FZ20 v S1 IS

I've narrowed my choice down to either Panasonic FZ20 or Canon S1 IS. Price
is a factor but better night time, floodlit football photography would swing
the decision as would decent movie capture under the same conditions. It's
main use would be at football so 90+ minutes of battery life is essential
taking approx 100 photos and 20 movies.

As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), both have aperture & shutter
pririoty control manual control and decent ultra-zoom lenses. I've read many
reviews on both but not being camera-literate, the more I read the harder
the decision gets.

In my pure amateur mind, the benefits I see for each a

FZ20 - decent resolution, better zoom, decent lense, li-ion battery and it
uses SD cards which I already have for my pocket pc - otherwise it would put
it out of my budget.
S1 IS - silent zoom, zoom while recording movie. What I don't like are the
AA batteries and not being able to use my existing SD cards.

It's not an easy choice, at today's online prices the S1 even having to buy
decent rechargeables and CF card comes in quite a bit cheaper than the FZ20
which appears to be on back order anywhere selling it at a decent price
(GBP330-340).

Be gentle, I'm an amateur but I need help deciding!

Kilry aka Brian

"Kilroy_Woz_ere" wrote:

S1 IS - silent zoom, zoom while recording movie. What I don't like are the
AA batteries and not being able to use my existing SD cards.

AA-batteries are a good choice, Here in Europe you can buy a small
smart-charger and four 2100mAh or 2300mAh NiMH-batteries at about 30 euros.
If you do not want to buy extra set of rechargeable batteries you can always
use alkaline batteries instead - for a few pictures at least.
CF-cards are cheaper than SD:s and you would like to start with 256 ...
512MB at least! However CF-cards will be replaced with smaller media in the
near future, also in Canon cameras.

Sepe

Kilroy_Woz_ere wrote:
I've narrowed my choice down to either Panasonic FZ20 or Canon S1 IS.

Brian,

Get yourself along to a decent photo dealer and actually handle both
cameras - you are now at that level of decision. Both will produce
excellent pictures (and perhaps movies within the limitations you list).
The Canon is perhaps smaller and is definitely cheaper (well, it costs
less!), but has less zoom. Some people find small cameras difficult to
handle. Try it with gloves on for those cold winter nights! How easy are
the menus to use? For the functions /you/ need?

A good dealer may price match an Internet site....

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Get yourself along to a decent photo dealer and actually handle both
cameras - you are now at that level of decision. Both will produce
excellent pictures (and perhaps movies within the limitations you list).
The Canon is perhaps smaller and is definitely cheaper (well, it costs
less!), but has less zoom. Some people find small cameras difficult to
handle. Try it with gloves on for those cold winter nights! How easy are
the menus to use? For the functions /you/ need?

A good dealer may price match an Internet site....

Excellent advice, something to do this lunchtime but I'd still appreciate
feedback on both cameras, sales people sometimes have other reasons for
pushing specific cameras.

Kilroy_Woz_ere wrote:
[]
Excellent advice, something to do this lunchtime but I'd still
appreciate feedback on both cameras, sales people sometimes have
other reasons for pushing specific cameras.

OK, but I can only comment on the FZ20. Had one for a few days and been
very pleased with it. Not interested in movies or sound so can't comment
on that. Being left eye dominant, I find the position of the EVF (right
on the left of the camera) means that my nose is resting against the LCD.
The LCD doesn't swivel (which I am used to), but I prefer to use an EVF
and I think for telephoto shots holding the camera against the face
provides better stability than at arm's length (of course, a tripod would
be better, but I don't carry one around).

The stabilisation works really well, including on indoor wide-angle shots.
(One reason why I didn't buy a Minolta A2 earlier this year was that on
indoor shots the stabilisation indication changed from "active" to "sorry,
but I can't help". What use is that!).

Yes, there is a little more noise in the images (even in daylight shots)
than on my Nikon 5700. This is to be expected as the Nikon is a 1/1.8"
sensor versus the 1/2.5" sensor in the Panasonic. Both are 5MP. You
don't see the noise until you look at the print at full magnification on
the screen. (Equivalent to an image 30" wide on the screen).

On a moon-shot there seemed to be a slight amount of red fringing at full
zoom, and I see that on the Panasonic forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033

at least one person has sent their camera back because of this. However,
this does not seem to be an issue at all in normal photography. From that
person's description it seem they may have a dud.

The forum may be worth a visit.

Cheers,
David

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:18 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
The stabilisation works really well, including on indoor wide-angle shots.
(One reason why I didn't buy a Minolta A2 earlier this year was that on
indoor shots the stabilisation indication changed from "active" to "sorry,
but I can't help". What use is that!).

The indicator changes below a certain shutter speed - 1/30th I think - as a
warning, but it doesn't imply the AS isn't still working, it is. And very
well, too. Being a user of both the Panasonic and Minolta stabilization
systems I'd say the A2 is a touch ahead at very low shutter speeds but both
are pretty good.

--
John Bean

If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt (Dean Martin)

John Bean wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:18 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
The stabilisation works really well, including on indoor wide-angle
shots. (One reason why I didn't buy a Minolta A2 earlier this year
was that on indoor shots the stabilisation indication changed from
"active" to "sorry, but I can't help". What use is that!).

The indicator changes below a certain shutter speed - 1/30th I think
- as a warning, but it doesn't imply the AS isn't still working, it
is. And very well, too. Being a user of both the Panasonic and
Minolta stabilization systems I'd say the A2 is a touch ahead at very
low shutter speeds but both are pretty good.

Thanks, John. Well, Minolta lost a sale partially because of that
indication, partially because of the tinny construction of the swivel LCD,
partially because of the poor image quality recorded in JPEG mode, and
partially through their dishonesty in describing the viewfinder as 0.9MP
(or whatever it was). VGA 0.9MP in my book - 0.3MP instead!

The level of detail in the EVF was certainly a pleasure to work with.

Thanks for your comparison - there needs to be an objective test of
stabilisation systems....

Cheers,
David

Here is a comparison chart (I've added two other cameras, both lower in
price than the FZ30) that are similar in features to what you are looking
at. I'd probably forget the FZ3 though because it doesn't have manual focus
and no white balance override/manual which are big downers in my opinion, no
flip-out lcd, crappy movie mode (which wouldn't matter to many but you
indicated you wanted good movies).

http://tinyurl.com/3jjna

The Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 both offer excellent movie modes, the
Panasonics lack in that area.

The Canon S1 IS is the only one that offers a flip-out and twirl lcd (very
handy).

The Canon S1 IS is the only one that allows zooming while recording a movie
(very handy)

The Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 both have a better minimum shutter speeds of
15secs, while both Panasonics (FZ 3 and FZ20) are only 8 seconds on the
long.

The Panasonics both offer TIFF as the uncompressed file type, but the Canon
S1 IS and Minolta Z3 don't have uncompressed files. Canon S1 IS and Minolta
Z3 offer 3 compression levels for JPEG 2.2, while the Panasonics are limited
to only 2 modes neither of which are super fine so JPEG is pretty much out
of the question.

The Canon S1 IS, Minolta Z3, and Panasonic FZ20 have white balance
override/manual modes (very useful) the Panasonic FZ3 does not. The Canon S1
IS has one extra white balance mode over the others which have only 5 modes.

The Canon S1 IS, and Panasonic FZ3, and FZ20 have better maximum shutter
speeds all are 1/2000 while the Minolta Z3 is only 1/1000.

The Minolta Z3 has superior Macro mode focus at 1cm! The other 3 are limited
to 5cm (Panasonics) and 10cm (Canon).

The Minolta Z3 and Panasonic FZ20 or 4 megapixel, while the Canon S1 IS and
Panasonic FZ3 are only 3.+ megapixel (not that that is much of a difference
really, but it is something).

The Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 both have AA batteries (bonus since you
always have access to more if you run out) whereas the Panasonics are
limited to their own battery packs.

The Minolta Z3 and Panasonic FZ20 both have hotshoes for flash, the Canon S1
IS and Panasonic FZ3 don't. (since price is a factor to you, you're not
considering dSLR I figure this is not an issue since flash units don't come
cheap).

All 4 come with adapters for telephoto, I'm not sure about wide angle on the
Panasonics, but yes for the Minolta and Canon.

The Minolta Z3 and Canon S1 IS both have more control over metering (big
plus), Panasonics are limited to Spot and Multi-Segment (big downer).

Minolta Z3 has the new IS system in it, which is rumoured on review sites as
being the best IS system on consumer level cameras to date.

The Minolta Z3 and Canon S1 IS are definitely the lower priced for similar
feature items. Considering all pros and cons I'd suggest you add the Minolta
Z3 as a serious consideration when testing out which feels best in your
hands. I'm not sure the FZ20 is worth the almost $200 dollar difference.

Linda

"Kilroy_Woz_ere" wrote in message
.. .
I've narrowed my choice down to either Panasonic FZ20 or Canon S1 IS.
Price is a factor but better night time, floodlit football photography
would swing the decision as would decent movie capture under the same
conditions. It's main use would be at football so 90+ minutes of battery
life is essential taking approx 100 photos and 20 movies.

As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), both have aperture &
shutter pririoty control manual control and decent ultra-zoom lenses. I've
read many reviews on both but not being camera-literate, the more I read
the harder the decision gets.

In my pure amateur mind, the benefits I see for each a

FZ20 - decent resolution, better zoom, decent lense, li-ion battery and it
uses SD cards which I already have for my pocket pc - otherwise it would
put it out of my budget.
S1 IS - silent zoom, zoom while recording movie. What I don't like are the
AA batteries and not being able to use my existing SD cards.

It's not an easy choice, at today's online prices the S1 even having to
buy decent rechargeables and CF card comes in quite a bit cheaper than the
FZ20 which appears to be on back order anywhere selling it at a decent
price (GBP330-340).

Be gentle, I'm an amateur but I need help deciding!

Kilry aka Brian

Linda_N wrote:
[]

[much good stuff snipped]

The Panasonics both offer TIFF as the uncompressed file type, but the
Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 don't have uncompressed files. Canon S1 IS
and Minolta Z3 offer 3 compression levels for JPEG 2.2, while the
Panasonics are limited to only 2 modes neither of which are super
fine so JPEG is pretty much out of the question.

With respect, I must disagree. Have you actually seen images taken using
either compression level from a Panasonic FZ20? "Super-fine" has no
meaning in an absolute sense - just in a "good better best" sense. It
depends on the needs of the purchaser whether or not JPEG, and at what
quality setting, is or is not suitable for their needs. If you want a
reasonable number of pictures per card, anything /other than/ JPEG is
pretty much out of the question! TIFF as a "raw" format is useless,
though.

[]
The Minolta Z3 and Panasonic FZ20 or 4 megapixel, while the Canon S1
IS and Panasonic FZ3 are only 3.+ megapixel (not that that is much of
a difference really, but it is something).

The FZ20 is 5MP

The Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 both have AA batteries (bonus since you
always have access to more if you run out) whereas the Panasonics are
limited to their own battery packs.

Depends on whether you are a wise or foolish person and carry spare
batteries. Having struggled to juggle 8 AA cells versus two single-cell
packs I know which I prefer to use in the field. I do agree there is an
advantage that you can go and get AA cells from a shop if you are stuck.

[]
All 4 come with adapters for telephoto, I'm not sure about wide angle
on the Panasonics, but yes for the Minolta and Canon.

Yes, the FZ20 can take a wide-angle adpater.

[]

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message news
Linda_N wrote:
[]

[much good stuff snipped]

The Panasonics both offer TIFF as the uncompressed file type, but the
Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 don't have uncompressed files. Canon S1 IS
and Minolta Z3 offer 3 compression levels for JPEG 2.2, while the
Panasonics are limited to only 2 modes neither of which are super
fine so JPEG is pretty much out of the question.

With respect, I must disagree. Have you actually seen images taken using
either compression level from a Panasonic FZ20? "Super-fine" has no
meaning in an absolute sense - just in a "good better best" sense. It
depends on the needs of the purchaser whether or not JPEG, and at what
quality setting, is or is not suitable for their needs. If you want a
reasonable number of pictures per card, anything /other than/ JPEG is
pretty much out of the question! TIFF as a "raw" format is useless,
though.

You are right that TIFFs are very large and a poor replacement for RAW, but
for the Panasonic Z10 TIFF is the only way to go if you want high quality.
I've not seen JPEGs in 'Fine' mode from the FZ20 yet and it is possible that
Panasonic changed the JPEG algorythm they use. The algorythm for the 'Fine'
quality JPEG with the FZ10 does not handle saturated reds well. There is a
fair amount of visible color bleeding in normal view (not zoomed in).
Zooming in reveals much artifacting throughout the color range of the photo,
but zooming in is a moot point since at normal view the artifacting cannot
be detected by the eye alone. I'd not want to upsize those JPEG images
though because even JPEGs coming from cameras utilizing better algorythms
the upsizing leads to image degradation. The hidden artifacting on the
Panasonic JPEGs would become visible in the latter senerio, moreso than a
JPEG from a camera that has that extra low compression mode.

I think the point is that the Minolta Z3 and the Canon S1 IS both have Extra
Fine, Fine, Regular/Standard, whereas the Panasonic has TIFF so it only
needs Fine and Standard as the JPEG modes. The Canon and Minolta forego RAW
in exchange for an additional higher quality JPEG mode to serve as the RAW
replacement mode. Most consumer level cameras that have RAW or TIFF would
not bother with implementing a 'Super Fine' JPEG mode because if the
consumer is not pleased with Fine or Standard mode they switch to TIFF or
RAW. The Extra Fine mode of the S1 IS and F3 is the closest to RAW or TIFF
without having RAW or TIFF.

RAW is always my choice when I want high quality, TIFF is way too large
although the quality is equal to that of RAW. Canon RAW (and I think the
same holds true for Nikon NEF) uses 16-bit data in capturing so using the
space hog TIFF makes no sense to me since the only benefit in the past of
using TIFF was its 16-bit data. RAW does that while saving on space.

[]
The Minolta Z3 and Panasonic FZ20 or 4 megapixel, while the Canon S1
IS and Panasonic FZ3 are only 3.+ megapixel (not that that is much of
a difference really, but it is something).

The FZ20 is 5MP


Right you are, sorry about the error. 2 resolution jumps is a large one
(bearing in mind that I think anything above 6mps is a total waste of time
for anyone without a large poster width printer [$10,000+ cha-ching]
machine.)

The Canon S1 IS and Minolta Z3 both have AA batteries (bonus since you
always have access to more if you run out) whereas the Panasonics are
limited to their own battery packs.

Depends on whether you are a wise or foolish person and carry spare
batteries. Having struggled to juggle 8 AA cells versus two single-cell
packs I know which I prefer to use in the field. I do agree there is an
advantage that you can go and get AA cells from a shop if you are stuck.

I think the size of 4 AA batteries (4 are in camera already) is a rather
small point. Even with small hands handling 4 AAs causes no strain at all,
all fit into a pocket, and all 4 are as light (if not lighter) than the
weight of a proprietory battery pack. If I misplace an AA or 2 or 4 I'm not
going to worry, however, if I misplace a proprietory battery pack the
'cha-ching' starts sounding. If a set of AA rechargeables goes dead I can
immediately replace them (on a Sunday too!) for a lot less which I can't do
as cheaply if my more expensive proprietory battery explodes or otherwise
dies. AAs are the same shape and size today as they were 20 years ago, but
proprietory battery packs are in constant flux (transition to be made
smaller) and what is in 'fad' today may not be readily available in 2 years,
going to special order directly through the manufacturer only, or worse,
simply discontinued when the camera it was designed for goes offline. My
next camera is going to have to take both AAs and battery pack.

All 4 come with adapters for telephoto, I'm not sure about wide angle
on the Panasonics, but yes for the Minolta and Canon.

Yes, the FZ20 can take a wide-angle adpater.

I figured it would, but was too lazy to check and didn't want to sound
definite when I wasn't.

Linda