Reading mode: Light Dark

35mm slr quality?

Go to last post
M

mgm2

Leading Member
Messages
542
Reaction score
290
Location
PA, US
I have a Pentax 35mm slr. I would like to go digital but am not overly excited about the DS reviews. I spend a lot of time out of doors on the weekends, shoot nature, concentrating on birds. I don't want to spend time in front of the computer. The FZ20 and now the FZ5 are interesting. Can I get quality 8x10 prints from these cameras without spending a lot of time in front of the computer?
 
mgm2 said:
I have a Pentax 35mm slr. I would like to go digital but am not
overly excited about the DS reviews. I spend a lot of time out of
doors on the weekends, shoot nature, concentrating on birds. I
don't want to spend time in front of the computer. The FZ20 and
now the FZ5 are interesting. Can I get quality 8x10 prints from
these cameras without spending a lot of time in front of the
computer?
Click to expand...
Yes, this camera excells outdoors.
--
If you have time, visit http://lovelife.smugmug.com/

 
Not only does it excel outdoors but you will get more good shots in your first day than you ever got before, unless you have been using very long lenses.

If the shots are not great you will find out immediately and you will often fix them as you review them in a matter of seconds. Picasa is a free download that is very simple. Its just a matter of moving some slliders and watching your murky, backlit egret shot look vibrant again.

The instant feedback and quick repairs will compress the learning curve that is so slow with film.

Bird pictures are very tough to get right. Digital will enable you to do much better.

In the time it takes to drop off your film and pick it up (and pay for some bad pictures) you can post process and crop your favorites into real keepers.

On the other hand,you should be aware of the shortcomings and read the dpreviews of digital slrs and non slrs especially regarding response times and

dynamic range. I personally find SLRs and the lenses too heavy for lugging outdoors. Use the search feature here to find some great nature photography.
 
i have the FZ10 and mainly print A4 from my canon pixma ip6000,i dont process any pics at all as dont have the software and dont intend purchaseing any as all pics always come out great,you will not be dissapointed
 
The proof is in the feathers! You're really liking that TCON. Are you seeing
any detail breakdown whatsoever? You got the 14, right?

Very nice shots of pelicans, even if I don't like the bird.
--
Randy F.
 
mgm2 said:
I have a Pentax 35mm slr. I would like to go digital but am not
overly excited about the DS reviews. I spend a lot of time out of
doors on the weekends, shoot nature, concentrating on birds. I
don't want to spend time in front of the computer. The FZ20 and
now the FZ5 are interesting. Can I get quality 8x10 prints from
these cameras without spending a lot of time in front of the
computer?
Click to expand...
I have a great deal of expertise in film and video and am learning the FZ20 (five months); know little of bird photography. I refer your question to the photos of a lady photog whose work I have seen. I would say she may be as good as the best there is. At any rate, she works very hard at the task. I just checked out her site which features both film and digital. She uses Nikon exclusively (according to her listed photos). Her digital camera is the Nikon D100. Film camera is the Nikon F100 and N90s. I think you'll be able to study both and arrive at some conclusions. I note that her film copyright year is 2000. Her digital copyright indicates 2000-2005. It could be that she has switched exclusively to digital. As to your question as to how much time you'll spend in front of the computer. It's entirely up to you. You may enjoy it...you may not. The FZ20 can be set up to produce pics to your taste right out of the camera. Or, you can have the camera do the minimum processing, figuring you, the photog can do it better, yourself.
Henry Clements
http://www.jczinn.com/
 
Then don't go digital. Almost all digital photos require some tweaking to make them optimal for printing. As for printing 8x10 with the FZ20 it's possible. You just need to realize that you can't crop out much and still have enough to print at that size.

--
Mike
http://www.pbase.com/mike_curtis

I'm not resourceful enough to insert a witty quip or intelligent quote here....



 
And it comes out less than optimal, wouldn't it be nice to salvage it?

Or wouldn't it be nice to shoot off 100 frames and not spend a cent on processing them? Pick out the 10 outstanding shots and just hit the delete key for the rest?

Very nice 8x10 photos are possible the the FZ5 FZ15, FZ20 series. I would recommend using a $45(?) print optimizing program called Qimage to make the prints exceptional.

--

Olympus C8080WZ, W/FL-36 flash, Panasonic FZ1K, FZ15K, Qimage, PSP 9 and four cats

Smile and nod at those who say it can't be done
http://www.pbase.com/ramblin_mo/galleries
 
If you like your Pentax SLR you might be interested in this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml

Also, if you have a few Pentax lenses the ds might be a good investment.

The advantages of the ds (or any dslr) are: the larger sensor which translates into higher available ISOs with lower noise; faster response; RAW format output available. The downsides are: weight; the need to carry and change lenses; the need to clean the sensor.

If you're not into post-processing you won't like RAW.

I routinely print 8x10s from my FZ20 (at 240 ppi) and they rival anything I've gotten from film. But ... I also routinely post-process (tweak) them to get the best possible print. In fact, I don't believe you'll be able to completely avoid post-processing. All images destined for display (be it a print or on the web) will need some work - colour-correction, cropping, contrast adjustment, sharpening, etc. In effect your photo lab has been doing this for you all along, adjusting the exposure, contrast and colour balance of your prints to make them look "good".

I enjoy post-processing my images (sitting in front of the computer), but, then, I used to enjoy spending evenings in my B&W darkroom. The computer is now my digital darkroom and it is orders of magnitude more flexible and more enjoyable than the wet darkroom ever was.

It was the Leica 12x zoom lens with stabilization that sold me on the FZ20. I was never without my 300mm lens and 2x extender with my SLR. Now with a 1.5x adapter for the FZ20 I have the same reach (a bit more, actually) in a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry package. And with digital I can take dozens of shots of that hummingbird, squirrel, loon or whatever and pick the best to print.

Hope all this was some help, and sorry to ramble on so. Your question got me thinking about how and why I have abandoned film for digital photography.

-- Bill
----------------------------------------------
'The devil is in the details'
http://billw.smugmug.com
 
mgm2 said:
The FZ20 and
now the FZ5 are interesting. Can I get quality 8x10 prints from
these cameras without spending a lot of time in front of the
computer?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question depends on a lot of factors. FIRST, how good your 35mm skill and your 35mm system are? If you have already had a good 35mm system (e.g., good lenses - not necessary big), the FZ5 and FZ20 would not be able to generate images as good as those from your 35mm system because (1) the lens is not so great compared with a good 35mm long telephoto lens even though it is a Leica, (2) the 5mp sensor does not capture more details than a good high resolution and saturation 35mm slides can (e.g., Kodak E100VS), and (3) the background separation capability of the FZ is definitely far behind what a long telephoto lens can do because of the very small sensor in a FZ camera body. On the other hand, if you don't have the above mentioned system and experience, you will perhaps love any FZ cameras.

SECOND, whether post-processing is needed is up to your digital skill. With 35mm system, you select the lenses and various type of films (e.g., high resolution, fine grain, saturation, high contrast, etc) before you shoot (i.e., pre-visualization). If you have good film-based skill, you can also set various parameters to achieve the same goal. However, since digital is more flexible, we can also do it AFTER shooting (i.e., post-processing). This is sort of equivalent to darkroom skills. In fact, many post-processing techniques come from darkroom skills, and, as a result, your darkroom skills can also help your post-processing task. Strictly speaking, in terms of straight-out-of-camera quality, the FZ cameras are not as good as films; but, one has an extra degree of freedom AFTER the shorts are taken.

8x10 is perhaps the limit of 5mp mid-level digicam straight-of-camera images (i.e., without post-processing).

Do you have to go for digital? Not necessary. You can shoot slides with your 35mm system and scan the selected ones to computer file for post-processing. Good entry level scanner costs much less than a digital camera and can yield a higher resolution. The Minolta DiMAGE SCAN DUAL IV is only $240 and can provide 3200dpi resolution. This resolution is higher than that of the 5mp cameras. For example, a 36x24 slide will be scanned into a 4535x3023 image (i.e., 13mp). After cropping for a 4:3 image, we still have 4030x3023, 12mp! If the slide film being used is of very fine grain, the details recorded is stunning with a $240 scanner, compared with a 5mp camera. See here for the details of this scanner: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=310893&is=REG

Of course, each system has its own drawbacks. However, different people will view the "drawbacks" differently. For example, some insist to have a walk-around and light weight camera, and hence the 35mm system is out. It is all your choice.

Hope this helps.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides
 
One thing not mentioned prevoiusly is the that with digital you can shoot a huge number of photos on various settings, at no cost. You can auto bracket, you can try aperture comtrol, shutter, manual, fill flash, zoom and so on. I recently took 930 photos in 4 hours at a bike race. Just the cost of the film would send me to bankruptcy fast.

But the bottom line is price. Who among us would not choose a top of the line Nikon or Canon if money was not a limiting factor. the FZ20 is the best in it's class, but I would say anyone after really good quality will eventually move to a DSLR and those megabuck lenses.
Have fun. Kevin.
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/
 
i would have to disagree with that,i print A4 all the time straight from the caamera and have sold heaps to the guys at work too,havnt had one person say they dont like them
 
oh and one more thing my brother had the FZ3 and it prints A4 pics every bit as good if not better than my FZ10,i showed the guys pics(FZ10) i got form the kodak shop in perth($15 for a A4 :( and the ones i printed out myself and they couldnt tell the difference
 
Kevin Coppalotti said:
One thing not mentioned prevoiusly is the that with digital you can
shoot a huge number of photos on various settings, at no cost. You
can auto bracket, you can try aperture comtrol, shutter, manual,
fill flash, zoom and so on. I recently took 930 photos in 4 hours
at a bike race. Just the cost of the film would send me to
bankruptcy fast.
Click to expand...
A good photographer would not keep shooting until he is satisfied. :-) A good photographer will study the scene, make good composition, etc. Think about how many shots Ansel Adams took for his great work? Digital shooters have already forgot the importance of previsualization because of the convenience.
Kevin Coppalotti said:
But the bottom line is price. Who among us would not choose a top
of the line Nikon or Canon if money was not a limiting factor. the
FZ20 is the best in it's class, but I would say anyone after really
good quality will eventually move to a DSLR and those megabuck
lenses.
Click to expand...
If you shoot carefully, price is not the major issue. Only those shoot without previsualization (i.e., trial and error) would think price is an issue. In fact, a good shooter could get a keeper with 10 shots or less, while a casual shooter who takes the trial-and-error approach may not get one keeper in 1,000 shots.

CK
 
keith1200rs said:
Even with money no object, how much does a 400mm+ f2.8 IS lens
weigh? I'm not carrying that up a mountain ;-)
Click to expand...
Have you compared the image quality of a 400mm f/2.8 (or even a 400mm f/3.5 or f/4) and the 35-420mm f/2.8 lenses? If you have, you will know what I mean. :-P One must make a choice between convenience and image quality.

CK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top