The closest Canon 35 mm lens to the Leica super-zoom is the EF 28-300mm
f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens, which, even at about 10x the cost of
the Leica super-zoom, is well below that level of performance, including
slower speed and shorter zoom range, along with massive size and weight.
For the record, these particular cameras were picked as being closest to
the DMC-FZ8 in terms of pixel count.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Your signature mentions "many other" cameras. Which non-dslr ones do
you have, besides the FZ-8?
I am looking at the FZ-18, but would like to wait a little until this
"blue band" problem is behind us. I also keep hoping they'd update the
LX2 with somewhat longer zoom.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:57:12 -0600, RPS <rps@null.void> wrote in
<050220082357129614%rps@null.void>:
>Your signature mentions "many other" cameras. Which non-dslr ones do
>you have, besides the FZ-8?
Olympus D-40Z and C-2500L, a couple of older Fujis, an older Pentax, and
probably more -- I'm not sure what I've kept and what I've sold. My
turnover is pretty high.
>I am looking at the FZ-18, but would like to wait a little until this
>"blue band" problem is behind us. I also keep hoping they'd update the
>LX2 with somewhat longer zoom.
I went for the FZ8 over the FZ18 because of the faster sharper lens and
lower megapixel count. The wider wide angle of the FZ18 was attractive,
but not enough to overcome the other factors for the kind of photography
I do.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Feb 6, 3:09 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
(stuff about resolution figures)
I'm confused.
First, the subject line seems to indicate a comparison of several
cameras, and yet all you have mentioned is test-target resolutions.
All of the cameras mentioned have very similar results. And we all
know it isn't just about resolution...
Second, if this *is* all about resolution, why didn't you mention some
other prosumers, like the Fuji S9000 series...
Seems the Fuji trounces the Panasonic (in fact it equals most DSLR's
up to 10Mp..). The difference is quite marked, compared to those
cameras you mentioned. Yet I'll happily admit that the Fuji lens
isn't quite as good as the Panasonic. How could that possibly be,
given it clobbers it in terms of absolute resolution?
This simply shows that resolution isn't really all that important.
Other things will make or break a camera. Like poor in-camera noise
processing, as demonstrated by an image from John himself: http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?i...40091q8yu8.jpg
Click on that image and examine the full-size version - look at the
smearing in the dark background and the artefacts around the fountain
splashes.
I'm happy to post similar full-resolution images from the Fuji (and
have many times in the past) - it isn't perfect, but its a **** sight
better than that.. And a DSLR? In a different league. Large sensor,
much better results all things being equal...
Neither the images from the Fuji or the Pana are anywhere near as
clean as those from a typical 8Mp DSLR, especially if you are shooting
in anything but very bright light.. And there are other issues,
surprisingly enough, so a lot depends on what, where and how you are
going to shoot.
If you are going to compare cameras, there is much more to the
equation than just numbers.
John Navas wrote:
[]
> I went for the FZ8 over the FZ18 because of the faster sharper lens
> and lower megapixel count. The wider wide angle of the FZ18 was
> attractive, but not enough to overcome the other factors for the kind
> of photography I do.
I went for the D40 6MP DSLR rather than the 10MP D40x slightly because of
the lower cost, but main because of the lower pixel count. Even in a
DSLR, the bigger the individual pixels the better (within your resolution
constraints, of course).
I have an FZ18.
It is a good value for what it is, particularly the effective 500mm focal
length at the long end of the zoom.
However even in raw at ISO 100 image quality, compared to a dSLR, is
significantly compromised to the point that lens resolution, if these
figures are accurate, is meaningless.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:59:13 GMT, "flambe" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in
<lPkqj.9457$Ej5.5423@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> :
>I have an FZ18.
>It is a good value for what it is, particularly the effective 500mm focal
>length at the long end of the zoom.
>However even in raw at ISO 100 image quality, compared to a dSLR, is
>significantly compromised to the point that lens resolution, if these
>figures are accurate, is meaningless.
In what way? Do you not think lens resolution test reports (e.g.,
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/page15.asp>) are
accurate? Or are you referring to some other issue? Did you properly
correct RAW images to compensate for lack of in camera processing?
As compared to the FZ8, the FZ18 does suffer a bit from pushing the lens
much ****her, and from more megapixels (smaller photosites). That said,
my own experience is that it can produce images that compare very well
to comparable dSLR images, even without taking into consideration its
considerable advantages in size, weight, handling ease, and lens
performance.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Feb 5, 11:09 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> In terms of resolution, the Leica super-zoom 36-432 mm (35 mm equiv)
> f/2.8-3.1 on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 actually surpasses the fixed prime
> Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 on the EOS D60, 10D, and 300D, as well as the fixed
> prime Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 on the Nikon D100, and fixed prime Nikkor 50 mm
> f/1.8 on the Nikon D50, D70s, and D40:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...d40/page24.asp
>
> The closest Canon 35 mm lens to the Leica super-zoom is the EF 28-300mm
> f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens, which, even at about 10x the cost of
> the Leica super-zoom, is well below that level of performance, including
> slower speed and shorter zoom range, along with massive size and weight.
>
> For the record, these particular cameras were picked as being closest to
> the DMC-FZ8 in terms of pixel count.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Hello John,
I have a Nikon D70, resolution is very similar to the D40 or D50. I
also have a Panasonic FZ5, it's my camera for when I don't feel like
carrying the heavier D70 and don't plan on making big prints from the
resulting photos. While it's not quite up to the resolution level of
the FZ8, it's not too inferior.
My FZ5, at ISO 80-100, yields slightly sharper JPG's than my D70 at
ISO 200, which is the D70's lowest ISO setting, but the noise on the
D70 at ISO 200 is essentially non-existent while on the FZ5, noise is
visible at ISO 100, but not a problem and too much at ISO 200.
However, I usually shoot at ISO 400 on the D70. I can't do that with
the FZ5, it's way too noisy above ISO 100 for my tastes, and by ISO
400, the image quality is plain bad due to noise reduction doing bad
things to fine detail. Dynamic range is better in the D70 in-camera
JPG's too.
Look at the high ISO shots in the reviews that you posted links to and
you'll see that your FZ8 looks horrible at ISO 400, which all of the
DSLR's that you've mentioned can do without breaking a sweat.
And if I shoot RAW on my D70, the resulting JPG's leave my FZ5 in the
dust, they're needle sharp, have lower noise, better color, detail and
dynamic range.
Don't get me wrong, many advanced point-and-shoots are spectacular
cameras, but a decent DSLR in the hands of someone who knows how to
use it will beat the point-and-shoots in image quality and versatility
every time.
RPS wrote:
> Your signature mentions "many other" cameras. Which non-dslr ones do
> you have, besides the FZ-8?
>
> I am looking at the FZ-18,
I heavily considered that camera but decided on the Canon S5 IS. I
found the swivel LCD important and use it all of the time. The Canon
also did less processing and is better on noise. I would have liked the
extended zoom on the Panasonic but am happy with my choice. I would
think that to enhance this type of camera Canon will need to increase
the sensor size or subject the camera to more noise if they raise the mp
count.
> but would like to wait a little until this
> "blue band" problem is behind us. I also keep hoping they'd update the
> LX2 with somewhat longer zoom.
>
I went for the FZ8 over the FZ18 because of the faster sharper lens and lower megapixel count. The wider wide angle of the FZ18 was attractive, but not enough to overcome the other factors for the kind of photography I do.
I went for the D40 6MP DSLR rather than the 10MP D40x slightly because of the lower cost, but main because of the lower pixel count. Even in a DSLR, the bigger the individual pixels the better (within your resolution constraints, of course).
While Ken Rockwell came to a similar decision it was for a different reason. It was basically money. He found that the increased MP of the 40x did not provide him with a better print at 11x14.
Panasonic DMZ-FZ8 versus comparable dSLR 
Linear Mode
