I really felt like a jerk because I was not thinking when I said that I just wished I could blame that remark on someone else.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.
Noise and dynamic range is pretty much the pros. Everything else is so close it's a let-the-user-try-and-decide scenario.
As is the FZ30/FZ50. See my previous post.
Actually, the FZ30 is faster than some DSLRs (e.g., the Nikon D50), and pretty much the same as most other DSLRs (abot 3 fps); only in the very high end do you get above that. The FZ50, a little slower, 2.3 fps. But that's also let-the-buyer-decide thing, maybe continuous burst isn't his thing, or maybe 2.3 fps is fast enough. It's still faster than anythign I had with my Nikon FM2 and MD-4 combo.
Actually, some DSLRs (e.g., the Pentax ist DL) have huge RAW files, e.g., 10Mb. Also, not everyone shoots RAW; let the buyer decide.
DSLRs do have better ISO and noise; it's a sensor thing, of course... Then again, 4/3-sensor DSLRs, like those from Olympus are notorious for noise above ISO 800,and there still seem to be many happy E-300, E-330, and E-500 users. So maybe the noise thing ain't the end-all, be-all of pic quality...
All very true... It's also much lighter than carrying around two or three extra lenses to get the same focal range.
Again, it depends. See my previous post.
Very, very true. Even with my DSLR, I had to make compromises. I wanted an AF light, and the Pentax ist DL didn't have one; neither did the KM5D. The Nikon D50 had it, but then the Nikon didn't have DOF preview. Or ISO 3200. And it cost more.
Here "really into image quality" must mean, "obsessively fixated on noise." The FZs have EXCELLENT image quality; just read the reviews and look at the pictures.
You mean if one is a wide-angle scenic shooter. I actually do some zoom scenic stuff....
Actually it pretty much is.
Well, no, of course not. The camera costs less than $600, so the lens obviously is not gonna be a $2,000 Lecia. No has ever said it was. What they ssay is that is it an excellent lens that outperforms kit zooms and consumer-grade zooms, nd that is very true.
No, but it's better than any DSLR lens costing less than $500.
You say this all the time, and yet you haven't suggested how this is possible. Increase the sensor size, and the lens size must increase. And the weight. And the cost. Fuji makes a nice sensor, but their lenses are nowhere near as good, and they are not stabilized. It'd be great to combine the two, but I don't see Fuji agreeig anytime soon letting Panny use Fuji's sensor...
Maybe, I'm not sure. I do get a LOT more shots with my DL than my FZ20, but then, the FZ30/FZ50 blow away the FZ20 for speed.
No I give it how it is!
Not as fast..period...ok the FZ's are ok...but esp on moving stuff..no match for an SLR
No buffer...and 20mb RAW files for the 50 means you will be left waiting..even the cheapest SLR and a fast card will give you good response..
KM have 8.5mb...even the 10mp SLR's are about 10, thats half that of the 50...
Well its a no high ISO go zone.....not a problem for some...
About the only real advantage..all in one.
As is everything..but an SLR is more to grow into..not grow out of.
Excellent if you dont compare to a larger sensor
You can, but you will miss wide angle.
No its not as sharp tele end as it is wider. Its not bad...but its not perfect.
It may well do but lens and poor sensor come second place to kit lens and good sensor...
With respect, thats just pure fantasty.........the FZ lens isnt expensive, its decent...
A new sensor...FZ 30/50 handle great...ish...let down with too many pixels...limited DR, and poor at high ISO..but OP is getting one so thats up to him. I think you only show half the story..from an FZ owners point of view.
Yes, it is all about speed. I can take a series of photos with the FZ50 from 35mm to 420mm while a DSLR user is switching between the 16-45mm and 50-200mm lens. Who misses more shots then?
Hey, don't get so wound up. Plenty of other things are said around here with malfesance, yours was just a simple faux pas, nothing as severe as waking up in the morning and calling your wife by the wrong name - now that could hurt - lol.
There are so many reviews with different results that you can pick and choose whichever ones you want to support your issue...just look close enough and you will find faults where you want to find them, if you don't, just zoom in more. I don't know what sort of tests they did, probably lens charts and such, but very few people are satisfied with the kit lenses for any length of time, which tells me something (besides what I see) and the quality of the image edge to edge from the FZ30-50 are excellent, not based on lens charts but from looking at the photo.
What web browser (including version) are you using? Sounds like you've got a problem with your brower's flash plugin. I've tested my website in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Safari, and Firefox without problems.
So actual hard data isn't as useful as biaed personal conclusions? You're forced to be 'satisfied' with the FZ- lens because there's no other option! I like my FZ5 and the pictures it produces, but I'm not deluded to the point where I think its lens is flawless; it's far from it. At $300 it's a great value; at $500+ it certainly becomes questionable.
What's with always referencing the 35-420mm range? I'd imagine a large amount of DSLR users will either be unhappy with the rather limiting 35mm wide, and people who need long focal lengths will be unhappy with the 420mm max tele. I have a 27-450mm effective range with two lenses that are under $200 combined, and produce results every bit as good as my FZ5, and usually better. Heck, my $35 35-105mm is sharper than my FZ, and I was able to take pictures with it at a high school football game at night, something my FZ5 with its mighty f/2.8-3.3 wouldn't have been able to do (not that the EVF would have been able to keep up anyway).
Hard data is useful to the extent that it affects the resuts that matter to the user; While a test chart shot may be useful in deciding which lens does the job for your DSLR, it's pointless in deciding whether to by a SLR or an ultrazoom. If you're after image perfection, buy the DSLR and quit wasting your time.
If they're not satisfied with the zoom range, they probably shouldn't buy an ultrazoom. You're looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who prefers the DSLR configuration, but what you miss is that, even if you could get a DSLR with the same range of lenses for the same price, it doesn't matter to those of us who want the conveniences associated with an ultrazoom. The test chart with edge sharpness pixel-peep comparisons don't really matter, unless it shows the FZ's quality so bad that it makes them unusable to us.
Its a myth that the pannie lens is perfect...its not..it is good. But one of the last things that is being held up to the light...for pannie users. Its also a bit silly to say an SLR lens cant beat it....and that you need $500+
You honestly think 30/50 images are a great leap over 5/20 images in terms of quality? Usability is one thing, but neither the FZ30 nor FZ50 would have been able to take the pictures I was taking last night either. Even the fastest EVF is no match for an OVF, not to mention I was using ISO 3200 to get the shutter speeds I needed (not that ISO 3200 images on any camera are particularly excellent, but 3200 on my DSLR is certainly far better than 3200 on an FZ50). I didn't even reference the differences between continous drive modes.
I wouldnt say highly skilled...look its like this for many the fz whatever is good, does the job, doesnt cost a bomb...etc...sweet...for some they want more flexible options..I think I have been pretty balanced as a whole..
I didn't say anything about the images being a "great leap", but they are better, and I have both a 20 and a 30. The 30 images are sharper and have virtually no purple fringing/chromatic aberration; the 20 has partially processed color fringing that is a reddish color that is difficult to process out, because the red is present elsewhere in many photos. The reddish/magenta color of normal 'purple' fringing can often be desaturated without affecting the rest of the image.
I love to take photos that people tell me I can't, been doing it for years with various ultrazooms that "couldn't". Electronic viewfinders have assets and liabilities, so do optical; it's the user's call as to which is their choice. I don't think you can make that decision for me, and you stating that your personally preferred one is "better" only goes as far as the end of your camera. I've gotten a lot of photos because I DID have an electronic viewfinder that showed me that an exposure wasn't going to work in time to deal with it.
As I said, the meeting will be in the corner phone booth, I don't think it will be too crowded. Lots of people like one or another camera 'better', that doesn't make it so for the next person, it depends a lot on what they do with it. Isn't that kind of like saying that your girlfriend drives a Mack truck and loves it, so that's the best choice for transportation? Actually, I'd probably like it better than an FZ5 in many cases, but an FZ5 isn't an FZ30 or 50. I'd probably like the Oly better than the 30 or 50 in some cases also, and I'm sure I'd like a MKII better than the Oly in some cases, but if I'm only buying one, I choose the one that fits the widest range of my needs. I won't say my choice is "better" than yours, because my camera needs aren't your camera needs.
I have an FZ30 and enjoy using it within its constraints. I also have a Nikon DSLR. The FZ30 or 50 or 60 to come are not DSLR slayers by any means. He is also right in saying that the lens in the FZ is pretty decent but it is not God's gift to optics either. C'mon for the approx. $500 USD the FZ is a nice camera but anyone expecting it to outperform a DSLR with a decent, not even a megabucks lens, is simply deluding themselves.
And here's the quote from dpreview on the comparison to the XT with a 50mm prime lens:
