phazelag wrote:
Greynerd wrote:
I am still not getting this. The FZ200 still costs £350 in the UK and the SP100 is £299 on release. Also you say you use a teleconverter to match which would cost an additional £100 at least. How much would someone need to spend to get a new Nikon teleconverter or one of similar quality. Also going from wide angle to full zoom would entail a bit of screwing and unscrewing and in my experience birds are too impatient to wait for such things.
Here in the US the FZ200 can be purchased for about $400 as its an older product now and the Olympus is $399. My Teleconverter I used the Nikon 1.5 ED which was $90 new and the adapter tube was $12 on ebay.
But I am not advocating that use as its a pain I admit. For some one wanting an all around camera the FZ200 will take far better photos from 25-600. From 700-1200 the FZ doesnt go there. So I use the telecon. But I am saying I would rather not take a photo at all than take one as soft as the SP100 appears to be at 1200. But that is just me, I find nothing wrong with wanting this camera.
I have other cameras I take shorter focal lengths at such as the Ricoh GR so I only use the FZ200 for birds and bugs for the most part. And leaving the Adapter on is easy for me. I can go from about 8x zoom to 28 without vignetting. But Honestly I mainly dont even use the adapter any more and 600 is good most of the time. But I would like an FZ200 with more reach, I was hoping the Olympus could be it, but its not.
We all are different and have different needs and wants. I dont have any issue with your thoughts or opinions. But you are challenging why I choose to compare one camera to another and I am explaining. You might not get it and thats OK. But the SP100 will not make images this good at any focal length and I am disappointed in that. I wish is could as it would save me the trouble of the adapter/telecon. For me the extra $102 dollars was worth it.
This image is the FZ200 at 600mm with the Nikon 1.5 ED telecon making it 900mm.
This Duck is at 600mm with no Telecon. Show me 1 SP100 image at any focal length that sharp and detailed and I will be impressed.
Again 600mm no telecon.
We do not seem to be talking like for like here. I am sure the FZ200 is a great camera but I am entirely unconvinced it is a replacement for a superzoom at full bore without expensive accessories and especially not cost.
Its all in how you use it. I am sure your viewpoint works for you. But most of the debates on here are based people not understanding why one person would compare one camera with another because of small differences. They just cant put themselves in the others shoes and question there rational. Its not productive and doesnt help people learn about the strengths and weekness of a device.
I will contend even the people who think they need 1200 would get better quality with the FZ200 sticking with 600. But I understand wanting more reach, because I do.
I have a Fuji HS50 myself and I would consider this as an effective birding telescope at 24x magnification, even more so the SP100 and the FZ200 a nice bright pair of binoculars at 12x. This is taking 50mm as zero magnification.
phazelag wrote:
Greynerd wrote:
We are going back a few years when the FZ200 would be classed as a superzoom. The rather conservative focal length on the camera which you can get into your pocket now is bound to give good results given the size of the camera. The modern superzoom given the large zoom factor is possibly not going to match the FZ200 at similar focal lengths but then it carries on when the FZ200 is struggling for reach. Are you saying you can crop a FZ200 to match a SP100 at full zoom otherwise it is not really relevant is it?
phazelag wrote:
You did great with this camera. I love the idea of this with the reticle site. But when I am comparing this camera to my FZ200 images I am not blown away. Your images actually improved my thoughts about what is possible with this camera, but it is my impression the Sensor is too packed and the lens is a bit soft compared to the FZ200 which for me is the gold standard in super zooms.
http://www.scottzinda.com/Point-and-Shoot-Cameras/FZ200/
I see what your saying and get your point, but to me it is very relevent. I have no desire to be taking photos at 1000-1200mm if they are going soft and blurry. So I stick to 600 where the images are sharp and if I really need the extra reach and want to carry more weight and size I will ad my Nikon Teleconverter. But I will contend I will get more keepers of birds and critters at 600 with the FZ200 versus the SP100 at 1200. Especially in lower light. Animals move and you need shutter speeds to keep up. But I would sacrifice lens speed for sharpness but the SP100 is not sharp in my opinion.
Nothing wrong with wanting to shoot with the SP100 its good for the price and if your not hung up on super sharp images it is a great option. But I have been spoiled by the FZ200. So its all compromises and what you like.
Your pictures are vey nice. The hawks especially, although it looks very pale on my monitor.
That duck of yours is nice and sharp. Can you remember how close you were to the duck & the hawks. At 600mm you must have been pretty close to the duck. If I get time I will shoot a duck this weekend to see the oly fairs. My FZ200 has produced some sharp looking birds too.
