FZ20 vs S2

I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
better than the other for photo quality?

C

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:39:48 GMT, Cordovero wrote:
I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
better than the other for photo quality?

The FZ20 has an extending lens; the upcoming FZ30 has a fixed lens.

I believe the diameter of the FZ20 lens itself is slightly larger than
that of the Canon; you need a larger diameter lens to get the wider
aperture at the long end of the zoom. Additionally, the FZ20 has a focus
ring mounted on the outside of the lens housing, which adds additional
bulk to the whole assembly.

-dms

In article et,
"Cordovero" wrote:

I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
better than the other for photo quality?

Do a side-by-side comparison over at DPreview, then check out their
sample photos. There probably isn't a lot in it. The decision may come
down to do you prefer say, flip out viewer or hot shoe flash, NiMH AA
cells or LiIon battery.

--

Thingumy Bob

Thanks, Bob. I'm a little bitter about the review sites (dpreview, steve's,
et. al.) -- I think they mix in far too much information of relatively
useless info with tiny nuggets of vital info hidden, and then extreme
vagueness on the most important issues ("could be better at low light
focusing" or "some noise above ISO 200") which, in my opinion, should
warrant some of the effort at analysis that went in to describing every
single menu option.. I've read them all, multiple times! I think the most
useful feature are comparison photos, but very often they are not really
comparable, because the pictures are taken on different days from different
spots (for the outside photos -- is it that hard to find a spot on the
ground that you always use for the tripod?) and there are even variables in
the inside shots. I think the review sites are somewhat overrated, which
makes a ng such as this more important and, sorry to say, too little
trafficked.

C

"Thingumy" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Cordovero" wrote:

I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a
much
larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or
does
it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is
one
better than the other for photo quality?

Do a side-by-side comparison over at DPreview, then check out their
sample photos. There probably isn't a lot in it. The decision may come
down to do you prefer say, flip out viewer or hot shoe flash, NiMH AA
cells or LiIon battery.

--

Thingumy Bob

"Cordovero" writes:

Thanks, Bob. I'm a little bitter about the review sites (dpreview, steve's,
et. al.) -- I think they mix in far too much information of relatively
useless info with tiny nuggets of vital info hidden, and then extreme
vagueness on the most important issues ("could be better at low light
focusing" or "some noise above ISO 200") which, in my opinion, should
warrant some of the effort at analysis that went in to describing every
single menu option..

I disagree. I think they generally do good job, but Imaging Resource
is my favorite. For example, here's the summary of their FZ20
review:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ20/FZ20A13.HTM

These sites may not be perfect, but they're free, and thoroughly
testing/reviewing a camera is a *lot* of work.

If you think they're doing such a poor job, feel free to show them how
it should be done.

-Dave

If you think they're doing such a poor job, feel free to show them how
it should be done.

Well, I think Starbucks coffee is sub par: should I start my own coffee
corporation?

The bottom line is that despite your chivalry, these sites are still trying
to make money. Some of them started as pure hobbyist nonprofit-type sites,
but most have now taken on advertising/banner ads and commissions on
pricewatch-type-links. In fact, one of them (I forget the name), has most
of the sample pictures taken in Stanford University housing and campus (I
used to live there). If you think that isn't a Stanford guy trying to get a
startup going, then you haven't met a Stanford student in the past ten
years. This doesn't mean that the people who started these sites aren't
geniune camera enthusiasts, but to criticize me for pointing out their
limitations is as silly as suggesting I should shut up and do it myself
rather than harbor a criticism.

I wish the sites had more access to keeping cameras around. There are some
inherent limitations in their money -- I'll grant you that-- but it does
create a limitation for putting up sample pictures of the same outdoor
fixture taken from different spots on different days with different zooms.
If you had an inventory of some of the cameras around, then you could do
true side by side comparisons, not virtual ones. At this point, none of the
review sites cited here regularly (and uncritically) compare with an
Anandtech or TomsHardware for managing some objective side by side
comparisons.

I will repeat my criticism as well that they tend to get vague on such
issues as camera noise and low light focusing, when in my opinion, these
issues warrant more effort than taking photos of every menu option.

That's my opinion.

Oh, and the superautomatic espresso machines Starbucks now use make an
inferior espresso.

Cordo

"Cordovero" writes:

If you think they're doing such a poor job, feel free to show them how
it should be done.

Well, I think Starbucks coffee is sub par: should I start my own coffee
corporation?

If you think you know why it's sub par, feel strongly enough about it,
and think you can make a successful business out of it, sure, why not?

The bottom line is that despite your chivalry, these sites are still trying
to make money. Some of them started as pure hobbyist nonprofit-type sites,
but most have now taken on advertising/banner ads and commissions on
pricewatch-type-links.

Being for-profit doesn't mean they're inferior to nonprofit sites. In
fact, it probably enables them to review a lot more equipment, and to
do a better job of it.

... This doesn't mean that the people who started these sites aren't
geniune camera enthusiasts, but to criticize me for pointing out their
limitations is as silly as suggesting I should shut up and do it myself
rather than harbor a criticism.

I didn't suggest that you should shut up. I merely disagreed with your
opinion.

I wish the sites had more access to keeping cameras around.

I wish I had a Ferrari.

There are some
inherent limitations in their money -- I'll grant you that-- but it does
create a limitation for putting up sample pictures of the same outdoor
fixture taken from different spots on different days with different zooms.
If you had an inventory of some of the cameras around, then you could do
true side by side comparisons, not virtual ones. At this point, none of the
review sites cited here regularly (and uncritically) compare with an
Anandtech or TomsHardware for managing some objective side by side
comparisons.

Again, I must disagree. TomsHardware is rather biased
(pro-Intel/anti-AMD, for example) and poorly-written. And comparing
computer equipment objectively is vastly easier than comparing cameras
objectively.

I will repeat my criticism as well that they tend to get vague on such
issues as camera noise and low light focusing, when in my opinion, these
issues warrant more effort than taking photos of every menu option.

I guess I just don't see the vagueness you're complaining about. Do
you think the Imaging Resource review was vague?

-Dave

In article et,
"Cordovero" wrote:

I think the most
useful feature are comparison photos, but very often they are not really
comparable, because the pictures are taken on different days from different
spots (for the outside photos -- is it that hard to find a spot on the
ground that you always use for the tripod?) and there are even variables in
the inside shots.

Agreed. I worked in the Consumer Products Evaluation industry and some
of the reviews make me cringe. For comparisons you MUST have consistent
conditions. They might get away with outside shots in California or
Nevada, with pretty regular weather, but even that might require waiting
a day or three for cloud cover, sun angle, etc to return to their
designated baseline. It probably wouldn't be worth it for anyone running
a web site.

Even interiors could be tricky to do consistently, unless they were
always shot at night with wholly artificial lighting. About the only
thing they can really get consistently are the still-life arrays. I
would like to see a page of fine-print text included amount the Mickey
Mice.

--

Thingumy Bob