Reading mode: Light Dark

35mm slr quality?

Go to last post
Hey man quit playing with my head with all that zen stuff! Actually I would agree with your basic principles, however for sports like Bicycle racing the various events went for 4 hours and using the burst mode to capture the action you do have to take a lot of shots.

Also when you are learning the FZ20 you do need to shoot a lot of pics trying the various settings to achieve that one perfect image that you visualized when you first saw the scene. The camera is just a tool to your creative destiny.

Now be honest, if I offered you a top of the line Canon and any canon lens or a FZ 20, both free of charge, which would you choose?
Kevin.
 
Ching-Kuang Shene said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point.

Recently, when I've been shooting, I've got the best results from scenes that I've been working on ahead in my mind. Be it film or digital.

However, sometimes the most unexpected pictures suddenly work, against all expectations. But I think in reality that is rather rare.
Member said:
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.
Click to expand...
However, I think a certain amount of trial and error belongs to photography.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. I, however, tend to look through the viewfinder much more critically with film before pressing the shutter release than with digital. Sometimes I don't press the release at all, when I see the resulting picture would just not work.

Cheers,

-Topi Kuusinen, Finland
 
Ching-Kuang Shene said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, there is a compromise between quality and convenience, but how much quality is enough? I have several prime Nikkor Lenses for my film SLRs and am very happy with the quality of image from the FZ20 lens so far (although it is early days - I only got it last week). But then, I also have several Nikkor zooms and am happy with those as well. I normally print to 15", sometimes 20". From the tests I have seen it would appear that the FZ20 lens has as much resolution as the CCD. So to benefit from a better lens, you would need a lot more than 5M pixels.

I would have thought the key benefit of the SLR is the larger sensor and hence much lower noise?

100% crop from FZ20, straight out of camera:



The size that is on my screen would make the whole picture 27" wide.

Keith.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v345/keith1200rs/
 
Ching-Kuang Shene said:
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

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.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you're saying CK, and agree to a point. However the best thing about the digital revolution is it has opened up photography to those without this training, those without a great eye... And those folk can grow, and improve quicker with digital. Cost isn't the main issue here.

There's no reason why photography shouldn't be spontaneous and fun - there's no reason why folk should have to spend an eon composing a shot.

Everyone's welcome! :)

--
http://pbase.com/wangi
http://www.portobello-photos.co.uk/
 
Theresa-When I attach the tcon and zoom out fully, I do not notice a huge difference in the magnification. However, when I hold up the tcon to my eye and look through it, I notice a huge difference in what I see. Obviously, I cannot compare apples to oranges (eye vs. lens), but am I doing something wrong with the tcon? I set the fz-20 to teleconverter mode and then zoom out fully or am close to full optical zoom.
--
Gallery is online at eklisiewicz.smugmug.com
 
You shouldn't notice a HUGE difference, more just enough to give a mild improvement. When I need anything beyond that, I will add just a touch of (gasp!) digital zoom. Here is a good example of the difference, these were taken seconds apart, only the time to add the lens:
With just 12X zoom:



Add the tcon with 12X:



--
Theresa
Constructive criticism always welcome! :)
http://www.pbase.com/theresa_k
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Panasonic FZ-2O, Oly C-5O6O & FL-4O, PSP Nine

 
The quality of pictures is great with the Panasonic FZ15 or 20 BUT out of the box you need to get another adapter than the one provided. Read and you will see most of the people have bought after market adpaters for lenses and filters. The one provided is 72 mm so your lens cap will not fit, and with the tulip on it has lense flair which can ruin a great picture. IF you do that you will not be disappointed. It costs 1/3 of DSLR and you get about 90% of what you get with DSLR in that the FZ 15/20 does not have interchangeable lenses and so you have to add lenses or converters.
--
Be well,
Sandie
 
But lots of us like to. Also, there is no LUGGING extra lenses unless you choose to. With a dslr you have to lug lenses AND price out what a 420 mm lens would cost you. They start at around $1500 and go up around $5G. And that's not including the camera body.
--
Theresa
Constructive criticism always welcome! :)
http://www.pbase.com/theresa_k
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Panasonic FZ-2O, Oly C-5O6O & FL-4O, PSP Nine

 
keith1200rs said:
I agree, there is a compromise between quality and convenience, but
how much quality is enough?
Click to expand...
The answer is simple. This is a personal taste matter. Some may be very satisfied/happy with a disposable 35mm or 2mp digicams, while some believe they need the ultimate image quality (e.g., 4x5 or 24mp medium format).

Whether one is happy with a lens depends on that person's personal need, the experience and training. But, if personal preference is set aside, image quality has an almost absolute measure rather than by personal happiness.

To show you the quality difference, here are two resized shots. The first is by a FZ-10 and the second by a D70 plus a AFS70-200VR and a 1.4X teleconverter. Both setups have 420mm focal length and both used f/5.6 in aperture-priority mode with image stabilization on. Image processing parameters are all set to low or turned off. None of these images were post-processed.





The following show the 100% crops. It does not require explanation to see the differences. While one may argue that the AFS70-200VR is the best Nikkor zoom with a price tag around $1,600, the cheap alternative AFD 80-200 f/2.8, which costs about $750 is every bit as good as the AFS version except for the VR and AFS. The extra cost for a SLR lens comes from its size, more complex mechanism, smoother operations, more complex optical formula, etc.




keith1200rs said:
I would have thought the key benefit of the SLR is the larger
sensor and hence much lower noise?
Click to expand...
The original question was about film. :-P Don't forget the lens quality and lens flexibility. The rule of thumb is that the higher the zoom the more difficult to make a lens with higher quality.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides
 
Kevin Coppalotti said:
however for sports like
Bicycle racing the various events went for 4 hours and using the
burst mode to capture the action you do have to take a lot of shots.
Click to expand...
Think about this: before the advent of digital camera, how people covered this event?
Kevin Coppalotti said:
Also when you are learning the FZ20 you do need to shoot a lot of
pics trying the various settings to achieve that one perfect image
that you visualized when you first saw the scene. The camera is
just a tool to your creative destiny.
Click to expand...
Yes, the camera is just a tool to one's creative destiny. However, if a photographer still uses trial-and-error after he/she has learned all the basics, how good this photographer is? How could he/she get his/her work done within a fixed time frame? Keep trying until he/she gets a keeper? Because the convenience of digital, many shooters have forgotten the most important fact in photography: it is the eyes of a photographer (i.e., previsualization) to make a photograph a successful one rather than the trial-and-error approach.
Kevin Coppalotti said:
Now be honest, if I offered you a top of the line Canon and any
canon lens or a FZ 20, both free of charge, which would you choose?
Click to expand...
Give me the Canon. If it is a 1D Mk II, I will buy the lenses.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides
 
Ching-Kuang Shene said:
The answer is simple. This is a personal taste matter.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Member said:
The original question was about film.
Click to expand...
Yes, "is the FZ20/FZ5 capable of quality 10x8 pictures", which I think it is.

Looking at your samples, given they were taken at 1/30s and 1/40s, I am not sure if it is really showing differences in the lens quality or VR/IS effect. I would be interested in a more controlled test. I am not knocking DSLRs, but the advent of digital has made everyone zoom in on their photos and criticise the quality. All you need is enough quality for the size of print or screen you are going to normally view them on.

If I didn't mind the size, weight and cost then I would choose a DSLR (I already have two Nikon film SLRs and Nikkor lenses), but they do matter, and for 15" prints I believe you can get the quality out of cameras like the FZ20. I agree a 12x zoom is never going to be as good as a 3x zoom, all other things being equal.

Keith.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v345/keith1200rs/
 
Hi,

I have a comment and question about your printed A4 photos. You showed some interest in the LZ2. The lens on this camera does have some softness on he left side. This occurs (only on the LZ2 I used?) at large apertures and wide angle. Printing A4 images causes this softness to become more apparent than on a screen. Does the lens on your FZ10 exhibit this characteristic?

...and, a little off topic, what kind of photographs are you able to sell (what subjects)?

cheers, Björn
 
keith1200rs said:
Looking at your samples, given they were taken at 1/30s and 1/40s,
I am not sure if it is really showing differences in the lens
quality or VR/IS effect.
Click to expand...
I have been shooting professionally and for hobby for 25+ years. I am sure it is the lens resolution rather than the VR/IS effect, and I know the difference between IS/VR and lens resolution.
keith1200rs said:
All you need is enough quality for the size of print or
screen you are going to normally view them on.
Click to expand...
The question is what "enough" is. Different people would have a different enough level.
keith1200rs said:
If I didn't mind the size, weight and cost then I would choose a
DSLR (I already have two Nikon film SLRs and Nikkor lenses), but
they do matter, and for 15" prints I believe you can get the
quality out of cameras like the FZ20. I agree a 12x zoom is never
going to be as good as a 3x zoom, all other things being equal.
Click to expand...
My Nikon Coolpix 5000 and 5700 (both 5mp) could not generate 15" prints to my satisfaction. Maybe the FZ20 is better than the 5700 in terms of image quality; but, it is very unlikely. In the past two decades, my Nikon F, F2AS, F3 and F5 have helped me put food on the table and publish many articles and some books. So, I really know what 15" prints are; but, I have yet to find a consumer 5mp digicam that can print nicely 15" prints with a good ink jet printer. On the other hand, a fine grain slide scanned with a reasonable 3000+ dpi film scanner can indeed produce larger than 15" prints fairly easily.

Moreover, the only high ratio Nikon zoom lens that I have experience with and can produce stunning image quality is the MF 50-300 f/4.5 ED. Other high ratio zooms, the FZ-10/20 350-420mm included, still have a long way to go in terms of resolution, color rendition and contrast.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides
 
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