Best for African safari? ZS50, FZ200, or FZ1000?

Looking for advice from those who have been on safari...

I'm leaving for an African safari in a few days, and the camera I ordered a month ago (Nikon P900) has not come and probably won't arrive before I leave. I doubt I'll need the 2000mm EFL of the P900, but it seems something in the 600mm to 800mm range would be good to have with me. I'm only interested in superzoom cameras at this point - not interested in multiple lenses and the mess that entails, despite the better IQ from a larger sensor. The last superzoom I purchased was a Canon S3 IS eight years ago, so I don't have a fall-back camera at this point.

Knowing that the Nikon might not show up, I had picked out possible alternatives - the FZ200 and the FZ1000. In my limited testing shooting low light, long zoom test photos in the camera shop (and then taking the photos home to look at on my monitor), I think I'm preferring the FZ200 despite it being a two year old design. In theory, the image stabilization isn't as good on the FZ200, but I was having better luck with the older camera. Despite the larger sensor on the FZ1000, when I played "equivalent zoom games" at 600mm, the FZ200 often looked better, holding detail better, better noise characteristics (a surprise given the smaller sensor), and generally providing a more pleasing photo to my eye with the default JPEG options. Again, despite the 2 year old processor in the FZ200, focusing and general shutter lag issues seemed just as quick with the FZ200 as it did on the newer FZ1000. I'm guessing the f 2.8 lens on the FZ200 has a lot to do with this performance. So I had talked myself into the FZ200 as the fallback option...

...Until I purchased a ZS50 for my wife yesterday. She doesn't take many photos, and I've got a perfectly good pocket camera she likes to use when I can convince her not to use the iPhone, but how often will we go on safari? At 60 years old, this is it, so I thought she might enjoy having a long zoom also. But as I've been playing with the ZS50 over the last day, I'm wondering if I should buy another one for myself, or just share the one we've got. The small form factor of the ZS50 is compelling, and might mean it would remain sitting out in my hand rather than stowed in the case just as a fleeting opportunity for a great shot comes along. Not that a 2 pound camera will kill me, but my aging body (neck and back problems) might appreciate the pocket camera difference. With the smaller lens and higher f numbers, I'm thinking IQ won't be as good as with the FZ200 or FZ1000, but it won't be horribly noisy because Panasonic intelligently reduced the pixel count for this year's model.

So, those of you who have been on safari, what do you think? Given that two of the three cameras I'm talking about are small sensor, and the IQ of the 1 inch sensor in the FZ1000 didn't exactly blow me away, especially at the longer focal lengths I think I'll need on safari, will I regret taking a pocket camera (ZS50) instead of carrying the larger FZ200? Am I right to question the shorter focal length FZ1000 and instead go with the FZ200 given where I'm traveling?

Thanks for your input!

BTW, I should add that I read through the entire thread titled "Safari question FZ200 at 600 or FZ1000 at 400 cropped" which I found quite useful but ultimately inconclusive. (Sorry, I don't know how to create a link with this forum software.)

I would consider ZS50 and FZ1000 only. FZ1000 will have 20Mpx pictures with plenty of detail and more crop options, great DR compared to others in list (the most in RAW ofcourse), better ISO performace as some scenes will need faster shutter speeds and superb AF need for true wildlife in action. On the other hand ZS50 have longer reach, its small (pocketable) but it has difraction on the longer focal lenghts even on the largest aperture F6.4 (I think) so this is pretty bad. And even in bright conditions there could be lack of light for fast movement. Hovever, the air whirling will ruin the IQ at long distances the same way for only 400mm (35mm) in FZ1000. EVF is fine to have but its too small in ZS50. I saw some thread from safari and FZ1000, cant find it now.

Since you were considering the P900...how about the P610 ?

Goes to 1440, instead of 2000mm.

I had the FZ200 for almost 3 years...loved it.

But my desire for longer telephoto reach had me looking for something else. I considered the FZ1000, but shorter lens, and larger camera, had me to cross it off the list.

The P900 was high on the list, but was out of stock....so I tried the P610. Same sensor and processing, just less zoom range.

I don't go on safari's, but use these superzooms, for local zoo's . Animals aren't always close...but they don't move as fast as if in the wild.

I mention the P610, due to the results I am getting . O.I.S. is simply amazing !

Here's a few examples I recently shot, with the P610:








iso 800




iso 800

Notice the shutter speeds on some of these. All handheld.

Even the moon @2880mm looks pretty detailed:


2880mm....2x digital zoom enabled

Check out the zoom range...but more impressive is the O.I.S. :


24mm

The red circle is the clock:


2880mm 2x digital zoom


5,760mm !4 x digital zoom

I dont really recommend using digital zoom, but wanted to see how well the O.I.S. could perform.

No tripod , just handheld.

So, for safari, I think the P610 does very good. The FZ200 will also give good results , but less zoom range, and it wont hold as much detail at higher iso settings as the P610 or P900.

FZ1000 surely has better IQ than these, but limited zoom range, and bigger, heavier camera.

ANAYV

I dont think digital zoom has any impact on OIS ;-) its only crop of the sensor or incamera PP (camera model dependent)

It might depend on where you're going. In a nature reserve where the game keepers respect the animals and keep a distance you will want as long a zoom as possible. In a safari park where the animals are used to being fed biscuits by the tourists maybe it's not so important.

I have a ZS50 and here are some pictures to give you an idea. For fine details it is best to shoot RAW but even JPEG is fine if you do not crop 100% and the subject fills a good part of the frame. Most of the shots in the link below were shot in RAW, except the sequence with the flying birds competing to reach the feeder.


I was recently on a vacation with the ZS50 and it was great to have a light camera on a lanyard instead of the heavy DSLR. Here are some photos from that trip (all JPEG):


Good luck!

I seem to be the only one argueing for the FZ200. I went on Safari several times with it and can only conclude:

- best stabilization I have ever experienced

- 2.8 also with teleconverter gives you 1.020 mm at 2.8 wit a 1.7 TC

- superb, sharp lens

- excellent colours if you shoot in Natural mode

- very fast in every respect

- perfect size and weight

- slow motion film modes

- HDR

For me its one of the best compromuses ever made, modern classic. Especially for safari.

Stefan

Here are two threads you might find interesting.

Read Mr. Gruber's comments about what goes on - almost as interesting as the photos.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50505095

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3355293?page=4#forum-post-51374962

I haven't been there, but he has.



--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

The F200 would be my choice, used in combination with the ZS50 as a back-up. The FZ1000 would be good too but at twice the price of the FZ200 may not offer best value but then this as an adjunct to an expensive trip. So, maybe price is not the major issue.

The FZ1000 has the ability to create 8MP stills extracted from movies, that might be a useful option to consider. The 20MP sensor gives more opportunity to crop, So, the 400mm max is not really an issue.

not been on a Safari, have use FZ200 and ZS40 for sometime - see my Albums on Flickr for camera specific images. I'd advise you to take 2 spare batteries per camera and a good quality polarising filter for the FZ ( e.g. Hoya Pro Digital).

The Canon S3IS was a very good camera. Still have mine

Good Luck

--
Stuart
Also at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/

THANKS! Very helpful responses from everyone - much appreciated. I get that these are all good cameras - just looking for what might suit me best. A few questions and comments:

ANAYV - I had not really considered the Nikon P610 until this morning. Annoyingly, no one in the local camera shops knows if the O.I.S. on the P610 is the same as on the P900. I've seen indications that there is an additional level or type of stabilization on the P900, but I can't verify that one way or the other. Do you know? I ask because, of all the cameras I tested in the shop, I had far and away the best experience with the P900 over all the other cameras I listed here. I guess the Nikon stabilization matches my kind of shaking! (Which is to say, others may have a different experience.) In my tests in-store, I had far more keepers from the P9000 - the non-keepers being spoiled mostly by camera shake. I don't have time to test again, just have to buy a camera and hope I make the right choice at this point, so if the O.I.S. is the same between the P610 and the P900, that might make the decision for me. (I also have to say that ANAYV's photos are impressive, and the 800 ISO shots are amazingly non-smudged.)

Yellowdog: We will be in both reserves and parks. I've been advised that longer focal lengths will serve me well.

Erik - I also read those posts by Hans Gruber, and PM'ed him asking if he would comment here. His experience with the FZ200 made me much more comfortable with that choice, and his comments on the DSLR gear nuts confirmed my suspicion that I didn't want to go that way. (Film SLR and zone system are in my past, with the emphasis on past. I decided to follow my music aspirations instead, and that is what I do professionally now. Last year I found my enlarger, boxed and unused for years, in the basement and gave it to a friend who still does film.)

For those suggesting the FZ1000, my pixel peeping could not convince me that it is any better than the FZ200 in the zoom ranges I think I'll need on safari. No doubt the larger sensor makes this a better camera when one isn't pushing the zoom range beyond the optics of the lens, but I'm pretty focused on safari use at this point. The fact that the FZ100 is heavier than most of the other options (except the P900 I can't get) weighs against (ahem) the FZ1000 for me. Why carry the weight if the benefit is negligible? I'm also not into cropping when I get home either. Maybe it is my photography-as-art snobbish past, but I like to frame in the moment, and I also find that with digital not being nearly as forgiving as film, exposure, metering, focus, and other variables are much more accurate when the frame is filled with the subject you want.

Right now, the only thing that stops me from buying a P610 (since I can't get a P900) is the lack of control on that camera. Not just the lack of raw, but the inability to exposure bracket beyond 1 EV. I suspect I'll run into other gotcha's as I use the camera. Silly move on Nikon's part. But then again, I'm just a photo tourist these days, and the in-camera HDR might do all I need for controlling highlights and wide dynamic ranges. Anyway, with silly nostalgia for my past, still considering the FZ200 or just taking the ZS50 and calling it good.

Which leads to one last comment and question. Many thanks to Valentin for his ZS50 galleries. I detect a bit of softness, which might simply be in-camera processing or his style of raw processing, or it might be diffraction, a concept I don't understand well. Does the sheer difference in the amount of glass between the ZS50 and all the other cameras I'm considering come into play? Or is diffraction strictly an interaction between the sensor size and the f number, no matter how big the glass looks physically? Since Valentin's galleries don't have EXIF data,. I'm not sure if this is an issue. Basically, I'm wondering if the bigger glass (and possibly lower f numbers?) on the FZ200 or P610 might help avoid diffraction issues and thus contribute to sharpness? Many thanks if you know the answer.

There is exif data in the Google+ galleries. You need to click Photo Details on the right side of the photo. I'm not an optical specialist so cannot provide details about diffraction, etc.
It is true than at 720mm the photos get a little softer compared to 600mm or 500mm. There seems to be a sample variation with some copies being better or worse. I'm not into the return and hope for better game so decided to keep the first one received from Amazon.

I'm sure the FZ200 has much better lens and produces better quality but it comes at more bulk. Have a great time at the trip. It is more important to enjoy it and be in the moment than to worry about photos ultimate quality : -)

--
Valentin
http://picasaweb.google.com/valphot

Please see this thread about my experience on Safari. But I have to say that my wife used the FZ-150 and her photos are of comparable quality at least when printed.

Personally I would not go back to a super zoom with a small sensor. Using the FZ-1000 is much more fun.

The ape portraits are fantastic. Posed perfectly. Did you offer them candy?

Yes I have been on safari, and not all are the same. On some you will get really close to the animals (some of them anyway) on others they will be distant.

Some brief comments

The FZ1000 is excellent but maybe the zoom is not long enough for some situations.

The FZ200 is not much better for long zoom, you can get equivalent FL600mm on the FZ1000.

The TZ70 (ZS50) is a nice camera but very difficult to hold still at the long end. The OIS in this camera is not so good and its main advantage, (small/light), is also its main disadvantage (camera shake) at the long end. I have a lot of trouble getting sharp hand held photos at the long end with the TZ70.

Consider the Nikon P610 or P900. Both have a very long zoom (that on the P610 is plenty) good VR and good picture quality (but no RAW).

Andrew

RadicalDad said:

THANKS! Very helpful responses from everyone - much appreciated. I get that these are all good cameras - just looking for what might suit me best. A few questions and comments:

ANAYV - I had not really considered the Nikon P610 until this morning. Annoyingly, no one in the local camera shops knows if the O.I.S. on the P610 is the same as on the P900. I've seen indications that there is an additional level or type of stabilization on the P900, but I can't verify that one way or the other. Do you know? I ask because, of all the cameras I tested in the shop, I had far and away the best experience with the P900 over all the other cameras I listed here. I guess the Nikon stabilization matches my kind of shaking! (Which is to say, others may have a different experience.) In my tests in-store, I had far more keepers from the P9000 - the non-keepers being spoiled mostly by camera shake. I don't have time to test again, just have to buy a camera and hope I make the right choice at this point, so if the O.I.S. is the same between the P610 and the P900, that might make the decision for me. (I also have to say that ANAYV's photos are impressive, and the 800 ISO shots are amazingly non-smudged.)

Click to expand...

Not certain, but from those who used the P600 and P 610, the brains of both P610 and P900 cameras are the same. Lens and body to contain lens are different.

Maybe visit the Nikon forum, and ask or read some threads there. I am too new to the P 610.

Just to say, the FZ200 is a joy to use, also has really good O.I.S. great battery life, fast burst rate that won't slow you down, as the P610 will make you wait, before taking another shot, after a short burst.

I also have used ZS20 and ZS30, but for your trip, It's good as a second camera....not the only camera. ZS50 adds more control and longer lens, but still.

RadicalDad said:

Yellowdog: We will be in both reserves and parks. I've been advised that longer focal lengths will serve me well.

Erik - I also read those posts by Hans Gruber, and PM'ed him asking if he would comment here. His experience with the FZ200 made me much more comfortable with that choice, and his comments on the DSLR gear nuts confirmed my suspicion that I didn't want to go that way. (Film SLR and zone system are in my past, with the emphasis on past. I decided to follow my music aspirations instead, and that is what I do professionally now. Last year I found my enlarger, boxed and unused for years, in the basement and gave it to a friend who still does film.)

For those suggesting the FZ1000, my pixel peeping could not convince me that it is any better than the FZ200 in the zoom ranges I think I'll need on safari. No doubt the larger sensor makes this a better camera when one isn't pushing the zoom range beyond the optics of the lens, but I'm pretty focused on safari use at this point. The fact that the FZ100 is heavier than most of the other options (except the P900 I can't get) weighs against (ahem) the FZ1000 for me. Why carry the weight if the benefit is negligible? I'm also not into cropping when I get home either. Maybe it is my photography-as-art snobbish past, but I like to frame in the moment, and I also find that with digital not being nearly as forgiving as film, exposure, metering, focus, and other variables are much more accurate when the frame is filled with the subject you want.

Right now, the only thing that stops me from buying a P610 (since I can't get a P900) is the lack of control on that camera. Not just the lack of raw, but the inability to exposure bracket beyond 1 EV. I suspect I'll run into other gotcha's as I use the camera. Silly move on Nikon's part. But then again, I'm just a photo tourist these days, and the in-camera HDR might do all I need for controlling highlights and wide dynamic ranges. Anyway, with silly nostalgia for my past, still considering the FZ200 or just taking the ZS50 and calling it good.

Which leads to one last comment and question. Many thanks to Valentin for his ZS50 galleries. I detect a bit of softness, which might simply be in-camera processing or his style of raw processing, or it might be diffraction, a concept I don't understand well. Does the sheer difference in the amount of glass between the ZS50 and all the other cameras I'm considering come into play? Or is diffraction strictly an interaction between the sensor size and the f number, no matter how big the glass looks physically? Since Valentin's galleries don't have EXIF data,. I'm not sure if this is an issue. Basically, I'm wondering if the bigger glass (and possibly lower f numbers?) on the FZ200 or P610 might help avoid diffraction issues and thus contribute to sharpness? Many thanks if you know the answer.

Click to expand...

Just for closure, I should let everyone know I purchased a P610 (still no P900's available and I leave tomorrow). The good folks at Pro Photo Supply (Portland, OR) thought I'd be happier with the longer zoom considering what I'm doing, and the longer zoom should give better IQ at the longer focal ranges than the FZ200 and Fz1000, which have other merits, IMO. This is a once-in-a-lifetime for me, so I can always sell the P610 and get something with better IQ but shorter zoom another time.

I also have the ZS50 for my wife, and can borrow that from her when desired, and also have it as a backup.

Thanks to all who wrote. Was very helpful to clarify my thinking on what I wanted. Much appreciated.

Hope you enjoyed your safari. Any chance you can update us with some of the pictures you took with the p610? Particularly keen to see how the zoom performed?

This was one of the many threads I read when deciding which camera to get for a safari myself. I went for a Panasonic lumix fz200 as I thought the usability might be more important than the extra zoom (I'm already pretty familiar with the general set up of Panasonic whereas Nikon is new to me). Whilst I was consistently happy with IQ and the zoom in general, it did frustrate me from time to time when even 20x wasn't enough, and the quality in digital diminished too much to make a beautiful photo. Would love to see how the p610 compared to know if I made the right choice or should maybe consider swapping!

Results from fz200 can be viewed in my blog:

www.safari-with-fz200.blogspot.co.uk/

Thanks,

Jen