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,

"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?

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

"Scott W" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
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.

Agree, I looked at the images on both wide and long ends and there were
obvious compromises made to get that much range. Like you said some people
like that (or don't mind it) but I don't.

Jean

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

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

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

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

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.

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