FZ50 vs DSLR

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

David_London said:
DStan said:

You clearly illustrate your lack of character. I made no Jerkville
remark

Click to expand...

That's really a matter of opinion, don't you think?

David_London said:

nor called you an @sshole asyou have done to me.

Click to expand...

There are a million different ways to call someone an asshat. You
can put lipstick on that particular pig, but it's still just as
ugly.

David_London said:

I'd say
that you should get of your high horse, but that won't be necessary
as you've clearly fallen off it. You've got some nerve and no
character whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Oh look, another lipsticked pig. This one's not even dressed nice.

You know, you should have quit while you were behind. I encourage
you to re-read the thread and see where the tone takes a huge dive
for the worse. Hint: it's where you don't take take homework
assignments any more, and dismiss those who disagree with you as
"cry babies".

You've got to be kidding. gkreth has used outright bad language just because he doesn't approve of my opinion and you rebuke my lighthanded replies. Your example of a "lipsticked pig" as a means of characterizing my response to someone using cursewords is positively absurd. Using the "high horse" metaphor in response or otherwise is not anywhere in his ballpark. Give me a break.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

Gary R. · Sep 18, 2006

tonymp said:
Even when the owner of both a DSLR and an FZ camera maintains that
the DSLR gives better results - you still want to argue that he's
wrong just as you've done with me regarding the A2!
If you haven't owned an A2 then how the he** would you know which
is best?

Tony, I wasn't knocking the A2 when I said it was 'never a candidate for an ultrazoom', maybe it was a bad choice of words...that was simply because the 200mm isn't anywhere near enough for what I needed. It would have taken a 2x teleconverter just to get where you started with the 10x zooms. As I thought I said, I always liked the D7 series in general, I'm sure the A2 is a good camera but haven't used it personally, it doesn't have the zoom reach I want at tele end. That has nothing to do with the next guy, it may be just what they needed.

As for the other part, owning a DSLR and FZ doesn't mean you have all the answers, nor does it give you the right to tell others what's important for them, or to police what they say as far as describing their camera. I know photographers who would have no earthly use for an FZ anything, and hikers or wildlife photographers that wouldn't want the baggage of an SLR. It's simply a personal decision as to what things are most important, since you can't have them all in one camera. Highest image quality may be your criteria, but that doesn't speak for the next guy, and some don't seem to understand that.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

David_London wrote:
:

David_London said:
David_London said:

I'm not telling people not to buy or use the camera, as
I've said I own one. When I want a sharper image and top IQ or plan
a photo trip, I'll take my DSLR if the weight and size aren't a
problem. If someone asks for advice and a DSLR is better for their
application I will say so.

Click to expand...

The problem is that I don't recall you ever recommending the Panny
over a DSL, no matter what the application. Maybe I just missed
that post, or haven't been here long enough.

Perhaps you haven't. I've on more than one occasion spelled out the size, weight and expense of a DSLR. I've also mentioned how I like the ease of transporting the FZ. I've posted night pictures showing that with proper exposure the impact of noise can be limited and good pictures be had. I've posted thread showing that the FZ30 can do InfraRed. So don't paint a picture for your convenience in this thread. If I have the flipside to say about the FZ I can do that as well, only the defenders of Panasonic get so upset, it's rediculous.

--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

David_London · Sep 18, 2006

lwiley said:
David_London said:

lwiley said:

Oh, no sir. I am not the least bit upset. How did you get that?

Click to expand...

I guess it was when you said:

lwiley said:

lwiley said:

the clear implication to me is that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a > > gear lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Came across as less than happy...

Click to expand...

I was simply summing up the picture he painted. Not upset at all.

So you weren't upset, and I assume you weren't pleased to be portrayed as a "lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money", so what's left? You were indifferent? If so, how can you claim to find Gary's post so offensive to DSLR owners that only Gary-tinted glass-wearers could possibly be blind to it? I just don't get it.

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

lwiley said:

If I were to say "I am tired of all of the P&S users, and
especially the FZ guys, when I go to Yosemite who snap 200 shots in
as many seconds without regard to composition or light. It bugs
me, it really does. And all of their rugrats running around with
snotty noses, getting in my way. And they walk around as if no one
else should have a use for THEIR park. And they turn up their
noses everytime I walk by. Enough!", is that simply noticing a
phenomenon, or is it offering an opinion about it and generalizing
and lumping people into an ugly painted group?

Click to expand...

It's offering a very amusing picture, to my mind I simply
don't see that as "lumping people into an ugly group".

Click to expand...

Interesting. If I imply that P&Sers walk around as if they own the
world and imply their behavior as a group is rude, I'm simply
offering a very amusing picture? Simply offering up a noticed
phenomenon?

When you turn it into a long rambling rant about the perceived and entirely harmless failings of a patently blameless group, then yes, it's amusing. When there's an obvious lack of venom in it, then yes, it's amusing. When it reminds me of a grumpy old man going off on one without any real anger behind it, then yes, it's amusing

I really just can't imagine anyone being offended over such an utterly pointless technical distinction. I certainly don't think Gary was suggesting that the next stop for all DSLR owners in Yosemite park should be over the nearest cliff

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

lwiley said:

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a
phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very
nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a
little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all
get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white
is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

Click to expand...

We'll have to differ on this one - I recognise the phenomenon he
was describing. It's pervasive throughout these forums, and
throughout real life. There are product-snobs everywhere, be it
food, wine, cameras, cars or cashmere. It doesn't hurt to make fun
of it.

Click to expand...

Okay, since we're playing loose here...

Phenomenon: There seem to be a few FZ product-snobs here too.
Snobs are not unique to the more expensive cameras, cars or
cashmere. You probably already know that, but to be clear let's
say it.

Sure. I would be astonished if there was nobody at all in the Panny forum who wasn't enthusiastic about their choice of camera.

lwiley said:
Phenomenon: I have noticed in this forum where someone mentioned
the advantages a DSLR offers and he was slammed for proselytizing.
Even though he said the FZ is a good camera and has it's uses.
Even though he said a DSLR has it's limitations too.

Sure, but I challenge you to show where that person was dismissed without any attempt at reasoned argument, or labelled a "cry baby." I just haven't seen it. I have seen it today in the other direction, and it wasn't pretty.

lwiley said:
Remember, I'm simply painting very amusing pictures...

Really? I would posit that our sense of humour is poles apart.

Regards,
David.

David_London · Sep 18, 2006

DStan said:
You've got to be kidding. gkreth has used outright bad language
just because he doesn't approve of my opinion
and you rebuke my
lighthanded replies.

Sure, "get over it, you cry babies" definitely ranks right up there in the "light handed" replies stakes. Which planet did you say you were from again?

DStan said:
Your example of a "lipsticked pig" as a means
of characterizing my response to someone using cursewords is
positively absurd.

You can deliver insults in language that doesn't involve any swear words at all. It doesn't change the meaning any

And for something that's so absurd, you seem to have a hard time ignoring it

DStan said:
Using the "high horse" metaphor in response or
otherwise is not anywhere in his ballpark. Give me a break.

Look Stan, you don't have to listen to me or anyone else. Just understand that my opinion of you as a poster went from high to zero over the course of about four posts from you this evening, and I'm sure a lot of people are forming opinions based on this thread. I tried to let you know gently that you weren't doing yourself any favours (and I know that you're not alone on this). Guess that I failed.

Regards,
David.

lwiley · Sep 18, 2006

David_London said:
lwiley said:

David_London said:

lwiley said:

Oh, no sir. I am not the least bit upset. How did you get that?

Click to expand...

I guess it was when you said:

David_London said:

David_London said:

the clear implication to me is that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a > > gear lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Came across as less than happy...

Click to expand...

I was simply summing up the picture he painted. Not upset at all.

Click to expand...

So you weren't upset, and I assume you weren't pleased to be
portrayed as a "lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much
money", so what's left? You were indifferent?

Exactly. Indifferent. He seemed upset. Doesn't bother me. He wants to rant a little, no harm. Again though, it was not just offering a noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

David_London said:
If so, how can you
claim to find Gary's post so offensive to DSLR owners that only
Gary-tinted glass-wearers could possibly be blind to it? I just
don't get it.

I never claimed it was offensive, never mind "so offensive". I merely offered my opinion that Gary was offering more than a noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

David_London said:
David_London said:

David_London said:

David_London said:

If I were to say "I am tired of all of the P&S users, and
especially the FZ guys, when I go to Yosemite who snap 200 shots in
as many seconds without regard to composition or light. It bugs
me, it really does. And all of their rugrats running around with
snotty noses, getting in my way. And they walk around as if no one
else should have a use for THEIR park. And they turn up their
noses everytime I walk by. Enough!", is that simply noticing a
phenomenon, or is it offering an opinion about it and generalizing
and lumping people into an ugly painted group?

Click to expand...

It's offering a very amusing picture, to my mind I simply
don't see that as "lumping people into an ugly group".

Click to expand...

Interesting. If I imply that P&Sers walk around as if they own the
world and imply their behavior as a group is rude, I'm simply
offering a very amusing picture? Simply offering up a noticed
phenomenon?

Click to expand...

When you turn it into a long rambling rant about the perceived and
entirely harmless failings of a patently blameless group, then yes,
it's amusing. When there's an obvious lack of venom in it, then
yes, it's amusing. When it reminds me of a grumpy old man going off
on one without any real anger behind it, then yes, it's amusing

I really just can't imagine anyone being offended over such an
utterly pointless technical distinction. I certainly don't think
Gary was suggesting that the next stop for all DSLR owners in
Yosemite park should be over the nearest cliff

Who was offended? Not me. Gary wanted to vent a little, no harm. But it was more than an offered phenomenon.

You keep going on about me or others being offended. I have said that I'm not in the least. If you don't believe me, there is no point in discussing it any further.

David_London said:
David_London said:

David_London said:

David_London said:

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a
phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very
nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a
little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all
get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white
is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

Click to expand...

We'll have to differ on this one - I recognise the phenomenon he
was describing. It's pervasive throughout these forums, and
throughout real life. There are product-snobs everywhere, be it
food, wine, cameras, cars or cashmere. It doesn't hurt to make fun
of it.

Click to expand...

Okay, since we're playing loose here...

Phenomenon: There seem to be a few FZ product-snobs here too.
Snobs are not unique to the more expensive cameras, cars or
cashmere. You probably already know that, but to be clear let's
say it.

Click to expand...

Sure. I would be astonished if there was nobody at all in the
Panny forum who wasn't enthusiastic about their choice of camera.

Okay, so a Panny forum member is enthusiastic and anyone else is a snob? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but what else am I to think here?

David_London said:
David_London said:

Phenomenon: I have noticed in this forum where someone mentioned
the advantages a DSLR offers and he was slammed for proselytizing.
Even though he said the FZ is a good camera and has it's uses.
Even though he said a DSLR has it's limitations too.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I challenge you to show where that person was dismissed
without any attempt at reasoned argument, or labelled a "cry baby."
I just haven't seen it. I have seen it today in the other
direction, and it wasn't pretty.

I never said he was dismissed without any attempt at reason. I choose to deny the challenge.

David_London said:
David_London said:

Remember, I'm simply painting very amusing pictures...

Click to expand...

Really? I would posit that our sense of humour is poles apart.

I would guess it's not just the humor. ;-)

I'm done now. Let's get back to cameras.

Leroy

DStan · Sep 18, 2006

Your not so perfect yourself as to pass any judgement. There's a difference between what you call an insult and what is patently curse words from gkreth. I don't see you complaining to him for using @sshole in more than one post. Believe as you wish, I'll not lose any sleep over it.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

David_London · Sep 18, 2006

lwiley said:
Exactly. Indifferent. He seemed upset. Doesn't bother me. He
wants to rant a little, no harm. Again though, it was not just
offering a noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

Well yes, I guess I am. I thought your point was that Gary had said something offensive and ugly about DSLR owners. But apparently he didn't, so that's all right then

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

If so, how can you
claim to find Gary's post so offensive to DSLR owners that only
Gary-tinted glass-wearers could possibly be blind to it? I just
don't get it.

Click to expand...

I never claimed it was offensive, never mind "so offensive". I
merely offered my opinion that Gary was offering more than a
noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

Yeah. You got me. I completely fail to see what your point was.

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

lwiley said:

lwiley said:

lwiley said:

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a
phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very
nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a
little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all
get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white
is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

Click to expand...

We'll have to differ on this one - I recognise the phenomenon he
was describing. It's pervasive throughout these forums, and
throughout real life. There are product-snobs everywhere, be it
food, wine, cameras, cars or cashmere. It doesn't hurt to make fun
of it.

Click to expand...

Okay, since we're playing loose here...

Phenomenon: There seem to be a few FZ product-snobs here too.
Snobs are not unique to the more expensive cameras, cars or
cashmere. You probably already know that, but to be clear let's
say it.

Click to expand...

Sure. I would be astonished if there was nobody at all in the
Panny forum who wasn't enthusiastic about their choice of camera.

Click to expand...

Okay, so a Panny forum member is enthusiastic and anyone else is a
snob? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but what else am I
to think here?

Errr....are you saying that I've claimed that none of the Panny owners are camera snobs? If so, you've misunderstood. I was trying to say that pointing out the existence and perceived failings of camera snobs (of any flavour) is hardly something to get upset about, unless it's done in a malicious way. It looks like we have different views on where that line is drawn.

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

Sure, but I challenge you to show where that person was dismissed
without any attempt at reasoned argument, or labelled a "cry baby."
I just haven't seen it. I have seen it today in the other
direction, and it wasn't pretty.

Click to expand...

I never said he was dismissed without any attempt at reason. I
choose to deny the challenge.

Fair enough

lwiley said:
lwiley said:

lwiley said:

Remember, I'm simply painting very amusing pictures...

Click to expand...

Really? I would posit that our sense of humour is poles apart.

Click to expand...

I would guess it's not just the humor. ;-)

Undoubtably. My colleagues are never too sure when I'm serious or when I'm just funning with them. It makes them skittish, but that's how I like them

lwiley said:
I'm done now. Let's get back to cameras.

Leroy

Right you are. Here's a macro shot from yesterday with my new toy (A100). Still can't get macro shots as clear as some of the Panny examples I've seen, but my (18-200) lens is heavily compromised, and a tripod is just too big a yawn to bother with. I guess I'll just have to live with it

Take care,
David.

tonymp · Sep 18, 2006

Gary R. said:
tonymp said:

Even when the owner of both a DSLR and an FZ camera maintains that
the DSLR gives better results - you still want to argue that he's
wrong just as you've done with me regarding the A2!
If you haven't owned an A2 then how the he** would you know which
is best?

Click to expand...

Tony, I wasn't knocking the A2 when I said it was 'never a
candidate for an ultrazoom', maybe it was a bad choice of
words...that was simply because the 200mm isn't anywhere near
enough for what I needed. It would have taken a 2x teleconverter
just to get where you started with the 10x zooms. As I thought I
said, I always liked the D7 series in general, I'm sure the A2 is a
good camera but haven't used it personally, it doesn't have the
zoom reach I want at tele end. That has nothing to do with the
next guy, it may be just what they needed.

As for the other part, owning a DSLR and FZ doesn't mean you have
all the answers, nor does it give you the right to tell others
what's important for them, or to police what they say as far as
describing their camera. I know photographers who would have no
earthly use for an FZ anything, and hikers or wildlife
photographers that wouldn't want the baggage of an SLR. It's
simply a personal decision as to what things are most important,
since you can't have them all in one camera. Highest image quality
may be your criteria, but that doesn't speak for the next guy, and
some don't seem to understand that.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse

Gary

I respect your opinions and to fair, many points you've put forward are perfectly valid.

There are many points in favour of the FZ and for many users, I guess they would think they had hit the jackpot!

The FZ30/50 does however fall down when it comes to noise in low light and although the lens is decent throughout it's focal range, the AF at the 420mm end is far less than reliable, but again, the use of manual focus compensates adequately for those who are comfortable with this method of focus!

I use manual medium format Bronica and Canon A1's for my monochrome work and need the results to be tack-sharp in low light, which is why I'd need a DSLR to cover my needs. I regularly print 20 x 16 in my darkroom and often need to print up to 30 x 20. The FZ's just couln't cut it at that size.

Although I'd normally only use a pro-sumer (A2 and FZ30) as a polaroid substitute, I'm quite sure I could make money from the FZ30 as a standard portrait camera in my studio where I use perhaps 4 strobes and where the prints don't exceed A4 size.

I have done a few 'last minute' portrait sittings with the A2 in cases where it was impractical to wait for lab D&P turnaround for prints (colour) and the customers were more than happy with the results and I doubt whether the results from a DSLR would have exceeded the quality of the results I managed to produce.

Gear certainly won't make a mediocre photographer produce good photographs simply because he's got the best equipment available - they will probably remain mediocre photographers throughout their lives! It will however, offer a good photographer the opportunity to progress to higher levels and obtain images that couldn't be achieved with lower level equipment.

There are gear-heads who think that owning the best camera available is the only way but they are usually the ones who produce mediocre results. Enthusiasts on the other hand will usually do better with a less than perfect camera but some are guilty of 'one-downmanship'.

There are arguments in favour of both the bridge camera such as the FZ series and DSLR's. Neither comes out as absolute winner as it's only the end user who can determine which camera system is best for them.

As you've said, the A2 had too short a maximum focal length for your needs but for me, it was perfect as I never needed anything greater than 150mm which matched my Bronica lenses exactly.

So, no one who argues in favour of either a pro-sumer or DSLR is absolutely correct - both camera systems have limitations but it's up to the individual to make the final decision.
Regards..
tony

--

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/monochrometests.htm

lwiley · Sep 18, 2006

David_London said:
lwiley said:

Exactly. Indifferent. He seemed upset. Doesn't bother me. He
wants to rant a little, no harm. Again though, it was not just
offering a noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

Click to expand...

Well yes, I guess I am. I thought your point was that Gary had
said something offensive and ugly about DSLR owners. But
apparently he didn't, so that's all right then

David_London said:

David_London said:

If so, how can you
claim to find Gary's post so offensive to DSLR owners that only
Gary-tinted glass-wearers could possibly be blind to it? I just
don't get it.

Click to expand...

I never claimed it was offensive, never mind "so offensive". I
merely offered my opinion that Gary was offering more than a
noticed phenomenon. I think you are missing my point.

Click to expand...

Yeah. You got me. I completely fail to see what your point was.

Okay, I promise this is the last of it for me...

If you agree that Gary might have been venting a little, then you would be disagreeing with Greg when Greg claimed that Gary has no fault in this brouhaha (I'm paraphrasing Greg of course, but I think that was his point).

Further, if Gary was venting a little, or painting with a broad stroke, then it many times results in no-harm, no-foul. But many other times you risk the next guy getting his back up a little more and then you get your back up a little more and ...

And pretty soon you have a brouhaha. You know that, you've seen it over and over.

So my original point to Greg was that Gary was not blameless. Greg thinks/thought Gary is blameless. A big deal? No way.

Leroy

skibum02116 · Sep 19, 2006

I'm with you on this one, David.
--
jkwex

skibum02116 · Sep 19, 2006

Give it a rest, Stan. You've already been a major contributor to the deterioration of the quality of this thread, which has gotten far away from the OP's question. Any further comment will only serve to dig yourself into a deeper hole.
--
jkwex

Rossuziers · Sep 19, 2006

DStan said:
DStan said:

DStan said:

I'm not telling people not to buy or use the camera, as
I've said I own one. When I want a sharper image and top IQ or plan
a photo trip, I'll take my DSLR if the weight and size aren't a
problem. If someone asks for advice and a DSLR is better for their
application I will say so.

Click to expand...

The problem is that I don't recall you ever recommending the Panny
over a DSL, no matter what the application. Maybe I just missed
that post, or haven't been here long enough.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't. I've on more than one occasion spelled out the
size, weight and expense of a DSLR. I've also mentioned how I like
the ease of transporting the FZ. I've posted night pictures showing
that with proper exposure the impact of noise can be limited and
good pictures be had. I've posted thread showing that the FZ30 can
do InfraRed. So don't paint a picture for your convenience in this
thread. If I have the flipside to say about the FZ I can do that as
well, only the defenders of Panasonic get so upset, it's rediculous.
http://standavidson.com/post/images/P1000285.jpg
http://standavidson.com/post/images/P1000308B.jpg
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less
complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

Like the usual Dslr drum beaters, you do just enough to qualify yourselves but really it was all apparent where your real thoughts lie in this one simple quote:

DStan said:
The best thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings
behave like those on a real camera,

If you're so high on the Panis... What makes them less than a"A Real Cam" as the above statement, that came from your own fingertips, clearly implies they're not or at least all other aspects of them other than the rings aren't, that is....??? Aint there just a little condescension in there??? Didn't ya put it just that way, just enough to get a Pani fanboy, like me, to stew a bit, especially since you're gonna try & come back with:

I implied no such thing... Like i've been saying I own an Fz30.. you can read whatever you like into that but I own an fz30.. I never said it wasn't a real cam....

Aside from when you first got the cam and, I'll assume you were running it through the wash to see just what it could & couldn't do... I'm surprised ya forgot to mention your Nikons' 'IR' shots are even better or at least ya coulda mentioned the earlier panis are even better/easier to do it...

And you don't expect us Pani fanboys to become defensive... Step back & take a look clown.... Face it, if ya can get your head out of the lensbag... You, just like Barry, are relishing your just being able to type just enough to try & come off innocent when you almost always screw up & let something slip like above....

A simple little slip-o-the-fingers like "A Real Cam" blows all these months of deceptively sincere opinions right outta the water....
You sure you weren't in that 'L' glass crowd Gary conjured up????
You & Barry can have your "Real Cam" OVF's too...

Ya know, I've never actually shot a Dslr but have fondled several of them a bit but i can't figure out why many kit lenses have downright un-"Real Cam"-like ring action & feel.. Why haven't you mentioned that?? Maybe at the end of the above quote... Something like:

DStan said:
The best thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings
behave like those on a real camera, (Fictitious ending follows)

actually even better than some "Real Cams" or at least the ones that approach the same price as a Pani...
Face it, you're guilty of pert-near everything you accuse Gary of...

Might I suggest you put a pic of the star of the other classic spaghetti westerns in your sig... I think his name was Terrance Hill of the famous "Trinity" series:
http://www.hollywoodteenmovies.com/TheyCallMeTrinity.html
Now if i could only get Barry to use Bud Spencers pic...

The both of you should see those movies since the both of you are almost as funny....
As for my opinion of those that post sincere 'Fz vs Dslr' questions....
I almost wanna type:

If ya gotta ask, ya might as well just blow the wad & get a Dslr & then the lenses but that might cost a lot to find out it's all well & good but you'll then have less cash & might end up having to settle for a lesser P&S than an Fz & be less than happy than what you would've been just getting the Fz in the 1st place...

But unfortunately, most of us try & fight-the-good-fight & share our opinins in an effort to save someone some money & or put another way:
"In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less
complicated formulation or simply put, less is more."

Thanks for that quote.. Is that 'a do as I say not as I do' kinda vibe you're shootin for???

--

The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limmericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically, Encouraged... I Insist!

* [email protected] * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz * EffZeeThreeZero / CeeEightZeroEightZeroDoubleUZee / CeeTwoOneZeroZeroUZee / EOneHuderedAreEss

Bear 740 · Sep 19, 2006

That was an amazing answer, one of the best FZ vs DSLR I have read and I agree with you 100%. Both systems have plus and minuses, but for all around performance, I have to say I really like the FZ's actually better. Not to say the DSLR's are not as good, not at all, they have their niche, but for a alll around camera that can pretty much do anything you ask of it, to a point, you just cannot beat the FZ30/50's. Barry keeps knocking the lens thing, but I have been a professional for a lot of years, I have used many expensive zooms on my film SLR's but no where near the results I get with the fantastic Leica zoom on the FZ30/50. You simply have to purchase seperate lenses from wide to tele to get sharpness that you get with the FZ Leica zoom on the FZ's. I have actually compared several DSLR's with my FZ, and not to say the FZ beat them every time but it either beat them in some areas or was as good in others. The only area that I fell short on was low light high ISO work. We all know the FZ's are not that great in this area, but to tell the truth, even with my professional work, I rarely used high speed film and I still rarely use low light, High ISO, and if I do, unless it is a sporting event, I simply use a tripod and normal ISO setting and get great pictures with my FZ30. Until you get up to the high end DSLR's, I really do not think that there is that much of a difference for the price which is why I purchased my FZ30 in the first place. I really got tired of lugging around a bunch of lenses, constantly cleaning the mirror. If people want a DSLR, they have to understand they are not getting that much more for the price of the lenses you will have to purchase to equal the FZ's capabilities. I am sure Barry will disagree, but I respect his opinion and is not that he is wrong but you cannot just pin point one thing, I like to look at the overall picture and to me the FZ's are the best all around camera you can purchase. The FZ20, 30 and 50 are all great all around workhorses.

DStan · Sep 20, 2006

I can twist words, you can twist words and Gary can twist words but one thing that I've said is that everyone has the right to their opinions. Apparenty not everyone here thinks the same on that

Go to another forum and tell them their favorite brand isn't up to snuff and you might get blasted or debated by some and listened to by others. I'm all for a debate but blasting is not so nice. There is a difference between an assertive and downright rude. Using cursewords as gkreth has done is obviously rude.

As far as your attempt at putting my quote of Occam's Razor back in my face goes - lol - I can argue that for particular application a certain camera is not a formulation if it does nor sufficiently achieve the desired result. That can go for an FZ, DSLR or compact. So if less doesn't do the job I wouldn't want to use it, unless I had no other choice. I'm not telling everyone to toss their FZ and go buy a DSLR, but I am saying that the IQ of the FZ has it's shortcoming and that people overrate the lens from being good to being incredible. That's my feelings, if you feel otherwise than do so, I'm not the thought police.

If I feel that the FZ's rings make it feel like a "real camera" well that's my opinion; which I would think that I'm entitled too. You may not agree with me and I don't expect anyone to do so. But that doesn't negate my right to have my own opinion or express it. I certainly haven't cursed anyone as someone else has. Someone who hasn't been criticized for doing so. The mere fact that nobody gove that a care speaks poorly for those quick to jump on me for expressing my opinion. Why haven't you rebuffed gkreth?
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

MrXpress · Sep 20, 2006

Some might argue that anything without a FF sensor is not a "real camera." Other might argue that anything without film is not a "real camera."

My opinion? This thread needs to go ahead and reach its maximum post limit so that it can just die.

DStan · Sep 20, 2006

MrXpress said:
Some might argue that anything without a FF sensor is not a "real
camera." Other might argue that anything without film is not a
"real camera."

My opinion? This thread needs to go ahead and reach its maximum
post limit so that it can just die.

Perhaps you have the best opinion of all

--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

skibum02116 · Sep 20, 2006

I think he does.
--
jkwex

David_London · Sep 20, 2006

DStan said:
There
is a difference between an assertive and downright rude. Using
cursewords as gkreth has done is obviously rude.

Stop whining and learn to read, you cry baby.

Nothing rude about that, right? LOL.

Seriously Stan - you just don't know when to stop digging.

DStan said:
The mere fact that nobody gove
that a care speaks poorly for those quick to jump on me for
expressing my opinion. Why haven't you rebuffed gkreth?

You should think very carefully about why you received so very little support, Stan. It's not what it says about others, it's what it says about you .

Obligatory photo, as that is what this forum is supposed to be about. This one should give you plenty to rant about when it comes to watercolor effects

Regards,
David.

DStan · Sep 20, 2006

You're ony proving what you're like. Perseverating and can't stop yourself because you're geting some perverse pleasure out of being annoying when at this point it's beyond anyone's interest.
--
Stan ;o()

In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

FZ50 vs DSLR

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts