the FZ-10 'cos the 20 didn't exist at that point.

pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."

It is amazing how people feel guilty about preferring an EVF camera to a
dSLR. I presume it is due to decades of exposure to the mantra that only
SLRs can be serious cameras for serious people.

Cartier-Bresson was French, so he does not count.Besides, he used Leicas
which are granted special approval as serious cameras.

I use both EVF and dSLRs. If you do not have a good reason why you
specifically want or need a dSLR why would you think twice about getting the
camera you actually prefer? In many ways I prefer my Sony828 to my D70
(despite the closet full of Nikon lenses I could use).

People who have not extensively used EVFs love to rant on this newsgroup but
the truth is that the EVF is a new and evolving form factor whereas the SLR
form factor has been evolving since the 1930s.

As a practical point: most people get more use out of the wide angle end of
a zoom than the telephoto end. The long zoom EVFs that I have seen all seem
to have a wide end that is only a 35mm equivalent, which is very limiting in
general usage.