Why ZLR?

I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up still
shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an P&S? Are the
optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better? I understand that ZLRs can
do much zooming, something I do not need, I will use the camera only in the
macro mode. Please let me know the merits of a ZLR over a P&S. Thank you.

T.I.

Talal Itani wrote:

I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up still
shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an P&S?

A ZLR is a point and shoot. A ZLR can also be called an EVF, a camera
with an Electronic Viewfinder. In most cases these camera have a longer
lense that is image stabilized and can result in better results
depending on what you are shooting. They also have more features. I
think the best one is the Panasonic FZ7.

The only disadvantage is you cannot put them in a shirt pocket.

Are the
optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better? I understand that ZLRs can
do much zooming, something I do not need, I will use the camera only in the
macro mode.

You may be better off with a Nikon D50 or a Canon DRXT with a find Macro
Lense.

Please let me know the merits of a ZLR over a P&S. Thank you.

T.I.

What you see is what you get is always important. I saw a Sony H5 ZLR. It
has a huge high-resolution LCD display, not quite like SLR, but maybe second
best.


All the rest will be dependent on the individual camera - could be better
or worse.

Ed

Because it is a through the lens camera - what you see is what you get,
which is important in close-up's.

All the rest will be dependent on the individual camera - could be
better or worse.

Ed

If you can live with 5mp....and most people can....I can recommend the Oly
E-20. It has a decent Macro mode and a filter set to make it better that I
have not tried. Being a ZLR you can live view on the screen....and macro
setups can be tight so that is nice.

They can still be had on E-Bay and I just got one to replace my E-10 for
$300 and it shows no sign of being used.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Talal Itani" wrote in message
news:Vnfrg.4343$M%2.3227@trnddc02...

I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up still
shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an P&S? Are
the optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better? I understand that ZLRs
can do much zooming, something I do not need, I will use the camera only
in the macro mode. Please let me know the merits of a ZLR over a P&S.
Thank you.

T.I.

Talal Itani wrote:

I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up still
shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an P&S?

The only true ZLR cameras were 35mm fixed zoom lens slr cameras made by
Olympus (and Nikon, the Zoom 35 family).
The only digital ZLR cameras ever made were from Olympus, and they
included the D-600L, C-2500L, E-10 and E-20.
There have never been any made by any other manufacturer.

Do you mean an EVF camera?
They are shaped a bit like an SLR (a fake DSLR?), but only has an EVF
and no optical reflex viewfinder.

Are the optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better?

The OLy E-10 (4mp) and E-20 (5mp) both look like pretty decent cameras.
They are solidly made, and assuming that their shutter mechanisms don't
"conk out" after being used for so many years (E-20 was released in
2001), they should be excellent for most photography.

I understand that ZLRs can do much zooming, something I do not need,
I will use the camera only in the macro mode.
Please let me know the merits of a ZLR over a P&S. Thank you.

The Olympus E-10 and E-20 are both very solidly made, with alloy
(rather than plastic) frames, an excellent lens and a reflex viewfinder
that should make manual focus possible.

Talal Itani wrote:
I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up still
shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an P&S? Are the
optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better? I understand that ZLRs can
do much zooming, something I do not need, I will use the camera only in the
macro mode. Please let me know the merits of a ZLR over a P&S. Thank you.

T.I.



Generally speaking, the 'ZLR' is a long zoom (over 3x optical). It will
probably have better optics than an average P&S camera, which is
reflected in its higher price. The sensors, generally, aren't better.
If you only need macro, don't buy a ZLR. This is going the wrong way.
Read reviews to find the best macro P&S camera. Some do an excellent
job of macro photos.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Talal Itani wrote:
I am in the market for a digital camera, to be used for close-up
still shots. In general, does a ZLR produce better pictures than an
P&S? Are the optics better in a ZLR? Is the sensor better? I
understand that ZLRs can do much zooming, something I do not need, I
will use the camera only in the macro mode. Please let me know
the merits of a ZLR over a P&S. Thank you. T.I.



Generally speaking, the 'ZLR' is a long zoom (over 3x optical). It
will probably have better optics than an average P&S camera, which is
reflected in its higher price. The sensors, generally, aren't better.
If you only need macro, don't buy a ZLR. This is going the wrong way.
Read reviews to find the best macro P&S camera. Some do an excellent
job of macro photos.

T.I.

If you can still find one, the Nikon 990 was one of the very best non-SLR
cameras produced for macro:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/

It can focus as close as a field width of 19mm.

Generally, ZLRs will be better cameras than P&S, and offer far more user
control. However, the distinction is now not nearly as great as it was
when the ZLR group was first discussed a few years back. I prefer the
term non-SLR to cover both.

David

Thank you for your informative reply. What you told me is what I was afraid
to hear. It seems, that long Zoom is what ZLRs offer, over P&S. Yet ZLRs
also have manual controls, something I am not sure I will need in macro. I
loocked at a Sony H5, it has a very large and high resolution display,
something very helpful to me. I considered DSLRs, yet having to squit
through the view finder was a turn off. If have more thoughts on this
subject, I would be more than eager to listen. Thanks again.



Generally speaking, the 'ZLR' is a long zoom (over 3x optical). It will
probably have better optics than an average P&S camera, which is reflected
in its higher price. The sensors, generally, aren't better. If you only
need macro, don't buy a ZLR. This is going the wrong way. Read reviews to
find the best macro P&S camera. Some do an excellent job of macro photos.

Talal Itani wrote:
Thank you for your informative reply. What you told me is what I was afraid
to hear. It seems, that long Zoom is what ZLRs offer, over P&S. Yet ZLRs
also have manual controls, something I am not sure I will need in macro. I
loocked at a Sony H5, it has a very large and high resolution display,
something very helpful to me. I considered DSLRs, yet having to squit
through the view finder was a turn off. If have more thoughts on this
subject, I would be more than eager to listen. Thanks again.



Generally speaking, the 'ZLR' is a long zoom (over 3x optical). It will
probably have better optics than an average P&S camera, which is reflected
in its higher price. The sensors, generally, aren't better. If you only
need macro, don't buy a ZLR. This is going the wrong way. Read reviews to
find the best macro P&S camera. Some do an excellent job of macro photos.


Yes, using a DSLR for macro photos can be a pain (literally). It might
be to your advantage to look at those cameras which have the tilt and
rotate LCD screens. They can be quite useful if your macro work
requires holding your camera low, or high in order to get the desired
subject. In non macro applications, I find the viewfinder much more
practical than trying to see an LCD in bright sunlight, for instance.