If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
With an APS-c sized sensor a 200mm lens has an effective focal length of
about 360mm. Pretty good but often just too short. Decent longer image stabilized zooms are pretty expensive, e.g. the 80-400 image stabilized Nikon or Sigma are $1000 and up. For the occasional long telephoto shot something like the Panasonic FZ18, at less than a third the price, seems like a reasonable alternative as long as the ISO can be kept under 200 and images are recorded in raw. The Olympus souper zoom offers raw also but uses only xd cards. Anyone have experience with the FZ18 in terms only of the optical quality of the lens at the long end of the zoom with regard to linear and chromatic distortion? I do not want to rehash all the trash about sensor size, the Panasonic brand and the rest of the crud that goes with it, |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
"dullpain" wrote in message et... With an APS-c sized sensor a 200mm lens has an effective focal length of about 360mm. Pretty good but often just too short. Decent longer image stabilized zooms are pretty expensive, e.g. the 80-400 image stabilized Nikon or Sigma are $1000 and up. For the occasional long telephoto shot something like the Panasonic FZ18, at less than a third the price, seems like a reasonable alternative as long as the ISO can be kept under 200 and images are recorded in raw. The Olympus souper zoom offers raw also but uses only xd cards. Anyone have experience with the FZ18 in terms only of the optical quality of the lens at the long end of the zoom with regard to linear and chromatic distortion? I do not want to rehash all the trash about sensor size, the Panasonic brand and the rest of the crud that goes with it, Are you asking a question or making a statement? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
On Jan 8, 12:29*pm, "dullpain" wrote:
With an APS-c sized sensor a 200mm lens has an effective focal length of about 360mm. Pretty good but often just too short. Decent longer image stabilized zooms are pretty expensive, e.g. the 80-400 image stabilized Nikon or Sigma are $1000 and up. For the occasional long telephoto shot something like the Panasonic FZ18, at less than a third the price, seems like a reasonable alternative as long as the ISO can be kept under 200 and images are recorded in raw. The Olympus souper zoom offers raw also but uses only xd cards. Anyone have experience with the FZ18 in terms only of the optical quality of the lens at the long end of the zoom with regard to linear and chromatic distortion? I do not want to rehash all the trash about sensor size, the Panasonic brand and the rest of the crud that goes with it, Here is a test photo from the FZ18 at the long end http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ18/FULLRES/FZ18hMULTIT.HTM Looks pretty bad to me, but I guess some people like it. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
Scott W wrote:
[] Here is a test photo from the FZ18 at the long end http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ18/FULLRES/FZ18hMULTIT.HTM Looks pretty bad to me, but I guess some people like it. Scott Viewed at 1:1 zoom, you can see defects. At what size does the OP view images? Perhaps not pixel-peeping at 1:1 zoom? I don't think it's a metter of "liking" it as such, simply judging whether the results are good enough for the intended use. I have the earlier FZ5, and my wife the FZ20, and both are capable of producing excellent quality images up to A4 size (297 x 210mm) or for viewing on 1600 x 1200 or 1366 x 768 LCD/TV displays. When tested, the Leica lenses on these cameras outperformed the Canon equivalents. Very handy, and not too expensive. Cheers, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
Agree, I looked at the images on both wide and long ends and there were obvious compromises made to get that much range. Jean True.....BUT..... Every single camera in the world is a compromise. We all understand, in general, what the compromises are between size, cost, resolution, sensor size, pixel pitch, image quality, zoom range, aperture size, flash properties, etc., etc., ad nauseam. The most expensive, sharpest cutting, versatile camera in the world is still a compromise. We all have to decide for ourselves "how good is good enough" for our purposes. What package of features, best suits our needs and circumstances. You cannot name any camera that I and tons of others in this NG cannot find "obvious compromises" compared to our 'Ideal" camera. Bob Williams |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
Bob Williams wrote:
[Jean wrote] Agree, I looked at the images on both wide and long ends and there were obvious compromises made to get that much range. True.....BUT..... Every single camera in the world is a compromise. We all understand, in general, what the compromises are between size, cost, resolution, sensor size, pixel pitch, image quality, zoom range, aperture size, *flash *properties, etc., etc., ad nauseam. The most expensive, sharpest cutting, versatile camera in the world is still a compromise. We all have to decide for ourselves "how good is good enough" for our purposes. What package of features, best suits our needs and circumstances.. A very good statement. In general, what I've found with P&S's is that when starting to work with very long telephoto lengths (~10x), it is hitting the limit of practicality ... for me ... due to the sum combination effect of composition-vs-shake, reduced contrast, ISO-vs-shake, and a few others. A good part of it is that the common method of holding a P&S (and for all newer P&S's that lack a traditional optical viewfinder), you simply don't have as stable of a shooting position, so the natural 1.6Hz 'wobble' of a human is magnified and to counter it, ends up eating a lot of time/attention/focus to simply compose the image well, etc. As such, my general rule of thumb with palm-sized cameras is that the long focal lengths aren't really a 'feature' if I'm not going to end up using them, because the sum net result ... for me ... is inadequate performance. In general, I'm satisfied with a tele that's 5x zoom and in general, I would rather have more WA available. YMMV. -hh |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
On Jan 8, 9:44*pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: Scott W wrote: [] Here is a test photo from the FZ18 at the long end http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ18/FULLRES/FZ18hMULTIT.HTM Looks pretty bad to me, but I guess some people like it. Scott Viewed at 1:1 zoom, you can see defects. *At what size does the OP view images? *Perhaps not pixel-peeping at 1:1 zoom? *I don't think it's a metter of "liking" it as such, simply judging whether the results are good enough for the intended use. I have the earlier FZ5, and my wife the FZ20, and both are capable of producing excellent quality images up to A4 size (297 x 210mm) or for viewing on 1600 x 1200 or 1366 x 768 LCD/TV displays. *When tested, the Leica lenses on these cameras outperformed the Canon equivalents. Well as I said some people seem to like them. My own preference would be to have a camera with less zoom range and better image quality. Scott |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
Scott W writes:
Well as I said some people seem to like them. My own preference would be to have a camera with less zoom range and better image quality. I've had the FZ5 and the Canon S2 IS. The FZ5 produced somewhat sharper images and had a better macro shooting mode. The S2 IS had other advantages, such as better video and the tilt/swivel LCD. Both were equally noisy at the same ISO settings, so I fail to see the point in claiming Panasonic has some kind of special noise problem that no-one else has. It was just about as noisy as you'd expect a 5-mpix compact digicam of recent years to have. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Non SLR Telephoto options
Scott W wrote:
[] Well as I said some people seem to like them. My own preference would be to have a camera with less zoom range and better image quality. Scott My preference would be to have a similar zoom range, including image stabilisation, but with a larger wide-angle coverage. Hence I recently bought a Panasonic TZ3 with a 28 - 280mm zoom. Very compact (which was another requirement). http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/ David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
seeking D50 telephoto options in the 300-600 mm range | Scott Speck | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | May 26th 06 04:52 AM |
Help, too many options!!! | Jack Dotson | Digital Photography | 7 | April 10th 05 04:57 PM |
Help, too many options!!! | Jack Dotson | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 05:02 PM |
a recommendation on a telephoto or zoom telephoto nikon lens. | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 8th 04 09:26 AM |
print options in XP - RAW or EMF? | swingman | Digital Photography | 3 | October 9th 04 12:23 AM |