FZ200 - Why I prefer megazooms over DSLR rigs

Hi folks:

I was out the other day and met up with a fellow photographer, a retired chap, who I discovered was using a Canon T2i with a Sigma 150-500mm lens. At first I secretly lusted after his sensor size and the extra resolution he had at his disposal... but his rig was like a bazooka... and it clearly kept him pinned to the bird feeding station he was camped out at. He was definitely not going for a afternoon stroll with all that gear hanging from his neck.

I, on the other hand, had already been outside walking for 2 hours visiting various photography haunts and would go on for another 2 hours visiting 2 additional spots. I was a bit tired when I got home, but not from carrying my fly-weight camera.

Later than evening, I visited his Flickr account to view some of his photos. His compositions were quiet nice, but for the most part, the technical quality of his images were not appreciably better than mine in my Flickr account, even when viewed at full size of 4000 X 3000 pixels, yet I had total mobility and paid less than a quarter of what he did. Plus, I had the additional advantage of having a built-in wide angle lens whereas he couldn't go below 150mm.

In my opinion, if one can learn the basic skills of getting high-quality images out of the FZ200 and the FZ150, and other megazooms (as simple as shooting in P mode a lot of the time), and keeping noise down and pping the rest away, you would be hard pressed to find a logical reason for choosing the big expensive DSLR rigs over one of today's superzooms.

my 2 cents

Rudy

One can only agree with your 2 cents Rudy!

agree.... to me this single camera (FZ200) is more than enough to carry around... I'm very mobile this way, and not to afraid to loose something, change lenses and so on... and I do this just for hobby and at the start of learning this world, this is more than enough...

enjoy your day

greetings, Ella

DSLRs also produce noise, not just small sensor cameras...

There's one more thing I forgot to mention in my initial post above... my new friend's Flickr account contained numerous images that had tons of noise.

We need to realize that even the most expensive DSLR cameras produce some level of noise and if you don't know how to minimize noise by the way you shoot, it will be become evident no matter how much you paid for your equipment Yes, with a small sensor camera like the FZ200 we have to be far more vigilant about how we shoot (one key is not to under-expose the shot), but with a $40 home version of NeatImage or something similar, your shots can become essentially noise-free with no appreciable loss of detail. (I have friends with Nikon D800s, and Canon 5D Mark IIs and IIIs who use NeatImage - $1800 -$3500 bodies).

If I sound like I'm doing an advertisement it's because I am... I want people, especially those pushing retirement age like me with limited funds and limited energy, not to feel that in order to get awesome images that they have to spend a fortune on DSLR gear and lug around a ton of stuff.

Photographers UNITE!!!! Don't believe the DSLR propaganda!!! ... We have people in this forum who consistently produce eye-poppingly beautiful images, with stunning detail and fabulous colours, using various FZ series cameras, and you can too! ....(Hmm, is "poppingly" a real word? It gets flagged by my spell checker..LOL!). Oh well, I'm having fun in the old forum today.

Have a great day everybody!

Rudy in Ottawa

hi rudy ,it sounds like your enjoying your fz200 as much as I and a friend are, we are both long time DSLR uses and love our new compact toys, the quality is just amazing even upto iso1600. its been a great 8weeks so far and will never go back to a walkaround SLR.



cheers don

Hi Rudy:

Yes the light weight of a superzoom is the reason I purchased the FZ200. However, I am not about to toss away my DSLR as IQ is in another leaque. I look at the FZ200 as carrying a 600mm f2.8 lens with me and while I can shoot up to 200mm with my DSLR. A good combo for me.

Dale

Hi Dale:

Yes, being a serious pixel-peeper myself I totally understand your reasoning.

The title of my post was meant to imply, (although it's not that clear), that if you had to choose between one or the other you could feel confident in knowing that the FZ200 or other quality superzooms would give you enough photography power to ring almost all your bells!

Thanks for your comment,

Rudy

While I am in 100% agreement with the argument that small, light, portable and incredibly flexible (as well as less expen$ive) is preferred to... the opposite, let me just play devil's advocate for a brief moment. In the past I got into a considerable "disagreement" with a gentleman who swears that the ONLY (and I mean "ONLY") way to get THE BEST photos is with a DSLR and a full box of lenses. The venue is related to adventure and travel photography. He absolutely refuses to accept that there are people for whom the arguments "we" use in rationalizing or justifying our use of bridge cameras are better than the arguments that "he" uses in justifying his ownership of DSLRs. (He quits the argument when I ask him why he doesn't go to full-frame or medium format cameras then). While "most" of us have "been there, done that", most of the DSLR users haven't really tried bridge cameras....yet.

This is just a reminder that we have chosen the way we did because it suits us: there are those who choose the way they do because it suits them. One size, one argument, one set of criteria doesn't fit all.

So, when you are skipping off the plane, wandering down the back streets or clambering up over a scree slope with your little bridge camera in your hand give a thought to those who are anchored to their 20 lb boxes of "kit" and wishing they had the right lens mounted when that street kid or mountain goat popped into view. (But I do wish I didn't have to listen to their "slap, clack, rattle" as the mirrors flop around.)

Rudy,

My compulsory FZ200 squirrel image is an excellent example of what you propose



Firstly, the day was drizzly and dim. Not a day for expensive cameras, or to be swapping lenses... I was in St Petersburg, Russia, in the Tsarskoye Selo palace grounds. Suddenly this little fellow (and they are tiny in that Northern climate) ran across my path. I grabbed the FZ200, turning it on as I put the viewfinder to my eye, and blasted off an automatic A-preferred 2fps burst.


The EXIF data tells most of the story. ISO400, f3.2. Of course I used 5% Topaz denoise after developing the image with Sillypix. Mind you, the final image is not much different from the nice JPG produced by the camera...





So there we are. You can even see the shells of the nuts it has already devoured... I am indeed a happy camper

I think with the quality gap narrowing a lot of photographers are going to be taking a second look at these smaller compact cameras. I know I did.

In my DSLR kit I own the bigger bother of that Sigma lens the 50-500 as does my wife in her kit. It can be hand held and my wife is better at it than me but you really need to pack it with a strong mono pod at the very least.

Every spring the Toronto Zoo holds a migratory bird day where they have guides who walk groups of bird watchers and photographers around the zoo property. ALL the way around the zoo property which means areas not normally open to the general public such as the old mono rail line running along the very back of the property. This is quite a hike and I've done it a few times with my working DSLR kit which comprises the 7D with 50-500 Sigma and 5D MKII with 300 f2.8 Canon along with a fanny pack containing a 50mm Macro, 16-35 f2.8 wide, a 2x converter for the 300 and that is as much as I really want to be lugging around. Oh and a Manfrotto heavy duty mono pod that is attached to the 300. I think the term that comes to mind is 'back breaking' and I've seen photographers on this walk with similarly heavy kits plus a huge backpack full of even more gear!

The problem is, on an over cast day that Bigma is not fast enough to freeze birds in flight unless you really crank up the ISO which starts to defeat the purpose of the exercise as noise starts to become a factor.

This spring I'm seriously considering just packing the 7D and Bigma and the FZ200 and if I really loose it just the FZ200 but that will depend a lot on the weather that day = lighting. Where the DSLR might have a bigger edge is with AF speed on motor drive though the more I play with focus tracking/locking on the FZ the more I'm finding that my keeper ratio at 5 fps is increasing quite nicely.

I've been making big test prints at work from the FZ200 and the quality is just fine for my needs, I wonder if sometimes people look at the fine details without looking at the big picture. If you never view your images larger than a certain size then just how important are these 'problems' with noise etc that folks complain about in the forums. Sure you will see issues when you really enlarge a file but just how big an issue is it really based on your intended use?

Kevin Omura said:

Kevin Omura wrote:
I've been making big test prints at work from the FZ200 and the quality is just fine for my needs .. Sure you will see issues when you really enlarge a file but just how big an issue is it really based on your intended use?

Click to expand...

I agree - and the really big prints, the 1-meter-square variety, have their own resolution limitations You will see few very-large photographic prints these days...

Tootsall said:

Tootsall wrote:

In the past I got into a considerable "disagreement" with a gentleman who swears that the ONLY (and I mean "ONLY") way to get THE BEST photos is with a DSLR and a full box of lenses.

Click to expand...

The BEST photos begin with photos taken - if you can't/don't lug the DSLR gear to the photo op, the DSLR loses. Sure, it may have offered better IQ, but no image has no IQ at all. We need to stop arguing about what's THE BEST and keep in mind what's truly best for each photographer or photo op. In fact, it may be better to work with ACCEPTABLE instead of BEST as even the best quality image may look no better on a 2 MP HDTV, a computer screen or printed at 8x10" or smaller.

I've never owned a DSLR but have owned several film SLRs in the past. I've though about going the DSLR [or other system] route but they're on the wrong side of my price/pain threshold. Sure, there are times when I'd have like better IQ, but when I think about it the reach of the bridge often goes far beyond what I'd have been able to afford for the DSLR - resulting in an IQ wash after heavy cropping.

As owner & user of both Nikon and Pentax DSLRs (as well as film SLRS), I agree wholeheartedly, Rudy. I have had an FZ150 for over a year and just recently took the plunge into an FZ200. Am really enjoying the great results better mobility afforded by the FZ cameras.

Another opinion.

To start I own a Canon 7D and numerous L lenses - my favourite L lens is the Canon 70-300L. The photos from this combination are fabulous and I do not believe can be matched by the FZ200. That said I also own the Panasonic FZ200 and am very pleased with it. For most of my photography needs the FZ200 will suffice, however, if I want the best photos possible - ie multiple flashes and umbrellas, highest quality, lowest noise, capturing high speed action shots then only the DSLR and its flashes/umbrellas etc will suffice. If I am to do a wedding I would not do it with a FZ200. I would hope that a camera and lens worth $4,000.00 would take better photos than a $600.00 camera even though the FZ200 is very very good. However, if I take the dog for a walk or go for a walk through a conservation area, or want candid photos of my grandkids, or want an easy light weight camera to carry then the FZ200 is more than adequate. It will probably become my go to camera for everyday photos as carrying the DSLR and lenses at my age becomes more and more difficult due to their weight.


There is a place and need for all cameras. Best quality, fine detail with minimum noise probably a full frame DSLR camera or at least a DSLR like a Canon 7D or Nikon or ..... If you want an easy to carry camera with very good quality with wide angle to long zoom, video and macro capability the superzoom like the FZ200 is the perfect camera. Sometimes I just want to put a camera in my pocket to carry around - then a compact is the best choice.

There is a place for all cameras.

BTW I appreciate all the advice you and others give on this forum - it has helped a lot and is much appreciated and I am thoroughly enjoying my FZ200 and getting more and more keepers..


Bert D

Hi Everybody:

As the original poster of this thread I think it's good for me to chime back in here with a gentle reminder that the title of this post is NOT "Megazoom cameras are better than DSLR cameras".

Unfortunately, somewhere along with the way this thread left the tracks and took on a life of its own with people feeling the need to defend their ownership of DSLRs.

The original title was/is "FZ200 - Why I prefer megazooms over DSLR rigs" and the reason I posted it was to encourage us in our ownership of these cameras, especially the FZ200, and especially because of some of the negative press it has been given in comparisons to the Canon SX50.

The other point was that under the circumstances of an outdoor half-day walk-about the megazooms were better because they were lighter... no one said anything about shooting weddings with a FZ200... it would never occur to me to do that.

Also, let me say that if money was not an factor I never would have sold my 5D MARK II... it is a fabulous camera. I love DSLRs, just not for walking around with all day.

My post had to do with those who didn't want to spend a small fortune or carry around a ton of equipment for hours. You'll never hear me say that when it comes to IQ or low light shooting megazooms are better than DSLRs, they aren't.

Anyways, I just thought I'd bring a little corrective to this thread and also apologize for not realizing the can or worms I would be opening up.... sorry if I offended anyone.

Cheers,

Rudy

A month ago I bought a TZ10 to compliment my FZ50, I soon found I was slipping the TZ in my pocket and leaving the 50 at home, then the weather brightened up, now I was finding difficulty in focusing, the result is the 50 is back in favour, I will put up with unpocketable beast, (oops I take that back), The TZ will now only be used on rainy dull days, or indoors. There I have two cameras that will do everything I want without me being a mule. This is a 50 shot Just, a plastic bag caught on some barbed wire on a windy day.

I agree with you Rudy! All the reasons you bring up is why I ended up with an FZ200 over a new Canon 4ti that I was eyeballing for awhile. Then I saw a post in a video camera forum about the FZ150 and found this forum. I was impressed by the posted images. I used to carry an old SLR film camera years ago and I went to a point and shoot 12 years ago. I wanted small. Last year I bought my stepson a Canon 60D and I was temped by it to buy another SLR. But after reading about these super zooms I decided I didn't want to carry a bag of lenses around. I don't shoot weddings and basically never crop. I really don't need the enhanced quality. The FZ200 just looked like the best option to me with the f2.8 lens and since I already owned a Panasonic camcorder I already knew how good the IS is on Panny cameras.

I was a little disappointed with it at first but have tweaked the settings to where I am very happy...especially after passing it through Neat Image. Very clean and sharp jpg's even at 100%. Really only needed if I crop. The noise is low enough that printed out it disappears even at 8x10 prints. Once passed through Neat Image they are amazingly good.

Cheers, Ron

I agree for megazoom and outdoor pictures, to me it's the best camera for the money. Indoor I prefer my Sony NEX-5N or -7, a mini DLSR if you will. Think for me the best of both worlds.

Tom

Rudy I don't think you opened up a can of worms.

I reread my original post and it did sound like I was defending DSLRs. If I took your post off topic I apologize. I actually tried to edit my post after I posted it but could not find out how to edit a post.

I was not trying to defend DSLRs just saying that there is a niche for each type of camera and the FZ200 creates a niche of its own. For the last 2 weeks since I've owned the FZ200 it is the only camera I have carried. I prefer the light weight, the superzoom, the macro mode - actually the complete camera. I looked seriously at the Canon SX50 and just about bought it but didn't need/want the extra zoom and really liked the F2.8 throughout the zoom range of the FZ200.

As mentioned earlier this is a great helpful forum and I appreciate all the help I am getting from this forum.