-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I want to buy a extended zoom camera, which one is best?
- Thread starter SummaDis
- Start date
Jim Coffey
Leading Member
Batteries - all of the above use AA's - so you can get rechargable NiMH's real cheap. Also, the Minolta uses SD/MMC which tends to be cheaper than xD - with a 3MP camera I'd get at least a 128meg card.Minolta DiMAGE Z1 - 3,3 Mp 10X
Olympus C-740 UZ - 3,1 Mp 10X
Olympus C-750 UZ - 4 Mp 10X
How important is 4 Mp - 3,1 Mp
I think I will go for the Kodak.....
All the camera's have their good things. Can anyone give me good
reasons for buying one of these.? Or not to buy one of these
For what you described as your needs, a 3MP camera should be more than enough - I still use a 2mp Oly2020 for walk around family shots when I don't ant to carry my DRebel. - 3x5's will be fine from a 3mp, you can probably go to 8x10 without too much problem.
tsjaar
Member
That's just what I mean. But do you use manual focus a lot?
Making pictures in the forrest etc.
Making pictures in the forrest etc.
Got problems with the kodak about this?
Erik
Good auto white-balance is huge though. If this camera were as
fast as the Z1, I'd buy it. Don't under-estimate the importance of
white balance control if you want to make photographic quality
prints.
Mark
Eric
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
I have a 5000s and used it for my son's soccer this season and was very happy with it. In burst mode, it can capture the first 5 or last 5 at 5f/sec. Using the first five mode, to capture action, you do need to prefocus(half press to decrease lag time). In last 5, you can hold the shutter for up to 40 frames and decide when to capture the last 5. Took ton's of action pics and the team made a team calendar with the pictures. I had looked at the Oly C750 but decided on the 5000s. I like the the balanced feel of the 5000. Image stabilitation isn't an issue in normal lighting. Good autofocus, has a focus assist light for extended low light focus ability. Powerful flash too.
Hadn't considered the Z1, didn't like the feel/ fliping design. I really liked the Fuji color, feel and speed. With the good balance of the S5000, I don't need to use a tripod at full zoom for daylight outdoor shooting.
Comes with lens adapter for filters and or tele/wide converters.
Good luck.
Mark
How important is 4 Mp - 3,1 Mp
I think I will go for the Kodak.....
All the camera's have their good things. Can anyone give me good
reasons for buying one of these.? Or not to buy one of these
Erik
If i want a subject precise in focus, i just push the shutterbutton halfway, focus on the right subject and after the focus is locked recompose the picture and push the button all down to make the picture, works great!
While pushing the sutter-button halfway down you can exactly see which point is in focus.
For landscapes you can of course also set the pre-settings on landscape mode.
Eric
While pushing the sutter-button halfway down you can exactly see which point is in focus.
For landscapes you can of course also set the pre-settings on landscape mode.
Eric
Got problems with the kodak about this?
Erik
Good auto white-balance is huge though. If this camera were as
fast as the Z1, I'd buy it. Don't under-estimate the importance of
white balance control if you want to make photographic quality
prints.
Mark
Eric
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
I do like the last 5 burst feature. If I got used to that, it would be hard to buy a camera without it. I forgot about that.
I have a 5000s and used it for my son's soccer this season and was
very happy with it. In burst mode, it can capture the first 5 or
last 5 at 5f/sec. Using the first five mode, to capture action, you
do need to prefocus(half press to decrease lag time). In last 5,
you can hold the shutter for up to 40 frames and decide when to
capture the last 5. Took ton's of action pics and the team made a
team calendar with the pictures. I had looked at the Oly C750 but
decided on the 5000s. I like the the balanced feel of the 5000.
Image stabilitation isn't an issue in normal lighting. Good
autofocus, has a focus assist light for extended low light focus
ability. Powerful flash too.
Hadn't considered the Z1, didn't like the feel/ fliping design. I
really liked the Fuji color, feel and speed. With the good balance
of the S5000, I don't need to use a tripod at full zoom for
daylight outdoor shooting.
Comes with lens adapter for filters and or tele/wide converters.
Good luck.
Mark
How important is 4 Mp - 3,1 Mp
I think I will go for the Kodak.....
All the camera's have their good things. Can anyone give me good
reasons for buying one of these.? Or not to buy one of these
Erik
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
I don't want to have to use manual focus unless I'm taking macro photos of still life.
Other than that, I expect the auto focus of a modern camera to be dependable enough that manual focus is not needed.
I rarely use it.
Other than that, I expect the auto focus of a modern camera to be dependable enough that manual focus is not needed.
I rarely use it.
Got problems with the kodak about this?
Erik
Good auto white-balance is huge though. If this camera were as
fast as the Z1, I'd buy it. Don't under-estimate the importance of
white balance control if you want to make photographic quality
prints.
Mark
Eric
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
Have you used the DX6490?
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
For this type of camera, I see manual focus as a minor issue.
There where other things about the Kodak that I find more important and lacking.
There where other things about the Kodak that I find more important and lacking.
Eric
Got problems with the kodak about this?
Erik
Good auto white-balance is huge though. If this camera were as
fast as the Z1, I'd buy it. Don't under-estimate the importance of
white balance control if you want to make photographic quality
prints.
Mark
Eric
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
Sure, i own one and made about 3000 pictures since i bought it begin oktober. It is really a nice cam and especially the withbalance is perfect!
Very nice colors you get with this camera.
Very nice colors you get with this camera.
Hi all,
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs. time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs. time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
If the auto focus system is fast enough, you won't have to do this. In fact, a good continuous auto focus will let you follow a subject and trip the release at the moment that something happens. By pre focusing an area, you have to hope that both something happens when you are ready and that it happens in the exact place that you expect it. There are plenty of pictures of things happening right where they are expected.
In addition, you can use auto focus to focus in a specific place. When you manual focus, you must be using something as a reference. Just use that something as the reference for the auto-focus. Then wait for your moment to finish the shot.
I have used auto focus to focus at a specific distance and then turned it to manual so that it would stay at that focus point and be ready to shoot. A good example is photographing water-skiers. They are always at the same distance from the boat. It was an advantage because I wanted to take some tight shots and I couldn't keep my focus point on the subject with the boat bouncing over the water. My auto focus was so fast that as soon as the focus point fell off the subject, they would go OOF. This is a non-issue because I was shooting at ISO speeds (1600) that most digital cameras cannot dream of.
99% of the time, I'd rather have a fast auto-focus than the option to manual focus.
Mark
In addition, you can use auto focus to focus in a specific place. When you manual focus, you must be using something as a reference. Just use that something as the reference for the auto-focus. Then wait for your moment to finish the shot.
I have used auto focus to focus at a specific distance and then turned it to manual so that it would stay at that focus point and be ready to shoot. A good example is photographing water-skiers. They are always at the same distance from the boat. It was an advantage because I wanted to take some tight shots and I couldn't keep my focus point on the subject with the boat bouncing over the water. My auto focus was so fast that as soon as the focus point fell off the subject, they would go OOF. This is a non-issue because I was shooting at ISO speeds (1600) that most digital cameras cannot dream of.
99% of the time, I'd rather have a fast auto-focus than the option to manual focus.
Mark
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for
outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and
prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the
actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of
getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as
fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the
camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access
manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs.
time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system
of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
I agree with you Mark... unfortunately most consumer digital cameras don't offer this type of capability as you described in the price range of $400. So the added benefit of having manual focus is one additional tool which some people may find beneficial in a budget priced camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
Regards,
Kirwin
In addition, you can use auto focus to focus in a specific place.
When you manual focus, you must be using something as a reference.
Just use that something as the reference for the auto-focus. Then
wait for your moment to finish the shot.
I have used auto focus to focus at a specific distance and then
turned it to manual so that it would stay at that focus point and
be ready to shoot. A good example is photographing water-skiers.
They are always at the same distance from the boat. It was an
advantage because I wanted to take some tight shots and I couldn't
keep my focus point on the subject with the boat bouncing over the
water. My auto focus was so fast that as soon as the focus point
fell off the subject, they would go OOF. This is a non-issue
because I was shooting at ISO speeds (1600) that most digital
cameras cannot dream of.
99% of the time, I'd rather have a fast auto-focus than the option
to manual focus.
Mark
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for
outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and
prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the
actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of
getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as
fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the
camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access
manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs.
time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system
of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
Exactly why I think the Minolta Z1 is a great camera for
It might not have IS, or be robust. But it's fast and useable for sports and even low light. It has a continuous focus mode that keeps the subject in focus as it moves.
It's not very rugged and it's not black. It doesn’t have a name like Leica or Zeiss on it. It's only 3MP. However, when you point it and push the button, it gets the job done as fast as anything I've used this side of $800.
Mark
It might not have IS, or be robust. But it's fast and useable for sports and even low light. It has a continuous focus mode that keeps the subject in focus as it moves.
It's not very rugged and it's not black. It doesn’t have a name like Leica or Zeiss on it. It's only 3MP. However, when you point it and push the button, it gets the job done as fast as anything I've used this side of $800.
Mark
Regards,
Kirwin
In addition, you can use auto focus to focus in a specific place.
When you manual focus, you must be using something as a reference.
Just use that something as the reference for the auto-focus. Then
wait for your moment to finish the shot.
I have used auto focus to focus at a specific distance and then
turned it to manual so that it would stay at that focus point and
be ready to shoot. A good example is photographing water-skiers.
They are always at the same distance from the boat. It was an
advantage because I wanted to take some tight shots and I couldn't
keep my focus point on the subject with the boat bouncing over the
water. My auto focus was so fast that as soon as the focus point
fell off the subject, they would go OOF. This is a non-issue
because I was shooting at ISO speeds (1600) that most digital
cameras cannot dream of.
99% of the time, I'd rather have a fast auto-focus than the option
to manual focus.
Mark
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for
outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and
prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the
actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of
getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as
fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the
camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access
manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs.
time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system
of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
Mark,
The comments you've made in this thread and another one in the Panasonic forum lead me to believe you may be able to answer a question or two for me if you're so inclined . . .
I am trying to find a digital camera with a fairly high zoom that works well in low light conditions outdoors at the upper reaches of its high zoom, without flash (specifically, wildlife shots at or after sundown but before complete darkness, or early morning shots at or before sunrise).
I have bought and returned both the Kodak DX6490 and the Panasonic FZ10 in my attempt to find the right camera for the job. I realize the use I have in mind will be problematic for any digital camera (moving target, low-light, no flash, high zoom).
It appears that you own the FZ10 and the Minolta A1, as well as experience with a DSLR. My questions are: (1.) will the A1 outperform the FZ10 under these conditions (albeit with lower zoom, obviously), and (2.) if one had to make do with a $1,000 or less I/S zoom lens, would a DSLR - like the Digital Rebel - perform "significantly better" than either of the these two cameras, or just "somewhat better?" (I think some of the more pricey lenses would work, but those lenses will cost several thousand dollars, and I can't justify that outlay at the time, especially on top of the $900-$1,000 minimum for the DSLR itself.)
I realize this is pretty subjective, but I'm interested in your opinion . . . would you toss me your thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Stan
The comments you've made in this thread and another one in the Panasonic forum lead me to believe you may be able to answer a question or two for me if you're so inclined . . .
I am trying to find a digital camera with a fairly high zoom that works well in low light conditions outdoors at the upper reaches of its high zoom, without flash (specifically, wildlife shots at or after sundown but before complete darkness, or early morning shots at or before sunrise).
I have bought and returned both the Kodak DX6490 and the Panasonic FZ10 in my attempt to find the right camera for the job. I realize the use I have in mind will be problematic for any digital camera (moving target, low-light, no flash, high zoom).
It appears that you own the FZ10 and the Minolta A1, as well as experience with a DSLR. My questions are: (1.) will the A1 outperform the FZ10 under these conditions (albeit with lower zoom, obviously), and (2.) if one had to make do with a $1,000 or less I/S zoom lens, would a DSLR - like the Digital Rebel - perform "significantly better" than either of the these two cameras, or just "somewhat better?" (I think some of the more pricey lenses would work, but those lenses will cost several thousand dollars, and I can't justify that outlay at the time, especially on top of the $900-$1,000 minimum for the DSLR itself.)
I realize this is pretty subjective, but I'm interested in your opinion . . . would you toss me your thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Stan
tsjaar
Member
Thanks for your comment. This seems an extra point towards the Kodak DX6490 with a shutter time from 16 secs. to 1/1700 sec ..... )
Erik
with a shutter time from 16 secs. to 1/1700 sec ..... )Erik
In addition, you can use auto focus to focus in a specific place.
When you manual focus, you must be using something as a reference.
Just use that something as the reference for the auto-focus. Then
wait for your moment to finish the shot.
I have used auto focus to focus at a specific distance and then
turned it to manual so that it would stay at that focus point and
be ready to shoot. A good example is photographing water-skiers.
They are always at the same distance from the boat. It was an
advantage because I wanted to take some tight shots and I couldn't
keep my focus point on the subject with the boat bouncing over the
water. My auto focus was so fast that as soon as the focus point
fell off the subject, they would go OOF. This is a non-issue
because I was shooting at ISO speeds (1600) that most digital
cameras cannot dream of.
99% of the time, I'd rather have a fast auto-focus than the option
to manual focus.
Mark
I believe manual focus to be a great benefit to any camera for
outside sports. By setting a camera to manual focus and
prefocusing on a selected point (ie soccer goal net) before the
actual photo is taken... will actually increase your odds of
getting a focused action shot. The camera will take the picture as
fast as you can push the button (no auto focus delay) because the
camera was manually prefocused.
The benefit to having a manual zoom ring vs. having to access
manual zoom through a menu on your lcd is speed/ease of use vs.
time spent trying to search for manual zoom through the menu system
of a camera.
Regards,
Kirwin
I am looking to buy a digital camera with a 10 times or better
zoom. I am using a cheap 35mm film camera now and I miss a lot of
shots because it makes me back up for sum reason. Me and my wife
have 8 month old twins (1 boy 1 girl)
I want a camera that will get close ups without zooming out to take
the picture. Also I would like to use this as my children grow up
and play sports. I have missed sooo many good moments because of
this camera. I can only spend $400 on a camera.
What would be the best camera for the money I can spend?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
tsjaar
Member
tsjaar
Member
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
Stan,
You stated...
(1.) will the A1 outperform the FZ10 under these conditions?
I have not used the A1 in low light outdoors yet. However, I have used it indoors, low light. It's focusing system was far superior to the FZ10. It focuses slower in dim light but is very fast in normal lighting.
For moving subjects, it is also no comparison, the A1 seems to be designed with action in mind. Besides the fast focus, the continuous focus has a feature that tracks your subject. Have not put it to the test in real life, but it was fun tracking un-suspecting people in the store. I guess that's kind of low light.
The A1 has a bigger sensor that should be better with high ISO noise. It has the option of going to 800 ISO where I think the FZ10 stops at 400.
(2.) if one had to make do with a $1,000 or less I/S zoom lens, would a DSLR - like the Digital Rebel - perform "significantly better" than either of the these two cameras, or just "somewhat better?"
In my opinion, there is no gray area, the D-Rebel with almost any telephoto lens would be better for this challenging situation.
For low light- It seems to me that even an entry level lens with a smaller maximum f/stop would do better on a D-SLR. It's still a bigger lens, collecting more light, and supplying the image to a much bigger sensor. The Sony 828 with its f/2.0-2.8 lens might give a cheep SLR lens a run. Remember, the FZ10 has a smaller sensor than the Sony, so even when they are both at 2.8, the Sony is collecting more light. If the subject is moving, the FZ10's IS is rendered useless.
I can go to ISO800 with very little noise, compared to any of the 2/3" or smaller sensors. This makes even a relatively slow lens useful. Also, if your subject is moving, image stabilization is rendered virtually useless. The FZ10 has a mode that only stabilizes vertically when horizontally panning. The A1 specs say that it automatically detects panning. The high-end canon IS lenses can be placed in a mode like the FZ10's. But when it comes down to it, high ISO and fast shutter speed is the best remedy and I think that is one of the major advantages of the D-Rebel or other DSLR.
The biggest drawback to the D-Rebel is the cost of camera, cost of lenses, and having to carry it all around. Also, it can be more difficult to take a good picture because the depth of field is much small at any given aperture, compared to a smaller sensor camera. However, that small DOF is what makes a good picture of a single subject so compelling.
I guess that what I think you should most note about the SLR lenses compared to the lenses on the FZ10 and A1 is: You don't have to get an f/2.8 lens to reap the same results. This is because the sensors are not the same size and significantly changes things in the DSLR's advantage.
One more point of commentary: I took the A1 and the 10D to a little New Year's Party. After a few shots on both, I put the 10D away and finished with the A1. I learned some things:
1) The A1 is much smaller and easier to handle
2) The A1 is not as intimidating as having this big SLR pointed at you
3) The pictures from the A1 in auto ISO showed noticeable noise in black areas even when only printed at 4x6 size. I think it chose ISO 200 even with flash to increase the flash range in the dark environment. None of that with the 10D until you get into 800 or 1600 ISO.
If you know exactly what you want to take photos of, and it's challenging like your situation, it's hard to go wrong with the D-Rebel. For $1000 you could choose between many good lenses. If you know that you are going to be taking shots of moving objects, I'd say don't worry about IS. It cost about $500 more on the fast lenses. I have the 28-135mm (Equiv. 45-216) IS and I like it allot for everyday. It was about $450. If you want more zoom and want low light action, there are better choices. Sigma makes some good lenses. At
I probably should have put my pluses and minuses together, but here is another, possible, negative for DSLR. Most DSLR's, by design, under process the pictures. The photos that come out are still nice but post-processing is usually necessary to get the most from them. This is less true with the one piece cameras that tend to apply more in camera processing and provide an image that is closer to being ready to print.
Well, I have made this post to wordy. I'd take the A1 over the FZ10 (I returned the FZ10). The D-Rebel would be best in the situation you described, if you don't mind the added cost and larger size and weight. If you want to have a camera that can be used easily and be less intimidating, the A1 might be better. If you can deal with the design and memory sticks, the Sony's have a nice lens and, from the 717-on, are fast focusers.
Mark
You stated...
Your questions with my opinions:
(1.) will the A1 outperform the FZ10 under these conditions?
I have not used the A1 in low light outdoors yet. However, I have used it indoors, low light. It's focusing system was far superior to the FZ10. It focuses slower in dim light but is very fast in normal lighting.
For moving subjects, it is also no comparison, the A1 seems to be designed with action in mind. Besides the fast focus, the continuous focus has a feature that tracks your subject. Have not put it to the test in real life, but it was fun tracking un-suspecting people in the store. I guess that's kind of low light.
The A1 has a bigger sensor that should be better with high ISO noise. It has the option of going to 800 ISO where I think the FZ10 stops at 400.
(2.) if one had to make do with a $1,000 or less I/S zoom lens, would a DSLR - like the Digital Rebel - perform "significantly better" than either of the these two cameras, or just "somewhat better?"
In my opinion, there is no gray area, the D-Rebel with almost any telephoto lens would be better for this challenging situation.
For low light- It seems to me that even an entry level lens with a smaller maximum f/stop would do better on a D-SLR. It's still a bigger lens, collecting more light, and supplying the image to a much bigger sensor. The Sony 828 with its f/2.0-2.8 lens might give a cheep SLR lens a run. Remember, the FZ10 has a smaller sensor than the Sony, so even when they are both at 2.8, the Sony is collecting more light. If the subject is moving, the FZ10's IS is rendered useless.
I can go to ISO800 with very little noise, compared to any of the 2/3" or smaller sensors. This makes even a relatively slow lens useful. Also, if your subject is moving, image stabilization is rendered virtually useless. The FZ10 has a mode that only stabilizes vertically when horizontally panning. The A1 specs say that it automatically detects panning. The high-end canon IS lenses can be placed in a mode like the FZ10's. But when it comes down to it, high ISO and fast shutter speed is the best remedy and I think that is one of the major advantages of the D-Rebel or other DSLR.
The biggest drawback to the D-Rebel is the cost of camera, cost of lenses, and having to carry it all around. Also, it can be more difficult to take a good picture because the depth of field is much small at any given aperture, compared to a smaller sensor camera. However, that small DOF is what makes a good picture of a single subject so compelling.
I guess that what I think you should most note about the SLR lenses compared to the lenses on the FZ10 and A1 is: You don't have to get an f/2.8 lens to reap the same results. This is because the sensors are not the same size and significantly changes things in the DSLR's advantage.
One more point of commentary: I took the A1 and the 10D to a little New Year's Party. After a few shots on both, I put the 10D away and finished with the A1. I learned some things:
1) The A1 is much smaller and easier to handle
2) The A1 is not as intimidating as having this big SLR pointed at you
3) The pictures from the A1 in auto ISO showed noticeable noise in black areas even when only printed at 4x6 size. I think it chose ISO 200 even with flash to increase the flash range in the dark environment. None of that with the 10D until you get into 800 or 1600 ISO.
If you know exactly what you want to take photos of, and it's challenging like your situation, it's hard to go wrong with the D-Rebel. For $1000 you could choose between many good lenses. If you know that you are going to be taking shots of moving objects, I'd say don't worry about IS. It cost about $500 more on the fast lenses. I have the 28-135mm (Equiv. 45-216) IS and I like it allot for everyday. It was about $450. If you want more zoom and want low light action, there are better choices. Sigma makes some good lenses. At
I probably should have put my pluses and minuses together, but here is another, possible, negative for DSLR. Most DSLR's, by design, under process the pictures. The photos that come out are still nice but post-processing is usually necessary to get the most from them. This is less true with the one piece cameras that tend to apply more in camera processing and provide an image that is closer to being ready to print.
Well, I have made this post to wordy. I'd take the A1 over the FZ10 (I returned the FZ10). The D-Rebel would be best in the situation you described, if you don't mind the added cost and larger size and weight. If you want to have a camera that can be used easily and be less intimidating, the A1 might be better. If you can deal with the design and memory sticks, the Sony's have a nice lens and, from the 717-on, are fast focusers.
Mark
MarkCoburn
Well-known member
The single biggest problem for me is the giant viewfinder blackout between shots. Even when using burst mode, if the subject moves, you won't be able to follow it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum