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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Panasonic FZ20 vs DSLR | mark.worthington | Digital Photography | 2 | March 18th 05 07:52 PM |
Panasonic Lumix FZ15 ve FZ20 | Iris | Digital Photography | 27 | March 15th 05 10:31 AM |
Panasonic FZ20 - why bother? | Pattern-chaser | Digital Photography | 16 | December 30th 04 03:19 AM |
FZ20 v S1 IS | Kilroy_Woz_ere | Digital Photography | 34 | October 30th 04 04:30 PM |
FZ20 vs. FZ15, or other? | Pierre_Cat | Digital Photography | 2 | October 15th 04 03:28 PM |