Paramose
Forum Enthusiast
Has anybody seen or heard anything from Graham Houghton as of late
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Graham Houghton all is Quiet
- Thread starter Paramose
- Start date
Timj351
Senior Member
It's inferior to you. That's the part that you seem to be having trouble with. It's not inferior to everyone.
What I said about the aperture is that it is a constant F2.8 aperture. This has nothing to do with the equivalence topic which I am very aware of.
I'm not sure why you're pushing the superiority of the FZ1000 so hard and in such a personal way when it's simply just another camera with features that may or may not appeal to photographers.
As I said, I'm actually very intrigued by the FZ1000 and would like to have one but it would be used in a different way from the FZ200 so I'm not sure I can justify the purchase of one at this time.
-Tim
I think it might be you who is not getting this. You pretty much made my point in what you just said.
I'm saying the fz1000 is superior to the fz200 in terms of performance. Now just because you don't need that level of performance and you're fine with the level the fz200 provides that still doesn't change that the fz1000 performs better.
It is completely fine that you and others are satisfied with the fz200. But in terms of performance, the fz200 is inferior whether you want that better performance or not.
I prefer it when I'm canoeing a river and have less control over my traveling speed. On lakes and ponds I prefer the FZ1000.
Well this "OK" camera has garnered numerous high marks in respected reviews and has a following that surely considers it a step or two above... OK. The fact that a goodly number of respected posters here have kept their FZ200s after having acquired and used the FZ1000 speaks rather highly of it.
Where have you been? Anayv has posted tons of images taken with the FZ200 at F2.8 that put a lot of posted images here to shame...including FZ1k images with poor camera settings...one of the reasons I stick with the smaller camera. Plus most people who buy super zoom cameras don't want a DSLR sized camera. There are in camera settings that yield clean images from the FZ200 but a lot of people like over sharp which highlights any noise and makes images flat looking IMHO.
And as far as printed out sure the FZ1000 will be better on poster sized prints but on prints around 8x10 which is the largest that most people would ever print you will not see enough of a difference if any.
Heck my stepson has a Canon 60D and his 8x10 prints look about the same as my old Kodak 3MP camera from 1999. Granted this is all in good light at base ISO.
I know the FZ1k is better in low light...for sure but dont need that. My LX7 satisfies my low light needs and is smaller still over a FZ1k. Plus you can get the smaller camera into a venue that doesn't allow full size cameras...like a FZ1k.
And as far as printed out sure the FZ1000 will be better on poster sized prints but on prints around 8x10 which is the largest that most people would ever print you will not see enough of a difference if any.
Heck my stepson has a Canon 60D and his 8x10 prints look about the same as my old Kodak 3MP camera from 1999. Granted this is all in good light at base ISO.
I know the FZ1k is better in low light...for sure but dont need that. My LX7 satisfies my low light needs and is smaller still over a FZ1k. Plus you can get the smaller camera into a venue that doesn't allow full size cameras...like a FZ1k.
It's inferior by the facts, numbers and results. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion.
I really like the fz1000, but is someone claimed it to be inferior to that of a Nikon d750 I certainly would not argue that. I can recognize performance differences and keep my own personal views out of it.
I don't care what one good photographer can do with an ok camera vs a bad photographer with an amazing photographer. That is hardly a fair and comparative test.
Basically all you have said is the fz200 is smaller so it is better. I'm pretty sure that is not how camera performance is measured.
Also I print 13"x19" and I have done larger but yes at smaller sizes difference are negligible. For myself at the sizes I like, I do see more noticeable differences. But the fz200 does produce a decent image at that size.
majicmoments
Well-known member
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 46
I have both cameras.. no way will i part with this joyfull.. fun.. and surprising quality fz200.. I call my fz1000 'The Beast'.. it is one hunk of a camera.. a miles better evf.. super fast focusing and super sharp lens... but when i reach for the 200 the joy factor is even more for me.. So well said Holmes375!
The fz200 was good for its time. It has now been thoroughly surpassed by the performance of the fz1000. But as others have said, they don't need the better performance and they are happy to stick with the fz200. Which is of course fine.
Yes but the joy factor is just your liking of the fz200. That is not a measure of performance. Regardless of which you like better, it doesn't change the specs and performance of each camera.
You like the fz200 better.... that is fine. I'm not trying to change your mind on that.
Timj351
Senior Member
Oh, well then excuse me, my bad. I just mistakenly missed where you changed the rules. It wasn't until your third post here that you used the word performance. And since that word can still mean many things you might've been better off by telling us that you were specifically talking about resolution, image noise and AF speed. In these categories you're absolutely correct and the FZ200 is absolutely inferior to the FZ1000.
Sorry, these kinds of conversations have been around forever and they only lead in one direction. Since I've made my points and anything more would be pointless I'll step aside. It's also starting to veer too far off-topic.
-Tim
I posted a couple images a while back taken with the FZ200 and the Canon 7D with a pretty good lens...selected the sweet spots for image sharpness on both cameras. Good lighting and base ISO. The only difference was color temp. They both looked fantastic. So when I go out I grab the FZ200 over the 7D. Its a lot smaller and lighter and has more reach all in one lens. If I don't need reach then I go even smaller camera LX7.
Yes it has been getting off topic. It seems people are very touchy over a camera and are quick to jump in and defend its performance with their love of it and the joy it has brought them.
Oh and I had no rules. I still consider the fz200 to be inferior but I should have specified in my first post that I was referring to performance. Had I wrote that then maybe this wouldn't have gotten as out of hand.
Since I used a d750 in my example, would you claim that the fz200 would produces and image that is comparable to that of a d750 with a good lens?
The reason I mentioned the d750 is because I have my eye on it as a potential purchase.
In good lighting outdoor shots you will be hard pressed to see a difference between the FZ200/FZ1k or even a Canon 7D like I had mentioned in response to another post I left.
majicmoments
Well-known member
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 46
The joy factor is MY measure of performance.. a very big measure for me.
If you get a d750 which is a really great DSLR don't skimp on the lens. I have a Canon 7D only because it was given to me for free. Its a cool camera and you can ramp up the ISO and still get great images. My plan is to buy a very sharp high quality lens for it. Prime lenses are cheaper and very sharp. I decided I want the Sigma 18mm to 35mm F1.8 Lens. That lens should give me very sharp images. But that's all for that camera. If I want reach I will grab my FZ200. if you skimp on lenses it will not look much different from these super zooms. To excel past your FZ1k you need very very good glass!
You know...I believe you. My first FZ200 used to smudge images too often but I just got a second FZ200 made in China so one of the newer FZ200's and I don't see any smudging.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum