Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ50 vs DSLR

Go to last post
Good post, GregGory! But one or two corrections...
GregGory said:
So if you are considering
the Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm (these lenses are actually more like
18-180mm), they are fairly slow at the long end f6.3
Click to expand...
Actually, I THINK the 28-200mm is a little faster, f/5.6 on the long end. It's the 28-300mm that's f/6.3. I could be wrong in that, but I've been looking for a 28-200, and I don't remember seeing f/6.3 that in my research on that particular range/models....
GregGory said:
I'd say the difference
between the two setups in the 300-450mm isn't great.
Click to expand...
I would agree.
GregGory said:
At the wide end the story quite different. For low light
photography, you can get a fast prime. eg. the 50mm f1.4 (75mm
equivalent, around $250 I think).
Click to expand...
Actually, you can get an SMC 50mm f/1.4 for about $100 used on eBay; oh, that is MF only, you probably meant AF, right?

Also, you can get the Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for about $50 used on eBay. The only difference is the coating, but I've never noticed any flare problems with my version, in my films days or with the DSLR.
GregGory said:
One more thing about PQ, the smaller sensor of the FZ50 gives a
MUCH larger DOF. For some people, a shallow DOF of a DSLR
translates directly to 'good picture quality'. The large DOF is
more often a curse than a blessing, but a good photographer can
work around it often, AND utilise it's advantages as well. Eg.
macro photography is sooo much easier with the FZ50.
Click to expand...
Yep, yep, yep!
 
Gary R. said:
Being a long-time advocate of AA batteries (readily available,
cheap, and can use any AA's in a pinch), I no longer feel the same
way. After using the lithium batteries in the FZ20 and 30 for a
while, the AA's in my Oly2100 are a real pain.

NIMH batteries lose charge when sitting, and it's a substantial
amount, to where when I pick up the Oly, I always expect (and
usually get) low batteries. So you have to think ahead and charge
them just before use.

It's so quick to slip in a single battery in the Panasonics, they
last well to where 2 batteries will get you through a full day with
the camera on most of it. Using several sets of AA's at auto
races, I often had them charging in the parking lot so that the 3-4
sets I had would last into the evening.

Even price isn't the issue it once was. $12-18 for a much better
battery for the FZ than the $10 AA's isn't much of a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Man, that's me 100% as well! Previously a BIG fan of AA, now a big fan of single batteries! The cost difference is pretty much negligible, and the single-battery approach is much faster, easier, and lighter.
Gary R. said:
There are, available now, lithium CRV2 batteries that replace AA's
in sets of two in some cameras; I think this would be an OK
solution, but they and the chargers are pretty expensive, or were
when I looked...something like $50 for one battery and a charger,
and you need the special charger.
Click to expand...
And I think Pentax does NOT recommend CRV2 batteries. I'm not sure, but there was some sort of lithium-type rechargeable that is listed as a no-no in the Pentax manual. I'll have to look it up...

--Greg
 
kerolux said:
I’m still undecided between two cameras.
The FZ50 or the K100D (pentax)
w/t 28 to 200mm or 28 to 30 Tamron or Sigma lens .
The price diff. is aprox 150.00
Question 1: can the k100d be use as a walk-out camera
like the FZ50
Q2: how about lens quality / picture quality.?
Sharpness – noise at higher ISO
I am not a pro just going back to photography after leaving it for
many years. just as a hobby.
Please lets have your suggestions.
Luke K.
Click to expand...
Luke, I'm a humble working photographer who uses DSLRs for work but who purchased the FZ50 for family and vacation photography.

First, I've done more than a few tests and (if you're willing to live the the ISO noise) the FZ50 DOES record more detail in images than a 6mp DSLR. If you reduce the noise in the FZ50 images then the detail is about the same.

A 50mm f1.4 lens absolutely KILLS the FZ50's lens at 50mm, but that's the difference between a good prime lens and a zoom lens. The 35-420mm f2.8-3.7 lens on the FZ50 is far better than a cheap 28-300mm lens on a DSLR.

The ISO noise issue has been largely overblown. Unless you crop 90 percent of your photo away before you try to make a print or print ISO 800 at 16x20 inches then you won't have a problem with noise in your prints.

I use my DSLRs mostly for work, but when I do use a DSLR as a "walk around" camera I usually just have a prime lens attached ... which means no zoom.
--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
 
gkreth said:
MrXpress said:
I should point out (nice detailed post btw) that while the EVF on
the FZ30/50 might be good as far as EVFs are concerned, they are by
no means the best out there. That would probably have to go to the
Konica Minolta A2, which has a 922,000 pixel EVF.
Click to expand...
Thanks; I thought your poste were very good, too! It's nice to know
there are objective people that can have opinions, but see other
sides, and don't fall into either the fan-boy or bash-boy
categories.

As for the Minolta A2 - Whoa! That's some great EVF! No wonder that
camera was considered such a classic! Or was that the A200? But 9K
of pixels - jeez, I would LOVE to look through the EVF of THAT
thing!
Click to expand...
It had effectively only VGA resolution 640 x 480 at 30 fps. IOW it was sloooow, so most people used the 640 x 240 at 60 fps mode. No wonder the added price didn't really pay off, the following model A200 had a 'normal' speced EVF.
 
Cost - No advantage to AA, just buy cheaper knock off. I paid $12 for my canon battery and it lasts longer than what I got in my 30D.

Space - I can carry 2 batteries in my pocket rather than 8 AAs.

The battery doesn't loose charge like NiMH AA's. I wish my flash would take some custom battery so I don't have to use AAs.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
 
JJJPhoto said:
I use my DSLRs mostly for work, but when I do use a DSLR as a "walk
around" camera I usually just have a prime lens attached ... which
means no zoom.
--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
Click to expand...
depends on which zooms one uses. Sure cheap zooms are no good but quality zooms are as good as primes. I use 100-400L and also have 400mm f5.6 prime. Both are pretty equal except that prime can take 1.4xTC much better than the zoom.

I have also seen actual shots from sigma 300-800 compared to canon 500 f4 IS and they pretty much equal.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
 
MrXpress said:
For information's sake (which the OP is obviously looking for),
that is incorrect. There's more disadvantages to the FZ50 from a
DSLR than just noise (no OVF, much less DR, decreased battery life,
worse AF, lens interchangability, better flash systems, stuck at
deep DOF, poor burst mode, among others). Not to say the FZ50 isn't
a great camera, but it's pointless to respond to a person looking
for information without pointing out all the facts.
Click to expand...
Just a suggestion, when posting messages intended to be helpful. Acronyms are OK if you're talking with a colleague and you both know them. In a discussion forum, the value is questionable...you have

"the OP, no OVF, less DR, worse AF, sucky DOF", why not take the time to use the words, or most of them at least, and make your post clear?

I'm a lifelong photographer, have been using digital since 2000, and I don't know what you mean by DR and don't want to bother trying to plug in words until I get a fit.

A friend and I developed the use of the red dot sight for ultrazooms (the oly 21000) a few years ago, and I still remember coming in here last year and wondering what RDS was that was in all the subject lines.

I'm not saying I totally agree with you in all your points (at least the ones I understand), but regardless, if you're going to take the time to post an answer, take the time to make it useful.

--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
gkreth said:
5. OVF. It is brighter. But that also is a
try-it-and-see-for-yourself thing. I can nol longer accept the "OVF
is better" argument. I have a number of very good, older, MF-only
lenses for my Pentax DSLR; I still have some trouble focusing.
Yeah, maybe it's just me. But if the OP has little experience, he
won't be up to speed for MF, either.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with you here, both have their strong points, but one is not clearly better than the other. I find the exposure preview of the electronic viewfinder to be a valuable tool in figuring exposure for difficult situations. Much more efficient than taking a guess, taking the shot, viewing it, compensating, then reshooting.

The view may be clearer, but that adds nothing permanent, you need to see what you're shooting, not the fleas on the dog, so the value of it is not as much as some people like to insist it is. To each his own, I prefer a good electronic viewfinder overall.

--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
GregGory said:
It had effectively only VGA resolution 640 x 480 at 30 fps. IOW it
was sloooow, so most people used the 640 x 240 at 60 fps mode. No
wonder the added price didn't really pay off, the following model
A200 had a 'normal' speced EVF.
Click to expand...
Interesting example of how sometimes you can get what you want, then discover you don't want it (in this case, too much baggage). That high resolution viewfinder does sound great, but the slowness would kill the usefulness most of the time.

--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
To go get that SLR...prices are good, you can tailor your needs to your budget..and pick what lenses you want.

FZ's are ok...but thats it...handy..not bad..They aint great. Why? Well its a matter of opinion..but despite protests to the contrary...even the 10mp 50..is in awe to a APS-C sensor...so much cleaner. Noise reduction becomes a rare event...AF thats fast and accurate..Fast burst shooting, and RAW files that are not the size of elephants!

And you have the ability to go way up in ISO levels...without dumping image quality...someone mentioned ISO 800 on the 50..well it stinks........no way about it the fz's are not designed for high ISO work.

Course you have the handy all in one zoom, its a good speed, handling is pretty decent...the EVF is usable..but in no way a substitute for a good OVF. Live view may appeal, as can the video mode..its about compromises..

If you are really into image quality..no contest..forget FZ..it ok for some. If you want the all in one, kitchen sink...bits and bobs...go for it...

If you are a scenic shooter...go SLR....even the standard kittie on all SLR's covers a wide angle the FZ's dont...The fz lens is good, but its not as sharp tele as some make out..not a problem..but this aint no $2000 real leica....its nice...but not that good.

Its all about user needs..but for my money..FZ is a camera that could and should be better...but isnt...its good enough for some...
--

 
Gary R. said:
gkreth said:
5. OVF. It is brighter. But that also is a
try-it-and-see-for-yourself thing. I can nol longer accept the "OVF
is better" argument. I have a number of very good, older, MF-only
lenses for my Pentax DSLR; I still have some trouble focusing.
Yeah, maybe it's just me. But if the OP has little experience, he
won't be up to speed for MF, either.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with you here, both have their strong points, but
one is not clearly better than the other. I find the exposure
preview of the electronic viewfinder to be a valuable tool in
figuring exposure for difficult situations. Much more efficient
than taking a guess, taking the shot, viewing it, compensating,
then reshooting.

The view may be clearer, but that adds nothing permanent, you need
to see what you're shooting, not the fleas on the dog, so the value
of it is not as much as some people like to insist it is. To each
his own, I prefer a good electronic viewfinder overall.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the application. If I am shooting wide angle,
static shots (eg landscape) then I prefer the eletronic viewfinder,
as you say you get more of a sense of exposure (love that live histogram).
For telephoto and action (eg wildlife), optical is much better due
to the time lag of the electronic viewfinder.

As far as resolution, I found the FZ20's viewfinder to be largely inadequate
for manual focus (you could do it, just barely, with good technique).
I suspect the FZ30/50 are up to the job with the much better resolution.
But still not as good as optical if you are really trying to fine-tune focus
with a narrow depth of field, such as with a DSLR at telephoto
(300mm or more) and say f5.6. Again, not so much an issue
with digicams with their large depth of field.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
Hello
Many thanks for all the very valuable info on these two cameras.
What I thinks I wanted to do was to custom built a
A FZ50 with a K100D using the same lens for all.shots.
But I realize that the quality of the finish picture would
have seriously suffered. I was asking 4 too much.
You convinced me.
Don’t laugh but maybe there was a bit psychological or is it snobbism
Involved. I prefer to refer to my new camera as a reflex
and not a point and shoot camera .
The psychological side was instantly cured as I just saw
the new LEICA V-LUX1 cam.This camera is virtually identical
to the FZ50.
If this camera is good enough for Leica its good enough for me.
I will buy a FZ50.

Thank you All
Luke K
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
MrXpress said:
Joseph DeFelice said:
I would say the only
disavantage the FZ50 will give you is the little bit of noise. But
you are not shooting professional with it and as far as the noise I
really dont think it is going to affect you unless you start
looking with a microscope. I would stick the the FZ50 you can
always shoot manual with it if you want but with the the pentex you
have no choice and I reallly think if you are getting the camera to
have fun with you will get sick of having to keep readjusting for
almost every picture with the FZ50 set it and forget.
--
Click to expand...
For information's sake (which the OP is obviously looking for),
that is incorrect. There's more disadvantages to the FZ50 from a
DSLR than just noise (no OVF, much less DR, decreased battery life,
worse AF, lens interchangability, better flash systems, stuck at
deep DOF, poor burst mode, among others). Not to say the FZ50 isn't
a great camera, but it's pointless to respond to a person looking
for information without pointing out all the facts.
Click to expand...
Yup pretty much sums it up..!

Cant wait for the "you need a $2000 lens to equal the pannie leica
one" argument to spring up as it always does! lol
Click to expand...
nothing like placing a good Leica lens in front of a 'sand storm' sensor...
Member said:
--

Click to expand...
--

If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize, print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
LX1
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

 
you know I did not even realize that when I said that that. I know today it is harder to find a full manual camera that a automatic camera. I had a gas bubble in the brain but it is go now. Well just goes to say I can be wrong every once in a while.[HA HA]
DStan said:
DStan said:
I would stick the the FZ50 you can
always shoot manual with it if you want but with the the pentex you
have no choice and I reallly think if you are getting the camera to
have fun with you will get sick of having to keep readjusting for
almost every picture with the FZ50 set it and forget.
Click to expand...
What make you think that the Pentax is a manual only camera? It has
AF and even an exposure (with modes) meter thrown in just for
giggles.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less
complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
Click to expand...
--
Joe D
God Bless And Have A Nice Day



my Little Girl Shyanne



S&W 4' 500 Magnum
A Winning Pair
 
I know what I said I did not say it right what I meant is that the Fz50 is more of a dont worry camera as far as that with the SLR's everytime you change lenses you have to worry alot of getting dust on and around the sensor and if you are outside on a windy day it is hard to avoid the dust and winds as with the FZ50 the one major thing to me is not having to worry about extra lenses and changing lenses. I do know it all other area the SLR's most of the time do out perform P&S camera mainly due to the sensor size. But the main reason as I said is the camera is not being used professionally it is for fun I say it is alot less of a headache not carrying extra lenses and just one camera that basically does it all. I hope I said it better hear.
--
Joe D
God Bless And Have A Nice Day



my Little Girl Shyanne



S&W 4' 500 Magnum
A Winning Pair
 
Joseph DeFelice said:
you know I did not even realize that when I said that that. I know
today it is harder to find a full manual camera that a automatic
camera. I had a gas bubble in the brain but it is go now. Well just
goes to say I can be wrong every once in a while.[HA HA]
Click to expand...
Now for penance, ten hail mary's and for balance take ten pictures.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
 
Do you talk like William Shatner in real life?
Barry Fitzgerald said:
To go get that SLR...prices are good, you can tailor your needs to
your budget..and pick what lenses you want.

FZ's are ok...but thats it...handy..not bad..They aint great. Why?
Well its a matter of opinion..but despite protests to the
contrary...even the 10mp 50..is in awe to a APS-C sensor...so much
cleaner. Noise reduction becomes a rare event...AF thats fast and
accurate..Fast burst shooting, and RAW files that are not the size
of elephants!

And you have the ability to go way up in ISO levels...without
dumping image quality...someone mentioned ISO 800 on the 50..well
it stinks........no way about it the fz's are not designed for high
ISO work.

Course you have the handy all in one zoom, its a good speed,
handling is pretty decent...the EVF is usable..but in no way a
substitute for a good OVF. Live view may appeal, as can the video
mode..its about compromises..

If you are really into image quality..no contest..forget FZ..it ok
for some. If you want the all in one, kitchen sink...bits and
bobs...go for it...

If you are a scenic shooter...go SLR....even the standard kittie on
all SLR's covers a wide angle the FZ's dont...The fz lens is good,
but its not as sharp tele as some make out..not a problem..but this
aint no $2000 real leica....its nice...but not that good.

Its all about user needs..but for my money..FZ is a camera that
could and should be better...but isnt...its good enough for some...
--

Click to expand...
 
I had the fz20 then 30 and fz-5 and now the fz7, but I really mostly use the pentax ( istD and K100D) because you can't beat a slr for speed. The delay from what you see in the ( electronic) viewfinder and the shot you take is just unacceptable except for serious photography. Of course, the lens on those Lumix cameras cannot be beat, by anything, ( well maybe the limited edition Pentax)but the lag price is just too high.

Get a 100d with a 16-45 and a 50-200 and maybe a 1.4x if you really need the extra reach and you'll probably miss a lot less shots than you would with the fz50.
--
GMT -5
'No Man Is Rich Enough To Buy Back His Past'
 
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