Thinking of a new bridge or advanced compact type camera, don't see any reason to pay over £350. Need HD video & good zoom from 28mm at the wide end, 10mp would be enough, nice lens/image quality appreciated.
Anyone using or just bought something like this??
|
|
Photography blog had some bridge comparisons. Most seem pretty good. Panasonic are usually a safe bet. I've had one of their bridge cameras for a few years and it has been great. Fully automatic and fully manual controls so best of both worlds.
|
I bought a Samsung WB600 to replace my Fuji Finepix S5800 bridge jobbie, and I'm 'over the moon' with it,
It's much easier to just stick in my pocket and take it on my walks - under 2 secs and it's ready to shoot.
I'd still like a DSLR though, to use in conjunction with the Samsung.
|
|
I've got a 4.5 year old Panasonic FZ7 bridge. Paid £230 fit, is the best thing by far I have ever bought.
|
I'm sceptical about the value of the tele end of very long-zoom cameras. The Nikon P7000 (sorry, Coolpix P7000 - off-putting name, anyone?) does 28-200, which is long enough for me. But I'd choose to sacrifice some of that and have a Canon G12 instead.
Canon, uniquely, has got off the megapixel bandwagon and decided that 10Mp is enough (it is - I have 40x60cm prints on my walls from 6Mp images) and gone for quality and controllability in a big way. And it has a swivelling screen, which is fantastic feature; my Canon A640 has that, and after using it a camera without one seems a bit, well, limited.
I'm not anti-Panasonic; there are three Lumix cameras in the family - two FS compacts and one TZ - and they produce impressive images from small packages. But I find too many important functions are buried in menus rather than being readily accessible on a button. High image quality is great, but only if you can get the camera set up in time to get the picture at all, and that is where the Canon interface (and my Pentax DSLR) score over the Panasonics.
|
|
I replaced my wannabe SLR bridge camera with a Canon Ixus 1000HS. It does all that the block of plastic it replaced did and fits in my pocket. The clincher was it was half price in the Currys sale.
|
>>Canon, uniquely, has got off the megapixel bandwagon and decided that 10Mp is enough (it is - I have 40x60cm prints on my walls from 6Mp images) and gone for quality and controllability in a big way.>>
My first digital camera was a Minolta E203 compact - it "only" had two Mp but a top quality x3 zoom lens ensured that A4 prints were a cinch.
My film Nikon F401 body was mated with a Tamron 28-200mm zoom when I bought it in 1993; it took over from an Ashai Pentax Spotmatic. Apart from the fact that the Tamron is excellent, it retracts down to a size that's only slightly greater than a standard lens. That, in turn, gave way to a Nikon D90 with the 18-55mm zoom - again I'm delighted with the results.
|
Ha! My 3Mp 2002 Olympus C-3020 scoffs at your puny 2Mp Minolta. It was very good at producing perfectly focused and exposed pictures of the space where a child or other item of interest had been a few seconds before. It was quite useful for situations when I needed a digital picture in a hurry - and it did, by chance, because I happened to be holding it when the opportunity presented itself, take one of my best-ever shots - but for proper photography I persisted with film and scans to CD until a tax refund in 2006 made the DSLR possible.
The D90 is film, n'est-ce pas?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 1 Jul 11 at 15:07
|
Interested in this thread, as I dropped the Fuji 5800s and now the flash wont pop up.
Looking at the Panasonic FZ100 or the FZ45 or the Fuji HS20
|
>> The D90 is film, n'est-ce pas?
I don't know, but is the D a clue? And it would probably have been a 28-80 for 35mm?
It's not only Canaon who've acknowledged the drawbacks of more megapixels, at least on small sensors. My Pana LX3 is 10Mp as is its successor the LX5, and all the better for it. Wonderful cameras, though not the answer if you want a long zoom.
|
>>The D90 is film, n'est-ce pas?>>
You jest, of course...?
www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D90/
|
|
TBH long zooms are ok with a tripod, but hand held its a real struggle to hold 600mm of zoom steady, even with anti shake technology.
|
>> TBH long zooms are ok with a tripod, but hand held its a real struggle
>> to hold 600mm of zoom steady, even with anti shake technology.
>>
There is supposed to be a trick you can do with a washer and a bit of string and a tripod nut. Attach some string to stand on and pull taught. Supposed to help to steady the camera without the trouble of carting around a tripod.
Also holding the camera taught against the neck strap also seems to be another way of reducing shake.
|
By the way, the zoom is the 18-105mm zoom, not as I stated...
It's the equivalent of a 27mm to 153mm 35mm film camera lens.
|
Panasonic has just sent a news e-mail about some new, limited edition camera and camcorder models aimed specifically to tie up with the Olympic Games.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have updated its website at the same time, so more details will have to wait..:-(
|
Some great leads to follow and I'll read through the dpreviews... thanks.
Just to expand... I'd been a film photographer since 8yrs old but junked it all in favour of a Sony digicam about 10yrs ago when the girls were small. I've sidegraded my Sony a couple of times and now have a pocket size 12mp Sony around the £120 mark. Ok but not special.
I do a bit more with video these days and I'm impressed with stuff like this on a Canon that seems the type of thing I'm looking for...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXmI3S_LnTc&feature=related
|
|
The Powershot SX 20 is the camera I have recently replaced. a superb camera, but I wanted something smaller that would produce good quality results. The Canon Ixus 1000 HS does all that I require.
|
That's really interesting ON... was it this exact model you had?
blog.itechtalk.com/wp-content/2009/12/113.jpg
Apart from size any negatives?
|
>> Apart from size any negatives?
>>
I have used Canon cameras for years, I started on 35mm rangefinder models in the 1960s and see no reason to change to another brand.
The Powershot SX20 is excellent and produces images equal in quality to Mrs ON's Canon 500D. I would suggest downloading the instructions for the SX20 from the Canon website to see what it does, it is far to complex to describe here.
|
You jest, of course...?
Erm, yes, sorry about that. I saw D90, even typed D90, but somehow kept thinking F90.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 09:32
|
Better a high spec "compact" of the Canon G12 genre than a bridge camera, otherwise a DSLR.
|
>>
>> Better a high spec "compact" of the Canon G12 genre than a bridge camera, otherwise
>> a DSLR.
Nope.
|
>>
>> Nope.
>>
Shows what you know, you wouldn't find a pro or a true enthusiast using a bridge camera though many pro carry a G12 or similar as a back up, for candid stuff or to be able to travel light.
A bridge camera is a mini system rather than proper hifi.
|
No you dont find too many people on here with a £1000 nikon either like the pros do.
You are just a techno snob, easily led and even more easily fooled.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 22:29
|
>>
>> You are just a techno snob, easily led and even more easily fooled.
>>
No, I just know what I am talking about, it was my business for many years and I am still quite close to it.
|
>> No, I just know what I am talking about, it was my business for many
>> years and I am still quite close to it.
I can see why you gave up the business.
|
>> >> No, I just know what I am talking about, it was my business for
>> many years and I am still quite close to it.
>>
>> I can see why you gave up the business.
>>
I can see you dont know what you are talking about.
|
Cheddar, you are a dream, a marketing man who believes the marketing rubbish. A bag of money to be fooled and exploited, be it shiny hi-fi with supposed frequency response beyond the normal humans range, or supposed picture quality beyond the seeability of the human eye.
I have these new clothes you can buy, no-one else can see them but for you its perfect.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 00:33
|
Taking good photos is far more to do with the skill and imagination of the photographer than what camera they use. Buying an expensive DSLR to somehow prove you are "a true enthusiast" is shear folly.
Learn to take good pictures with the kit you have and only when your ability to find good pictures exceeds the capability of your camera should you buy a better one. A modern bridge camera easily meet the requirement of most people.
|
>>Buying an expensive DSLR to somehow prove you are "a true enthusiast" is sheer folly. >>
That's a somewhat bizarre assumption...:-)
You don't find true DSLRs, for a start, fitted with zoom lenses like those used on "bridge" cameras that cover a vast focal lengths range for a very good reason.
|
|
Its still all about the picture you take, and not the camera, or lens, you take it with.
|
|
What camera have you got Zero ?
|
A finepix S5800 bridge camera.
it was chosen for its zoom range, compact size, EVF & display, use of AA rechargeables that are cheaper and knock spots off dedicated batteries, full manual modes as well as auto modes, and cheap price (it was end of line when bought)
In short I can ship off round the world without a bag full of bits and pieces, wich in the old SLR days used to drive me to distraction.
Its days are numbered now tho. I dropped it, and the flash does not auto pop up,
|
|
I have one of those as well, the immediate predecessor to my Canon SLR - still a good camera and in regular use.
|
|
Is the 5800 still current Zed?
|
>> Is the 5800 still current Zed?
OOO no not by a long way long time. But it lives on, slightly changed in Fujis "S" range starting at £150 going up to £250 for fancier function and longer zoom.
|
>>But it lives on, slightly changed in Fujis "S" range starting at £150 going up to £250 for fancier function and longer zoom. >>
New Fuji HS20 review:
tinyurl.com/6kj4lwb
|
>> Its days are numbered now tho. I dropped it, and the flash does not auto
>> pop up,
Tho it may need to soldier on, Fifi is in the vet again with a foot injury that has large numbers of pound notes written all over it.
|
|
Sorry to hear that Zero, hope she's OK.
|
>> Its still all about the picture you take, and not the camera, or lens, you take it with.>>
I have absolutely no quibble with that comment - in fact it's exactly what I point out myself.
Many years ago, when still flush with the excitement of photography, I joined a local photographic society. After attending meetings two or three times I packed it in as all the majority of the members seemed to want to do was boast about their equipment.
As I did photography on a professional basis later on however, there was an obvious requirement for the best possible quality and so the equipment had to be capable of meeting such standards.
|
That's the trouble with most technology based pass times. There are always those men that want to willy wave with their equipment. They're just like the Hifi chumps that spend thousands on equipment and have a cd and a couple of records to their name and you wonder if they get it all.
|
No you don't and if you are talking about absolute quality of the image then a DSLR and good and very expensive lenses will be your choice. For the vast majority of people however a superzoom camera has tremendous advantages including cost and portability and they are capable of producing very fine quality pictures. Try one - you will be surprised!
I have both and it is the Canon PowerShot SX20 that usually accompanies me on trips. The DSLR is mainly confined to macro work.
|
>> Taking good photos is far more to do with the skill and imagination of the
>> photographer than what camera they use.
Spot on. As I discovered when I first bought an SLR and discovered my first pictures were no better than the ones I had taken with my Instamatic! I like to think I have improved since.
The best camera is the one you have with you. In my case that is usually my Panasonic LX3, which fits easily in the personbag that I now find more convenient that constantly transferring all my accoutrements from one set of pockets to another. Max 60mm equivalent though, so I take something else if I know I'll need some reach.
|
>> Taking good photos is far more to do with the skill and imagination of the
>> photographer than what camera they use. Buying an expensive DSLR to somehow prove you are
>> "a true enthusiast" is shear folly.
>>
Yep, saw a telly programme a few years back, a bunch of pro photographers with mobile phone caneras and a bunch of 'serious' amateur photographers with DSLRs were given a variety of photo assignments, the resulting images judged by a panel. The pros won comprehensively.
Rule #1 of photography: f8 and be there. I'm more likely to 'be there' with a camera that fits in my pocket.
|
>>
>> A modern bridge camera easily meet the requirement of most people.
>>
Yep, though something in the G12 genre is better still.
|
>>Erm, yes, sorry about that. I saw D90, even typed D90, but somehow kept thinking F90. >>
Easily done...:-)
|
Interesting further discussion! I said a bridge type camera really to indicate a price point and the fact I was willing to go larger than a normal small compact.
However I'm happy with whatever the camera is called as long as it has 8/10mp, wide angle and long zoom (20x or so), larger diameter lens than the thumbnail sized ones in ultra compacts, image stabiliser, HD video (with stereo sound if possible), zoom during video, a viewfinder (electronic preferred), a lens that mostly retracts into the body when turned off. A flip out display is not a must but would be useful.
I've downloaded the online instruction manual for the Canon SX 20 as ON ordered (!) and notice a second thumbs up for that camera from CGNorwich. I'm tempted as I can get a new one from a decent supplier at the moment for around £215 which seems a decent deal.
My Uncle has two cameras from the Fuji range like Zero's and uses them for award winning websites and publishing in books he's written containing town and countryside images.
|
>>
>> I've downloaded the online instruction manual for the Canon SX 20 as ON ordered (!)
>>
I distinctly remember suggesting that, an order here would get the abuse it deserved. :-)
|
>> Yes a bridge camera can do a fine job though it is ultimately too much
>> of a compromise.
No its not. Sure there are compromises, but "too much" is simply a scaremongering lie.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Jul 11 at 09:06
|
Too much of a compromise for what? It wouldn't suit me - or Cheddar - but if you really do want only one camera for every purpose I can see the appeal.
But digital cameras have become so diverse and affordable that recommending one is a bit like trying to recommend a screwdriver. I dismantled my shower valve the other day, replaced the seals and reassembled it using a Swiss Army knife, but it would have been quicker and easier if I'd bothered to go to the garage for the full set of Stanleys.
|
The best way to judge is to go down to the camera shop and try one out. Have you used one Cheddar?
Here is a decent in depth review. For my own part I would go along with the statement in the review.
"If I were limited to carrying only a compact digital camera, I'd pick an ultrazoom every time. You aren't going to drop one in a shirt pocket, but being able to call up a lens focal range from wide angle to serious telephoto out of a single relatively small and light unit is just too much versatility to ignore.'
www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4103&p=2
|
>> The best way to judge is to go down to the camera shop and try
>> one out.
Actually, the best way to judge is too take one on a far off Holiday. Then you appreciate the "whole" package and its benefits.
|
|
I have both - a bridge jobbie AND a superzoom, since buying the latter, I don't use the bridge camera at all, at all.
|
|
I'm sure that is true but camera shops don't let you do that!
|
Problem is Cheddar...
The G12 is £200 more than the bridge Canon that interests me and its zoom is restricted.
The S95 has no viewfinder and an ever more restricted zoom yet still costs £100 more.
The Coolpix P7000 also has modest zoom and is £100 over target budget. (Having said that if I had to have one of your three it would be this one)
So really the just over £200 price point bridge camera looks a very good option??
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 4 Jul 11 at 10:10
|
Pansonic bridges are within budget. FZ100 is generally £350. Their lower model is closer to £250.
If you wanted an slr with the same zoom range as a bridge then you'd need to spend £350 ish on a basic slr then another £500 on a tamron 18-270 which gives the widest zoom range you can have at the moment.
I've not really compared superzoom compacts with bridge cameras but I'd assume you'd have more control over exposure and such like with the bridge than with a superzoom but I might be wrong.
There's an olympus bridge that's very cheap (under £200) with a massive zoom range (up to 800 ish mm) but the images are a bit pants and very noisy in comparison to the competition.
I'm sure most future cameras will use computing power to correct for lens distortion so the image quality between super zooms and bridges will narrow and bridge/ dslr gap will also narrow at the more budget end.
There are lots of choices but I don't think anyone has made quite the perfect bridge yet.
|
>>
>> I'm sure most future cameras will use computing power to correct for lens distortion so
>> the image quality between super zooms and bridges will narrow and bridge/ dslr gap will
>> also narrow at the more budget end.
>>
Yes, as pointed out in the dpreview review I linked to back upthread many of these cameras do indeed process the image to correct lens distortion.
All cameras are compromised in one way or another, but the image quality from current superzooms/bridges/compacts keeps 99% of punters happy. If I was making a living from sports/theatre/wildlife photography I'd be using a DSLR no doubt, but I'm not.
|
Going into nerd territory a bit but...
I wonder if ON and CGNorwich would comment on their experience of the Canon SX20 in regard to image quality when viewed in detail.... in particular purple fringing on edges of high contrast subjects. For example with elec cables crossing a blue sky.
Also Zero, vets bills allowing, I wondered what had made you pick the three camera shortlist you mention from the large selection available? The Lumix FZ45 looks a good deal but tests seem divided that it either has superb image quality... or that it is over-processed and worse than the previous (FZ38) model.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 5 Jul 11 at 11:35
|
|
The largest size I view my photos is usually laptop screen size, Mrs ON is the resident photo anorak and she used the SX20 for a while and did not complain about the quality when using photoshop and A4 sized prints. This was between DSLRs and I would have had earache if there had been a problem.
|
I've got a little compact digital Samsung PL60 which I bought 12 months ago for a few tenners and which impresses me beyond belief. Shot 300 pics in Russia last week (some flash, some not) without needing recharging. They blow up as much as I could possibly require. It replaced a c2003 Olympus which ate batteries like a hungry thing.
My poor Minolta SLR, c1970, rots in a drawer. A super piece of kit, entirely manual. I miss using it. But not enough to want to carry it and pay for it.
Why would one want a "bridge"?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 5 Jul 11 at 12:23
|
Image quality is pretty good - Vivid colours and little noise until you reach the higher ISO settings. There is some softness to the image and colour fringing is apparent in large prints , especially compared with my Nikon DSLR but that has a £600 lens.
For the price I rate it highly
|
>> Also Zero, vets bills allowing, I wondered what had made you pick the three camera
>> shortlist you mention from the large selection available? The Lumix FZ45 looks a good deal
>> but tests seem divided that it either has superb image quality... or that it is
>> over-processed and worse than the previous (FZ38) model.
Firstly I look at what these piccies are going to be used for, and how they will be viewed. Mostly theses days its for memories, to show friends and families. They will be printed on 6x4's from photobox, viewed in photobox type sites, viewed on the tv, generally viewed and distributed electronically. Something special may get get blown up into a print for the wall. Video, HD minimum is now a given
Given that the people who witter on about chromatic aberrations, and poor optical divergence have never calibrated their TV or PC screen or had professional quality printers at home. SO I tend to dump snobby remarks about picture quality abd the need for a full DSLR as it makes no difference in real life. Given that price is a key, IE not too much.
I have a fuji bias, as I find their use of AA rechargeable batteries to be head and shoulders above OEM unique battery packs. The ability to obtain ordinary charged AA's anywhere in the world can not be discounted. Hence my inclusion of the HS20 with its extrodinary focal length range and superb value for money. BUT, it appears the zooming action is a little sticky so not good for video zooming. Also Fujis in full auto mode try to shoot in a very low ASA, giving slow shutter speeds. Not good for longer range shots. But it has the best articulated screen. I would need to try out the HS20.
As for the FZ45, sure I would like the FZ1000, but given my opening paragraph I cant justify the price over the 45. Most of the reviews are good - those that are sniffy moan about the noise at high ASA. Frankly if you need a very high ASA noise is the least of your problems, because in such poor light colour saturation is at a minimum. So I discount the poor reviews for this model (mostly driven it seems by people who now expect massive improvements from model to model)
|
Thanks Zero... broadly my thoughts. However I am sensitive to chromatic aberrations/purple fringing and if excessive it will show on a 23" monitor and we do loads of viewing/showing in that way. I've returned two cameras in years gone by for this issue and moved onto models without the problem.
I understand the Lumix neatly takes out purple fringes with the camera's internal processing software.
I might see if Jessops or some other local shop will let me take a couple of images with demo cameras onto my own memory card to look at on the home PC.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 5 Jul 11 at 14:59
|
>> Thanks Zero... broadly my thoughts. However I am sensitive to chromatic aberrations/purple fringing
Thats a weakness of Fuji cameras, the dreaded purple fringing. Bt having said that, I show them on a 36 inch TV and its only in extremes that it shows up.
|
I detest purple fringing also. It was the main reason I stayed with film for ages. Panasonic seem to have it licked and there is generally less of it in their pictures than even very expensive dslrs. When i got my first lumix compact it had less noticeable fringing than the thousands of pounds worth of nikons and canons. Bridge cameras of theirs are the same.
It's really easy to provoke. Shoot the sky through tree cover. Shows up noticeably on so many cameras.
I can live with high iso noise as you can always choose a lower iso and use flash or a tripod. Purple fringing you are stuck with.
|
|
I am in the market for a new bridge/superzoom etc., but my head now seriously hurts. Where does it all end??
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaP4ksaVOzg
Taken by a Sony Cybershot DSC-H20
Not only is the video pretty decent even when using good zoom, the microphone seems to handle very loud concert music without crashing distortion.
£250-ish from t'interweb.
|
>>>Cybershot DSC-H20
Sadly for me it's not an option due to the lack of viewfinder.
>>>I am in the market for a new bridge/superzoom etc., but my head now seriously hurts. Where does it all end??
That's the flipside of the excellent info on the net... for every camera you might shortlist it's possible to find an article that tells you it suffers issues that then puts you off it.
I know the purple fringing can be removed with photoshop but I'd really like the images to be free of it straight out of the camera.
|
"Purple fringing you are stuck with."
Not really, you can usually eliminate it buy it by adjusting the magenta hue and saturation in photoshop or similar.
|
Been to town and had a good handle of them all today. Had to try very hard not to buy a DSLR with their serious chunky looks.
Some of the bridge models were very light and plasticy.
Oddy despite visiting PC World, Comet, Jessops & Tesco not one had anything in stock to sell at the £225-£250 price point. Guess there's not much point holding a good stock if folks just fiddle with them then go back home and buy online??
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 14:54
|
Amazon have the Fuji HS10 as run out stock at a crazy price, my finger has been hovering over the buy it now button, BUT, I just saw my credit card bill online after the Welsh trip and the vets bill, and I have two new tyres to buy for the Lancer.
|
>>Amazon have the Fuji HS10 as run out stock at a crazy price<<
30X optical - wow! twice my Samsung WB600, and I thought that was good.
|
This would be my choice, if I was feeling extravagant ~
www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-HS20EXR-Digital-Camera/dp/B004G8Q61E/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
I suppose I could always flog my S5800 to the Devon builder for £50, and the Samsung is worth £100+
:-)
|
Panasonic Lumix FZ45 14.1MP Digital Camera - Black (3.0 inch TFT LCD Display, LEICA DC Lens with 25mm Wide-angle and 24x Optical Zoom)
£232 on Amazon. Was a lot more in months gone by.
Mine's the FZ18...really ancient!!!. Perfectly happy with it. Bought a spare battery for it. Not that dear and worth having. With the Fuji's you buy spare rechargeable AA's. That might make your mind up?
Incredible 30 times zoom PLUS excellent wide angles on these new Canon, Fuji, Panasonics. Really useful and they're quite light too.
As always you have to have it with you to take the pic. though. The smaller Lumix TZ's and the G12 would be easier to carry so you're more likely to capture the moment. Only the Canon has the viewfinder though...and it isn't that tiny to slip in your pocket (and not cheap).
Ultimate quality from the DSLR's of course, but I wonder how many of us amateurs really need it when the above mentioned do really well. For me it has to have a viewfinder so limits choice a bit and am happy with what I have.
Last edited by: kb on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 16:25
|
- - - > For me it has to have a viewfinder < - - -
Yes, I'm beginning to think along those lines myself, as good as my Samsung WB 600 is (and it is good)
I'm not over-keen on LCD screens (any of them) :(
|
|
One of the few annoyances with my TZ65 is the lack of optical viewfinder or EVF, trying to take accurately framed photos on a sunny day is a tad hit and miss, although I doubt anyone could design an optical viewfinder to cover current zoom ranges.
|
>>trying to take accurately framed photos on a sunny day is a tad hit and miss<<
I just aim it in the general direction (my WB600) and it never ceases to amaze me how good the pics come out :)
|
>> >>trying to take accurately framed photos on a sunny day is a tad hit and
>> miss<<
>>
>> I just aim it in the general direction (my WB600) and it never ceases to
>> amaze me how good the pics come out :)
Having both is ideal, for that outstretched hand through the window shot as well as that washed out display in sun shot.
|
>> and miss, although I doubt anyone could design an optical viewfinder to cover current zoom
>> ranges.
Why would one bother when there is a properly zoomed image displayed on the sensor? It costs less to build an EVF than an optical one correcting for zoom.
|
FWIW the dpreview group test I linked up top rates the Panasonic FZ35 and Canon SX20IS as top of the pops, with the Nikon P100 runner up. The Fuji SX2500HD gets to sit on the naughty step, although it is cheaper than the other cameras.
www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/page19.asp
edit: this is a useful site for looking at camera price trends:-
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1618.html
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 16:34
|
>> I suppose I could always flog my S5800 to the Devon builder for £50, and
>> the Samsung is worth £100+ :-)
>>
I thought the 5800 was /had been replaced by the WB............So wass wrong with it?? 50 quid eh! Bit steep........Maybe a deal to be had, say meet half way (Bideford) and lunch on you. Waddyer reckon?
Hat, coat and gornnnnnnnnnn
|
I bought the Fuji Finepix S5800 about 3 or 4 years ago to replace my 3mp Olympus AZ1
www.dpreview.com/news/0404/04041901olympusaz1.asp which was a great little camera,
I bought the Samsung WB600 this year and it's head & shoulders above the Fuji as regards to image quality, but I'm not over enamoured with the LCD screen ... sure it's bigger & brighter than the Fuji job, but it's still an LCD innit.
I've been meaning to put the Fuji on ebay for some months now, but never got a roun tuit,
I see they go for about £50 nowadays - that's 6 or 7 bags of Taybrite :)
If yea were interested in it, I'd check it over first as it's not been used for about 6 months, although I started it earlier and it ticked over OK .
|
>> If yea were interested in it, I'd check it over first as it's not been
>> used for about 6 months, although I started it earlier and it ticked over OK
>>
Hi Perro. Yes I think I may be. Twould be a start and may stop my brain from aching from all the info out there. Have a test and let me know.
Regards..............Slim Builder o:-)
|
A viewfinder is essential for this next camera of ours... if that wasn't an issue the choice would be massive and easy to resolve.
Out of the several bridge cameras within my budget the Panasonic FZ45 seems least likely to offend. I can get one online next day delivery for £295 inc 5yr warranty, 16GB high-speed card and padded case.
Found an alternative local Comet with one in stock and went to see if they'd deal a bit.
They wanted £255 for the camera, £25 for the case, £30 for a measly 4GB card and a monster £85 for the 5yr warranty.... £395 total.... but the manager said I could have £12 off the padded case if I took the lot... big deal!
Suffice to say the online folks will get some business shortly.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 20:44
|
And I pushed the button on the Amazon buy it now for the Fuji HS10 at 229.99
Just as well it went up to 249.99 two hours later!
My reasons? I didnt want to the HS20 - too expensive, and the extra 6mp from the same size sensor is a quality drop. 10mp is fine
I decided powered by AAs is a must have. I have loads of good quality high power ones, and my other camera of choice - the FZ45 - the extra battery is 40 quid.
I measured my camera case, and the HS10 fits perfectly.
I wanted the ASA / other buttons on the back.
I wanted 1080 video.
All in all it ticked the buttons, I will have to raid my savings for it tho.
|
Excellent news.... we'll be able to provide a forum review of two of the better ones at this price point.
For just £9 greater base camera price (also I added a case/high speed card/warranty/special delivery package) I ordered the Lumix FZ45 for delivery by 1pm tomorrow.
I was an AA battery power fanatic until about 3yrs ago but we now have 4 cameras already in the house running dedicated battery types. I'll drop on a Panasonic spare when I see one around £30 somewhere but in truth mine last ages and give no trouble.
Of course trying to compare every element of the specs on all choices at this price point was bewildering so in the end I just went with a gut feeling added to a bit of a lucky dip attitude.
Daughter's prom tomorrow night so I might just receive it and charge up in time!
|
|
I have a Panasonic camera (Lumix G2) which has a Li-Ion battery. It last for ages. In fact it will last two weeks on holiday taking loads of photos and HD video.... but I take the charger just in case.
|
>> I have a Panasonic camera (Lumix G2) which has a Li-Ion battery. It last for
>> ages. In fact it will last two weeks on holiday taking loads of photos and
>> HD video.... but I take the charger just in case.
I take a camera with 4 charged AAs in it, and 4 spare charged AA's in the camera bag. Much less weight. We have our "chargers" down to one small charger with 2 usb ports now for holiday.
|
7dayshop's after market batteries are pretty good. Got one for a panasonic and I'm pretty sure it was actually better than the OEM if anything.
|
>> 7dayshop's after market batteries are pretty good. Got one for a panasonic and I'm pretty
>> sure it was actually better than the OEM if anything.
>>
I use a 7dayshop equivalent in my TZ65, about a tenner IIRC. It is worth checking that the battery will actually work in your camera with its firmware version - Panasonic for one have an irritating habit of disabling 3rd party batteries.
|
|
The only reason I might stick with an OEM battery is I understand the cheaper ones don't report remaining life back to the camera display.
|
>> The only reason I might stick with an OEM battery is I understand the cheaper
>> ones don't report remaining life back to the camera display.
>>
The ones in my FZ20 and TZ65 do, but it wouldn't surprise me if this functionality had been disabled in other cameras.
|
|
Certainly if you look for them on ebay all the non-genuine types say they will work with the FZ45 but do warn they won't give remaining time.
|
>> I suppose i shall have to upgrade my SD card now tho, 16gb high speed
>> -
>>
>> www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=111296
>>
>> 18 quid delivered
Oh dear, just done some calculations. If I shoot in RAW my 16gb card will only hold 100 shots!
Looks like a 32gb is called for!
|
|
oops recalc. dropped a zero there somewhere...
|
The Uniross aftermarket spare battery in my Panasonic FZ18 does.
It cost £11 from Battery Logic and keeps it's charge as well as the original too.
www.batterylogic.co.uk/digital/panasonic-CGR-S006e-rechargeable-batteries.asp
Just checked their site and they haven't gone up since May 09. They even have anothe make for £8.60.
All include VAT and delivery.
>> The only reason I might stick with an OEM battery is I understand the cheaper
>> ones don't report remaining life back to the camera display.
>>
Last edited by: kb on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 18:21
|
Ahhh... battery wars... you could spend a whole day reading the USA camera forums on the topic.
Fully accept anyones opinion that AAs suit them better... but just to firmly take my position I'm actually willing to pay a slight premium for the dedicated battery system.. which of course I will do in buying the spare.
Of course you can't not carry the spare but in truth we never need them. A day out boating, country house gardens outing, pop concert, theme park etc are all managed on one battery with hundreds of stills plus video... even with plenty of reviewing. The spare just ends up giving confidence.
Given that the spare does just end up as an unused backup the lack of remaining time reporting might not be an issue if the OE battery is always used first.
|
|
I agree Fenlander. In early days of digital cameras I used to go for the AAs but quite frankly battery life in proprietary systems is so good that I don't even both with a spare for my little Canon Ixus and the Sx20. Have a spare for the Nikon D60 and the but don't think I have ever needed to use it. As you say you can take hundreds of pictures on one charge.
|
ONe drawback is the pile of OE battery chargers.
At least using AAs you only need one.
|
>> ONe drawback is the pile of OE battery chargers.
>>
>> At least using AAs you only need one.
>>
LOL, true enough, I've got at least half a dozen, including two nearly but not quite identical Panasonic ones. The only downside of the AA approach I've found is that 'my' camera AAs (Eneloops at that) get borrowed by other household members and so I end up with no spares for cameras.
|
>> Given that the spare does just end up as an unused backup the lack of
>> remaining time reporting might not be an issue if the OE battery is always used
>> first.
I would be more worried about the tendency of the the camera just to shut down on you in mid pic without warning if using a non OE battery, depite their being a bit of life left in it.
|
>>>I would be more worried about the tendency of the the camera just to shut down on you in mid pic without warning if using a non OE battery, depite their being a bit of life left in it.
Very fair point, at the moment all the camera specific batteries here are OEM so my positive comments only relate to them.
|
Well the Lumix FZ45 arrived... and I fell at the first hurdle needing my teen daughter (who's pre-prom pictures I was trying to take) to find out how to format the memory card to enable movie mode.
I can immediately see the flash power/exposure control on indoor shots of her having her hair done are a world above the rest of our £100ish compacts.
Handheld shots on/near max zoom are impresive too with image stabilistaion.
It's looking good.
|
|
I refrained from asking the other day, for fear of thread drift, Fenlander, but now you've used the term again. Whatever is a "prom"? I thought that was an American thing from the fifties?
|
Having been through this with Spamette Minor in the last week, it's the end of term disco, writ large i.e. it's for the 16 year olds as they leave school. This generally involves eye wateringly expensive dresses and limos. Off to cry into my cheap supermarket beer now.
Upside was I got to poke about with the oily bits of a Bentley Turbo R that she had managed to scrounge for the evening off a local millionaire for free :-)
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 17:02
|
Good Lord. I had no idea.
We didn't have anything at all when I were at school. I finished my last exam at 18 and went home, never to return or have any contact with any of them ever again.
|
Much the same here, although the A level physics group did get invited round the teacher's house for a few beers after the exams. Methinks that's probably frowned upon now.
Mind you he used to try and teach us Welsh during Physics lessons which was probably not on the syllabus.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 17:06
|
>> Good Lord. I had no idea.
>>
>> We didn't have anything at all when I were at school. I finished my last
>> exam at 18 and went home, never to return or have any contact with any
>> of them ever again.
I assume then that "Friends Reunited" is an unknown term to you?
|
>> I assume then that "Friends Reunited" is an unknown term to you?
Does that still exist! It could have been Facebook...
|
>> >> I assume then that "Friends Reunited" is an unknown term to you?
>>
>> Does that still exist! It could have been Facebook...
>>
Murdoch has just lost around half a billion selling it. Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.
|
>> Murdoch has just lost around half a billion selling it.
Wasn't it something else they just sold and lost money on? Wasn't it MySpace and one of the buyers was Justin Timberlake. ITV sold Friends Reunited for a big loss. Not quite so big as News Corp's on MySpace.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 17:29
|
>> Myspace
>>
D'oh ...I'm thinking of ITV then
|
ITV sold Friends Reunited in 2009. Maybe you were thinking of MySpace.
How this relates to a bridge camera I have no idea though.
|
I'm a bit against these things that seem to be designed to empty my wallet over and above the fun of the event itself.... but we do everything to give them a fun childhood so... hey ho.
Yes it's a personal hair/makeup session in the next room, a friend over to get ready with, expensive dress/shoes, a new clutch bag, spray tans, £20 for the official photographer, travel in *hippy vans*, country house type hotel, sleepover here after... and so on.
Remember I did have a crafty excuse to buy this new camera so I could get some nice shots of them!
|
>>
>> travel in *hippy vans*, country house type hotel, sleepover here after... and so on.
>>
Spamette Major did the hippy van thing, a popular choice for these occasions. The hotel was in central Bournemouth, a nightmare of a place to drive through at midnight on a Friday, area full of drunken foreigners not looking the right way, if at all, when crossing the road.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 17:20
|
|
Sorry, what happened to teenage girls' doing each other's hair and makeup? It's what they'll be doing the moment daddy stops over-indulging them - and it's what they'd have done ten or twenty years ago.
|
>>it's the end of
>> term disco, writ large
www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tBm7nJ1QM
|
>> >>it's the end of
>> >> term disco, writ large
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tBm7nJ1QM
>>
LOL*, seems appropriate, released the year I left school.
* OK I've used that twice today, I won't do it again.
|
In the case of my town's Sixth Form College, it's always an end of year ball in a top local venue.
And yes, I was aware that even as 16-year-olds they had a drink (or two) on these occasions, but I turned a blind eye providing the offspring conducted themselves properly; they never let me down, nor since.
|
|
Friends Reunited is based on the idea that you had/have friends, which is not my situation, and never has been.
|
When I left the upper sixth of a state grammar school in the late 1970s we had a formalish dinner at a local venue, attended by three or four members of staff.
I think it was regarded as just a little preparation for our entry into the wider world.
Fair play to the staff, they didn't have to do it.
|
|
we got peased down the pub.,
|
|
Damnit just been reminded of an ugly incident on our "do" night. Sole defence I was young and stupid.
|
|
Update.... ohh I hope it's not a saga starting. Reviewed the initially impressive images (indoor with flash) from last night on the big monitor. The fully auto mode ISO readings for different images are between 250 & 400. Simply put, despite nice colour rendition and great exposure control, the noise levels are higher than my £100 Sony compact and unacceptable. It's a very complex camera in the menus and options but if it's not something daft I'm doing it's going back Monday!
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 10:30
|
Fenlander, are you looking at the same overall image size? It's easy to forget when looking at images at 100% (pixel for pixel on screen) that more pixels means a bigger image.
The FZ45 has a very small sensor with quite a lot of pixels. If you wanted an APS sized sensor and a 600mm lens, let alone a full frame 35mm, the lens would be gigantic to give you 600mm equivalent. That's the compromise, and the FZ45 is never going to be great at the pixel level, certainly in low light or at high ISO. And high ISO on that sized sensor means anything over 400, probably, where you will start to see a difference. That doesn't mean it's useless, and there might be occasions where you will use much higher ISOs but you will trade off with either more noise or reduced resolution with heavy noise reduction.
I still use an old (2004?) FZ20 (5Mp/400mm eq.) and I have learned not to pixel peep. I also keep the ISO at 200 or less, unless it's just too dark or I have to have a faster shutter, then the quality suffers.
The other side of the coin is that you can use that zoom to compose, rather than cropping - if you are generally viewing/printing most of the frame, at any reasonable size it should be acceptable unless you are pushing the ISO/exposure time.
You also have settings to play with for noise reduction and sharpening.
Make sure you are comparing like with like, and play with the settings. I would recommend looking at the images at a realistic size though - viewed at 100% on screen is not realistic.
You will also find that small apertures don't benefit the image sharpness as much as you expect.
www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Compact superzooms are great as long as you appreciate the compromises.
Of course none of the above proves there's nothing wrong with yours ;-)
|
>> Fenlander, are you looking at the same overall image size? It's easy to forget when
>> looking at images at 100% (pixel for pixel on screen) that more pixels means a
>> bigger image.
>>
If you pixel peep at a physical image size equivalent to a 30x20 poster or some such then you will see sensor noise, full stop. Personally my FZ20 and TZ65 both stay at base ISO (80) unless I'm really desperate for increased shuttter speed, then I'll go to 200.
|
The problem with so many cameras these days is the call for ever higher resolution. And yet the sensor is tiny and therefore as resolution goes up, quality goes down. In any bridge camera the sensor has to be small because of the high zoom levels available.
I originally went for a DSLR because I wanted good image quality at the lowest ISO possible. And image stabilisation in the camera. Never regretted it but the camera is heavy and it was from the time DSLR did not do video - and the don't all do it well now because of the SLR design.
So I got the Lumix G2. Not as big a sensor as an APS-C in my DSLR but still gives good images. The standard lens is only 14-42mm though. It can now be bought for just over £300 I think. A bargain in my opinion.
|
>>..and it was from the time DSLR did not do video - and they don't all do it well now because of the SLR design.>>
Video is a bonus on a DSLR, but still a compromise. If videos are a must, surely a proper modern, compact camcorder would be an essential?
|
|
Try saving the images in RAW. IS there a Fine or Normal setting?
|
Thanks for the ideas guys. This is no disaster... even if it does end up going back I bought it from a photographic outlet with a 14 day exchange policy... it'll just cost me a fiver to send it back.
I think I'm being fair in the way I examine it. I'm not going to a full view where you have to scroll about to see the whole image. I'm just getting it where the whole image fits a 23" widescreen monitor which is how we like to view our images.
Perhaps *noise* is the wrong description for what I see... it may be more the after effects of strong *processing*.
I've been photographing my girls on important dates against the same victorian fireplace for 13yrs so know well how the images should look.
Last night, for example, their bright dresses and the white fireplace surround looked OK, and the muted mustard wall was reasonable.... but the brick recess of the firplace and the black stove, as well as a mahogany chest to their side, all looked like fuzzy Lego viewed through tights (I'm only guessing what that would be like!).
As I think I said this was on fully auto with flash.
Soon Mrs F and eldest daughter set off for T4 OTB so I will have two days to get the tripod out and do some proper comparison shots with my Sony compact indoors and out.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 13:59
|
Got a link to an example? Sounds sort of like the camera has chosen an aperture for shallower depth of field than you wanted so the background is more fuzzy but not fuzzy enough to be obviously fuzzy.
I'd definitely play around with lots of the settings first before deciding to return it.
I also think the panasonics have some intelligent auto that can be a bit thick and it might be better choosing a programme auto or the portrait mode for example. I'd also check it is saving it at full resolution too as I think with the Iauto it can drop the resolution for various reasons.
|
Appreciate the interest. Funnily enough one of my daughter's 16yr old friends has just looked at the Panasonic and said it looked *cool*. She had one of the Fuji bridge cameras with her and she said noise in darker areas with flash was an issue on hers unless you went into manual mode... I assume to force the ISO down.
I've just signed up for an imageshack account so I can upload some images of the problems on indoors shots... might be tomorrow.
However as a taster here is one just taken to check out the zoom. All I've done to make it easy is to put the images side by side onscreen and use the snip tool to get a jpeg.
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/lumixfz45zoom.jpg/
The combination of zoom and image stabiliser is staggering. The two images are taken seconds apart from the same spot and handheld.... most impressive.
This zoom aspect of the FZ45 is fantastic, I like the way the camera handles too and the electronic viewfinder is a pleasure when the sun is out and you can't see the normal one... not just for composition but to see settings and data easily. It is fast to focus too. Oh and not even the smallest amount of purple fringe.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 17:11
|
>>
>> Perhaps *noise* is the wrong description for what I see... it may be more the
>> after effects of strong *processing*.
>>
In that case I'd definitely do as Z suggests and shoot RAW.
|
You shouldn't need to shoot raw for normally lit shots, and you certainly shouldn't do it unless you are prepared to 'develop' each shot.
Start with the settings. Try the default for noise reduction, colour, sharpening etc and wind them back if you want to see less processing.
Raw is for people with a lot of time and a lot of disk space.
|
>> Raw is for people with a lot of time and a lot of disk space.
less than a minute per file using Photoshop Bridge. And that includes tweaking.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 21:38
|
My camera has JPEG 'fine' images coming in at around 4-5Mb. Raw just over twice that. Yes you can tweak them more and that takes a few seconds per image. I tend to use RAW when I know an image might benefit and tend not to shoot RAW. With the cost of flash memory so low, shooting JPEG + RAW is an option but I haven't found I needed it yet. I know when RAW might help.
Recently I have been experimenting with HDR photography to get more out of tricky shots.
|
I only use raw when the white balance is too far off to fix the jpg, or I need to change the viewpoint, which Silky Pix quite good at (straightening perpendiculars, changing perspective).
I find if I start with raw I usually end up with a poorer jpg than the camera process, once I have the camera settings right, unless I take an inordinate amount of time.
You can batch process, but then why bother if the exposure and colour balance are already OK? Just turn down the NR and sharpening - you can add them back in post process, but you can't take them away to recover lost information.
You also need software that supports your camera - I imagine the true raw files from the FZ45 will show quite a lot of designed-in lens distortion which the camera firmware normally corrects for the jpg conversion.
|
>> I imagine the true raw files from the FZ45 will show quite a lot of designed-in lens distortion
>> which the camera firmware normally corrects for the jpg conversion
A RAW converter should correct lens distortion. As you say for a bridge camera and even some DSLR lenses, lens distortion is deliberate. It is on M4/3 lenses for example. And why not do this. It's been explored in depth on many sites.
|
>> A RAW converter should correct lens distortion. As you say for a bridge camera and
>> even some DSLR lenses, lens distortion is deliberate. It is on M4/3 lenses for example.
>> And why not do this. It's been explored in depth on many sites.
That was my point - the software will need to support the camera as the correction is specific to each. I've just checked and the FZ45 seems to come with Silky Pix Developer 3.1.
Picasa will open the raw files from my LX3 but it doesn't correct the very obvious lens distortion. The version of Silky Pix supplied with it does it automatically, as I'm sure it will with the FZ45.
I'm guessing Fenlander will not regard it as progress if he has to shoot raw all the time, and process the pictures, to get a result he considers acceptable or better than a £100 Sony? Or have we bored him into submission?
Silky Pix is great for changing perspective though - a really neat tool, so I can take a picture of a cathedral, say, which will have converging verticals, then make it look at if the viewpoint was 100' higher up. But I'm not about to process the 500+pictures of the village panto from raw.
|
>> But I'm not about to
>> process the 500+pictures of the village panto from raw.
Yeah, but lets face it, only 50 pictures of the village panto are worth keeping!
|
>> Yeah, but lets face it, only 50 pictures of the village panto are worth keeping!
>>
Oh no they aren't!
|
>>
>> >> Yeah, but lets face it, only 50 pictures of the village panto are worth
>> keeping!
>> >>
>>
>> Oh no they aren't!
Behind you!
|
>> Yeah, but lets face it, only 50 pictures of the village panto are worth keeping!
That would be an overestimate, but it's a cross I have to bear!
|
Bored... far from it... excellent stuff to help how I deal with this.
You have it spot on Manatee... I bought this as a fully auto family camera that was in the upper regions of a non-DSLR and I expected it to perform well in 95% of normal situations set to fully auto giving results that didn't need extensive/any correction.
I regard a daylight photo of two people in a dull room with camera adding flash as a very routine situation and one it should have handled on full auto without the slightest problem.
So no I'm not going into the use of RAW files. A typical use of our camera is that we might go to an event and shoot 200 images and within a short time of getting home we will be viewing these images and putting some of them to use. Often we will not be going home when on longer than one day outings so load to the laptop wherever we are for viewing/sharing.
Apart from the occasional crop our Sony compact hardly needs 1 image out of 500 enhancing.
Didn't get the chance to take the images I wanted last night but will try later today. What I did find though, having looked through the 223 page manual and fiddled with the camera, was it seems on fully auto it doesn't allow any changes which I guess is logical. However in Program AE mode I can set the ISO and also ease back the noise reduction settings.
If I find this sorts the problem of indoors flash I may just (and only may) keep it for it's other superb benefits. Having said that it does grate that family members who are less interested than me will have to remember to change modes when going indoors... something they don't have to do on any of the other cameras here.
BTW can someone confirm the Imageshack link in my previous post works OK for the purpose of putting up some samples.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 10:48
|
>>on fully auto it doesn't allow any changes
For that reason I use Program on the LX3 for point and shoot. I limit the max ISO and as you say set the colour, NR and sharpening as you like them.
Full auto does a good job but can be unpredictable - I haven't really played with it, but IIRC it chooses a "scene" mode like portrait, scenery, night scene, night portrait or whatever and it doesn't always pick the right one, apart from the process settings issue.
Your image shack pictures were viewable. The zoom quality surprised me, though I'm only using a netbook just now.
Incidentally, if you used (or the camera chose) "portrait" mode for your fireplace scene, it may well have been doing it's best to defocus the background. The small short-zoom compacts can't really do this, being nearly pinhole cameras. The bridge camera won't do it as well as a camera with a bigger sensor using a longer focal length lens, but you can probably get DOF down to around half a metre in the situation you describe - in which case a fireplace a couple of feet behind the subject would be out of focus. If you want the fireplace sharp as well, there are two ways to help it -
- use a shorter focal length - zoom out a bit and stand nearer. Maybe not the best thing for portraits as it can make people look as if they have big noses!
- use a smaller aperture and a longer exposure. Use AV for this and set a high F number
There are only two things that influence DOF - the focal length, and the F number. The shortest focal length and the highest F number will have the greatest DOF, and vice versa. Bridge/superzoom cameras use shorter focal lengths than SLRs because of the higher crop factor, so don't offer as much DOF control.
So if you want to reduce DOF to unsharp the background/foreground, a good trick with a camera like the FZ45 is to stand further away and zoom in to the subject, also using a smallish aperture (higher F number).
www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 11:39
|
take the picture again, exactly the same way, without the subject in the way. I bet the "noise" disapears. As the others say, it sounds like a narrow DOF
One thing I miss about not having an SLR is the DOF indicator on the lens.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 11:40
|
When the depth of focus relates to a single plane in object space, it can be calculated from
where t is the total depth of focus, N is the lens f-number, c is the circle of confusion, v is the image distance, and f is the lens focal length. In most cases, the image distance is not easily determined; the depth of focus can also be given in terms of magnification m:
The magnification depends on the focal length and the subject distance, and sometimes it can be difficult to estimate. When the magnification is small, the formula simplifies to
The simple formula is often used as a guideline, as it is much easier to calculate, and in many cases, the difference from the exact formula is insignificant. Moreover, the simple formula will always err on the conservative side (i.e., depth of focus will always be greater than calculated).
Following historical convention, the circle of confusion is sometimes taken as the lens focal length divided by 1000 (with the result in same units as the focal length);[3][4] this formula makes most sense in the case of normal lens (as opposed to wide-angle or telephoto), where the focal length is a representation of the format size. This practice is now deprecated; it is more common to base the circle of confusion on the format size (for example, the diagonal divided by 1000 or 1500).[4]
In astronomy, the depth of focus Δf is the amount of defocus that introduces a wavefront error, and can be calculated using[5][6]
Yeah, as I said, I miss the indicator on the lens.
.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 17:06
|
|
Your link works ok, but a screen print from windows live photo is not the best way to show the capabilities, or lack off, the camera - a lot is lost. Put the saved jpegs up.
|
>>>Put the saved jpegs up
Yep will do... that was just a quick example I'd done to mail someone and was all I had to test Imageshack.
Got to go out for most of the day soon but I know there are some aircraft enthusiasts here. Going back a few years I had just the same issues with poor low light/flash performance from an otherwise well regarded 2MP Canon. I sent that back under a 7 day exchange policy. I remember them reinforcing the fact the camera must be effectively as new and unused. They took it back OK but if only they knew where it had been for Mrs F to test it's daylight abilitiy in the 24hrs it was here!
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/808/jaguar2.jpg/
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/192/tornado1t.jpg/
|
|
Has anyone had any experience with the Canon SX30 IS please. Seems to tick the boxes.
|
OK did loads of test photos comparing the Lumix FZ45 against the known quantity of my Sony 12mp £100ish compact. Used the fireplace as subject and they both auto-flashed in a dull room around 7pm.
Sadly Imageshack says the Lumix image files are too big for their site and I thought it would give an unfair comparison if I compressed them with the Sony files being straight from camera.
So I've gone for the next best idea to select about 25% of the height of each image and put them together in a snip. OK not perfect but gives a fair guide to the issue. The Lumix is the image to the left with a far higher level or noise or artefacts.
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/lumixvssony.jpg/
The images were taken with each camera on a tripod, zoomed in (about 95 zoom setting on a 35mm camera) to capture the same scene and on full auto which caused them to flash. They were left to set their own scene modes (don't have data on what they chose).
The Lumix picked a 320 ISO with f3.2 @ 1/60th.
The Sony picked 200 ISO with f3.2 @ 1/40th.
The simple fact is that in these situations the cheap Sony produces the more pleasing shots with less noise/artefacts.
I tried the Lumix with the same subject in program mode on various settings which showed the images were nice at ISO 100 and still OK at 200 but poor at 400 and above. In many ways the fact Lumix goes for 320/400 ISO on fully auto in this circumstance seems to mostly explain what I'm seeing.
So to keep the Lumix for its daylight/zoom/movie/handling/viewfinder qualities it looks like I'm going to have to accept settingup the Program mode ready for my flash photos.. and remember to switch to it.
|
Looks to me like you have your finger in the way of the flash!
certainly appears to have a touch of under exposure. I would try experimenting with the exposure method.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 21:44
|
If only it were that easy. A tallish pop-up flash remember so hard to obscure... and in the full size image the flash reflection is seen in a white painted mantlepiece.
And here's the weird thing... if you use the optical zoom (about 2x more than the comparison sample) to go in to directly take an image with the same coverage as the crop... still on auto with flash... the image is totally acceptable.
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/lumixstovezoom.jpg/
It will be very interesting to see what your new Fuji does in similar circumstances when it arrives.
|
Ok how do you have the exposure method configured in auto?
Spot? average? sample?
|
|
You can't configure anything in auto.... it says it's intelligent! Looking at the image data though it says pattern metering.
|
Make sure you don't have any digital zoom set. Stick to optical.
Surprised it is so noisy. I wouldn't keep it either.
|
|
Fenlander, for the replacement make sure you read reviews. The noise in images of ISO400 an above are well noted for the FZ45. Too many pixels for too small a sensor. Had it fewer pixels it might have been fine.
|
Do you know I'd boiled my brain reading reviews before I ordered the FZ45... but some of them hinted the critical ones might be over-examining an issue not noticed in real life use. As I've found out I should have taken notice more of concerns.
I've looked at loads of review sample images over the past 24hrs and it seems it's very hit an miss as to how these latest cameras process their images with some unexpected fails on otherwise decent cameras.
I've actually found more pleasing results/comments looking online in the non-bridge compacts around the £175-£225 price point. Seems if I drop the viewfinder and come back to a zoom nearer 10X and pick a model that's known for decent low light performance my point and shooting will be more rewarding. Real shame if I have to give up the initial bridge type specs I thought I'd have... but at the end of the day final image quality is the main point of it all.
I've just looked through my daughters images of her prom, quickly taken shots by her friends on her £80 Samsung are far better overall than the FZ45 ones... I think it has to go.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 08:25
|
Clearly you are never going to be happy with this camera, in your eyes its flawed, and that takes all the fun out of it.
Send it back. And wait for my review and pics of the HS10 (its due today) . If the mods pass on your email addy, I will even mail you some shots.
|
>> Send it back. And wait for my review and pics of the HS10 (its due
>> today) .
Its arrived. will get out this PM to play with it.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 09:30
|
|
Get a Canon IXUS. It goes in your pocket and it works.
|
|
All cameras work ON, but they do different jobs. Canon Ixus is a great camera, I have one myself, but it won't do the same job as a DSLR or indeed a superzoom. Horses for courses and all that.
|
>>>Clearly you are never going to be happy with this camera, in your eyes its flawed, and that takes all the fun out of it.
Yes quite. Sadly the really telling images I can't put up are of my daugter and her friend in all their prom finery just before they left the house. Forget my obsession with the fireplace bricks if you like but even the noise on their faces was noticeable compared with the great shots her little Samsung took in far more challenging conditions during the evening.
I still don't quite understand it... could this camera actually be faulty? Anyway getting back to your comment I have lost confidence in it and haven't the patience to faff about any more so out come the boxes/packets to get it sent off tomorrow.
Just reading the very small print on the Jessops website about their 14 day return policy. Wondering about going straight out for an alternative so I can test them side by side later today.
|
Bridge cameras have good zooms in a compact size because the image sensor is small. I think most new bridge cameras will have noise for ISO 400 and above and certainly 800 above. This is because of the crazy marketing led rise in megapixel rates. For most prints and onscreen viewing of photos, you need nowhere near the resolution on offer.
With the tiny sensors now common on compacts and bridge cameras with 14MP+, it's hardly surprising they suffer from problems with noise.
Maybe a decent compact camera is the solution - but aren't you already pleased with your Sony? And the bridge camera was meant to give you good zoom?
|
>>>Maybe a decent compact camera is the solution - but aren't you already pleased with your Sony? And the bridge camera was meant to give you good zoom?
I'm wondering if a better compact is the way it's going. Yes the existing Sony produces reliable decent images in all but the most difficult conditions.
It was features I wanted really...
HD movie with zoom during video, longer zoom (mine is only 4x, perhaps 10x will be enough of an upgrade), hopefully more powerful flash with less red-eye, viewfinder (but seems sadly that is the one thing I will have to drop), better wide angle than the current 30mm, would have liked something more chunky to hold too.
Most of all it's obviously not worth bringing home anything with even a hint that low light/flash performance might be poor.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 10:47
|
|
I own a Canon 450D SLR camera that was bought to replace Fuji s5600 "bridge" camera. Having used both for a couple of years now I have to say that the Fuji is far less cumbersome to use and produces pictures of sufficient quality for me to admire. The Canon (especially since the addition of a Zoom lens) is ultimately a far better and more flexible camera has more features and has a far better screen. The man maths suggested selling the Fuji - but I can't bring myself to do so. It's too handy as a holiday snapper, will pack into smaller pockets on a bike. I took the Canon to a friend's mayoral ceremony - the resulting photos were miles ahead of other photos I saw on FB of the same event. I also cheated a little by using a relative's "pro" lens on the Canon for a couple of shots and the difference really sowed. Horses for courses.
|
>> All cameras work ON, but they do different jobs. Canon Ixus is a great camera,
>> I have one myself, but it won't do the same job as a DSLR or
>> indeed a superzoom. Horses for courses and all that.
>>
I find the 10x optical zoom and 10MP on my IXUS more than adequate for my use.
|
Sorry to ramble on, but you mentioned low light capability. My IXUS 1000HS has a backlit sensor, (whatever that is) and is particularly good in low light. It also has HD video with zoom.
And it fits in my pocket. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 11:23
|
|
it would, your pockets are deeper than a deep place.
|
|
But I have a shiny new boiler. :-)
|
Well, I have had a quick play with this beast, and initial impressions are favourable.
The zoom range is astounding, and stabilisation at 720mm is unbelievably good. Not a sign of the dreaded purple fringing, and I really tried to provoke it. Dynamic range is good, colour rendition is good, yet to try some indoor shot to check noise at high ISO.
A little slow to focus, and the EVF and back display are annoyingly at a poor resolution, you got no chance of manual focussing using them, so you have to use auto focus. Some images can be soft round the edges while others can be razor sharp - need to check out the why? there. Makes annoying beeps but you cant turn them off without loosing some function.
HD video is stunning, but at high zoom there is no image stabilisation (obviously) and it makes it virtually impossible to use without a tripod - not the cameras fault just the laws of trigonometry! The zoom is stiff and makes smooth zooming in video very messy, but I knew this and it will loosen up some.
Its bigger and heavier than I thought, and the impressive lump of optics sticks out a fair way, tho this allows you to use the good old SLR grip, one hand spread under the base with your fingers under the lens and the other hand round the nice fat R/H grip.
Like it, Like it a lot, I think we will be happy. Its a lot of camera and function in one package, which is what I wanted.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 15:06
|
Sounding good Zero... but I won't be convinced until the fireplace test is passed without issues.
Interesting you found as I did that these powerful zooms with stabilisation are quite a surprise.
|
Ok later tonight i will put up some challenging shots for you to look at.
Glad I chose AA's this thing eats batteries. Its the SR auto mode, the autofocus is chattering away all the time even when your finger is not halfway down on the button.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 16:55
|
|
Yes the Lumix was always focussing as you walked about. I think you could turn that off... but probably like all the other things not in the fully auto mode.
|
Range of shots, uploaded from camera, no post processing.
i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/know_wun/fuji%20HS10
|
|
I preferred the bird...:-)
|
|
Damnit you told him about her...!
|
>> Damnit you told him about her...!
Ah that's Nicole, fancies herself as a bit of a glamour puss, I told her its not seemly for a 70 years old...
|
|
Images look good Zero, zoom is so impressive. As you say the dreaded purple fringe is nowhere to be seen. I wonder if you viewed the fireplace shot full screen (on 20"+ monitor) if some softness/noise would be seen? Did the flash fire and what ISO does it go for in that circumstance on auto?
|
>> (on 20"+ monitor) if some softness/noise would be seen?
Fully expect it on the fireplace dog combo, it was at 800 ISO and hand held at 1/15, was trying to push its worse case scenario - IE this is as bad as it gets*, I will have another crack for you with flash and auto this evening,.
*clearly it could get much worse if you went really silly.
|
>> Images look good Zero, zoom is so impressive.
Yeah, I was impressed with the peek into the McLaren HQ, there was a lot of light reflected off the lake and those tinted windows, had I slapped a polarizing filter on it it would have been real News of the World stuff.
|
>> Did the flash fire and what
>> ISO does it go for in that circumstance on auto?
Ok well some tests with flash.
1/ the flash will not feature unless you press the button to pop it up, its not automatic pop up.
2/ in Fully Auto, and SR auto it seems to select 800 ISO by default when the flash is popped up.
Its very easy to go into P/AE and force the ISO down to 400/200/100. (its one knob twist and one button push) Everything else seems to work well and automatically in that mode (unless you override the other bits)
Now given 2/ I'll put the 100 & 200 iso flash shots up if you wish, but given your desire for very low noise flash shots on fully auto I suspect this is not the camera for you.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 12 Jul 11 at 09:31
|
>> Yes the Lumix was always focussing as you walked about. I think you could turn
>> that off... but probably like all the other things not in the fully auto mode.
>>
I'm a Panasonic fan but I give up on that one Fenlander - perhaps just too many pixels on too small a chip. I would say it is just noise.
|
>>>given your desire for very low noise flash shots on fully auto I suspect this is not the camera for you.
I think you're right, seems most of the bridge camera seek a higher ISO than you'd choose for flash indoors.
After a lot more reading seems there are three interlinked issues...
The ISO chosen on auto for indoors flash, the amount of noise that specific camera has at medium/high ISO.... and what the camera processing does with those images in order to correct them.
This is an interesting site showing ISO image tests on you camera...
www.trustedreviews.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-HS10_Digital-Camera_review_test-shots-iso-performance_Page-6
It comes out of that very well, ON's camera also looks good when they tested it... interestingly they found all the same issues I see in the FZ45... I could see noise in their results at 100, 200 was already showing problems and 400 pretty poor.
www.trustedreviews.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ45_Digital-Camera_review_test-shots-iso-performance_Page-6
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 12 Jul 11 at 14:38
|
Well the agony is over. I know my place... and it's with a decent compact after all. Into Jessops this afternoon and bought a Sony HX5V for £179. I was attracted to this early 2010 model because it had a sensible 10MP and good reviews for low noise/low light ability and no purple fringing.
The zoom is *only* 10x (about 25-250 in 35mm terms) but a huge improvement over my previous compact's 4x. Of course I've lost the viewfinder of the Lumix and it's great chunky feel but as I said in an earlier post it does come down to how it deals with the type of images I take.... and thankfully a quick test this evening shows it does what I want straight out of the box in fully auto with no mode tweaking.
Movies are full 1080 HD so that's a plus.
In many ways it is a very similar choice to ON's Canon Ixus I guess.
Didn't seek it but there is an interesting gimmick... built in electronic compass and GPS with a map tagging program. Not essential but will add interest for this years's hols on and around the sea near Skye.
Oh and it has that sweep panorama ability which again will be an added bit of fun in the Scottish landscape.
Just one quick comparison example. Used both the Lumix FZ45 and Sony HX5V to take an indoor flash image of a 9" dia wall barometer. I stood across the room and used full 10x zoom on the Sony so it filled the screen and a matching zoom on the Lumix to the same end. The Sony picked ISO400 and the Lumix 250.
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/sonyvslumix.jpg/
The Lumix image is on the left and shows the wriggly worm type noise/artefact effect that had first irritated me in my girls prom pictures. Given that it is at ISO 400 (compared to the Lumix at 250) the Sony result is far better.
As a matter of interest I did look at the next models up, the Sony HX7, but that is 16MP and shows more noise. Then the HX9 model above that has 16mp and a 16x zoom so you get extra noise and purple fringing!
Seems less can be more in this digicam market.
|
...The Lumix image is on the left and shows the wriggly worm type noise/artefact effect that had first irritated me in my girls prom pictures. Given that it is at ISO 400 (compared to the Lumix at 250) the Sony result is far better...
But you've failed to answer the crucial question:
What's it like on bricks?
|
Ha... too late to do anything to put up but it is just fine on the fireplace thanks.
Just to expand on the ON thing...
Way back up the thread he said... **Sorry to ramble on, but you mentioned low light capability. My IXUS 1000HS has a backlit sensor, (whatever that is) and is particularly good in low light. It also has HD video with zoom. And it fits in my pocket. :-) **
Well good judgement ON because that's exactly what I've ended up with albeit in a different brand.
|
|
The HS10 has a backlit sensor, I didnt know till I checked just now.
|
|
Glad you are sorted Fenlander, You don't have to drag a big lump of plastic around to get good results. :-)
|
>> You don't have to drag a big lump of plastic
>> around to get good results. :-)
of bricks.
|
But we all know a decent DSLR will produce better images. But I hope most now realise you can get acceptable images from other cameras.
I still know my DSLR produces better images but it's a 'brick' to carry with you in hand luggage. Well maybe not quite as heavy as a house brick.
|
...Well maybe not quite as heavy as a house brick...
And certainly not half as interesting.
I'm looking forward to Fenlander's high-def shots of his grass growing, and it will be worth waiting for the video of paint drying.
|
We've lived in a rendered house for 17yrs... I have brick withdrawal syndrome.... it's that simple. It's only the brick fireplace that's seen me through these years. Hopefully if current stuff works out we'll have bricks on the outside again soon and I can gaze at them from the garden seat.
|
...We've lived in a rendered house for 17yrs... I have brick withdrawal syndrome...
Rendered houses can look well, but brick is definitely best.
Iffy Towers is 115-years-old and the stock bricks have weathered, but look like they'll last another 115 years.
|
|
Pah, I have render walls and brick bays. We do things with class down here.
|
...I have render walls and brick bays. We do things with class down here...
Sounds dangerously near to stone cladding to me.
|
I'll post up photos of the bricks to prove its not stone cladding
If nothing else it will give Fenlander his daily fix.
|
A house that was probably the most superficially posh of those we've considered over the past few months was a genuine 1990s tudor style... brick ground floor then render with inset timber beams. A texture for all tastes in that one.
Didn't pursue it though as the foundations were made of cheese.
|
Just a camera buying postscript... the online sellers of the Lumix were chosen as they had a 14 day return & refund policy with terms I could meet clearly stated on their website.
Just phoned them for a returns reference which they've sent by email... the mail includes an updated statement of returns policy which I can't meet.
Looks like the consumer warrior hat needs to go on again.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 13 Jul 11 at 10:12
|
...I'll post up photos of the bricks to prove its not stone cladding...
Great, more brick pics to look forward to.
I'd do the same, but I don't want you all to see the rotting sash windows.
|
>>>>I'd do the same, but I don't want you all to see the rotting sash windows
Get them restored before you're tempted by UPVC!
|
...Get them restored before you're tempted by UPVC!...
I got a quote for the bay, just to confirm I couldn't afford it.
|
|
We'll start a brick thread ?
|
|
And I'll focus on the above items.
|
>> And I'll focus on the above items.
>>
Is that auto or manual focus?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 13 Jul 11 at 19:52
|
Is that builder from Devon still on the forum?
I tried my Fuji S5800 out on a spider yesterday, it was wrapping a live ant in world wide (web) so I used super macro (not THAT Macro) and the foto is enough to give ya nightmares m8!
If y'all still interested in this fine piece of Chinese craftsmanship = £50 inc. pp
|
Here's boris the spider ~ www.flickr.com/photos/43576259@N04/5934348021/
Not as clear as it could be b'cos (A) my computer is dying, and (B) I just used the MS software and not the finepix.
|
Scary insects now? I've got a Stag Beetle living under my butt:-
tinypic.com/r/303d6ch/7
Panasonic TZ65 ISO200
|
>>Scary insects now? I've got a Stag Beetle living under my butt:-<<
Christ Almighty ~ that IS scary!!
|
A better pose but not quite enough depth of field:-
picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/UydgCjxpFF5iGChTdxhXsg?feat=directlink
These are with the TZ65 at 25mm equivalent IIRC in 'macro' mode.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Wed 13 Jul 11 at 22:04
|
>>These are with the TZ65 at 25mm equivalent IIRC in 'macro' mode.<<
Amazingly clear shots, I did get into macro & super macro with my Finepix bridge,
I actually prefer ultra close up rather than ultra zoom,
I'l have to knuckle down and have a play with my Samsung WB600 jobbie ASAP!
|
|
Oh dear, I can see I am going to have to scrabble round the garden tomorrow to find some monsters.
|
>>Oh dear, I can see I am going to have to scrabble round the garden tomorrow to find some monsters<<
Yes - please do ... MUCH more interesting than brix!
|
>> I've got a Stag Beetle living under my butt:-
Lets hope there are no Americans reading this.
|
|
I have a Canon Powershot S5is that I occasionally use in place of my Canon EOS 500. It's a lovely little camera with a 12X zoom. I bought it about three years ago and will have been succeeded by a new model. It can also be used for making videos. Here's my first attempt at filming Henry. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUItVmERYdw
|
|
Forget the bricks they're history... I've just discovered the 10fps burst mode. Endless fun.
|
Great beetle pictures, Spammers - you've really captured the iridescence of the elytra. Two male stags fighting over a female make quite a spectacle - the 'antlers' are so unwieldy that they can't really hurt each other, and it all happens in slow motion.
The young Beests yesterday took photos with their little Lumix FS cameras of an elephant hawk moth they'd rescued from the cat. Amazing thing, 30mm long, about 50mm across and covered in purple and green striped fur. I'll ask if they'll let me upload one here.
|
>> Great beetle pictures, Spammers - you've really captured the iridescence of the elytra.
>>
Cheers, it is quite tricky getting the exposure right on these glossy 'black' insects, the live histogram in the viewfinder is essential to get a sensible exposure in one go. Last time I looked most of the entry level DSLRs didn't have this, not sure about current stuff.
I'll try and get some shots of UHU my stick insect later; they're pretty scary close up, although close-ups of something that small are pushing it a bit far with the TZ-65.
I did find a female stag beetle trundling across the lawn a few weeks back whilst I was mowing, I relocated her to the same vicinity as the male, maybe I can get a whole colony going:-) i didn't realise they are a protected species until recently.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Thu 14 Jul 11 at 10:36
|
>>Here's my first attempt at filming Henry<<
Great dogs, Cockers - we had an orange & white roan called (naturally enough) Marmalade,
Mad as the proverbial hatter though - like most Cockers!
|
>> I have a Canon Powershot S5is that I occasionally use in place of my Canon
>> EOS 500. It's a lovely little camera with a 12X zoom.
Spamette Major used a Powershot S2is for her photography A level, that's still a pretty useful camera, almost exact Canon equivalent of my FZ-20. Very good close focus and fancy features like shutter leading or trailing edge flash sync.
Any here's my first attempt at Mrs. UHU with the TZ-65, at the close focus limits of the camera, cropped from the full frame but not resized:-
picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/H0Sky-FLuBCinO85bN_DuQ?feat=directlink
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Thu 14 Jul 11 at 11:04
|
A new bug photo today, had to have a man out to deal with a Hornet's nest last week, still a few of the blighters about, but at least they're now so dozy they'll pose for photos.
picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/WNQZfx1emClcTXnPgLc0o7q-_CIXMP2bLxbmqFmO3Aw?feat=directlink
Panasonic TZ65 as usual, just for once I used flash, I think the camera made a good job of getting the flash exposure right, particularly at such close range
|
My first (and only) encounter with a Hornet was when I was in Germany with my 'ladyfriend'
We were staying the night in a motel (type) place, and I am (still) a fresh air merchant, so I opened the window,
BIG mistake! - in flew Mr Hornet ... the size of the blimming things!! AND the noise they make!!
I ran out to Margo (hehe!) and she called the staff to flush the critter out (excellent foto BTW)
Don't know how I would get on in Africa etc. (well, I wouldn't, simple as that)
|
... in flew Mr Hornet.
Make that Miss Hornet. The males don't get out much.
|
|
I'd never encountered them until a week ago, ear piercing screams from Spamette Minor's bedroom, investigation showed this thing 3-4 times bigger and noisier than your average wasp buzzing around. Soon dispatched that one, but after a few more turned up Spamcan Junior noticed that they were flying in and out of the apex of the roof gable, lo and behold a nest in the loft. A man came out and puffed some powder in it which seems to have either killed or seriously weakened them. Haven't psyched myself up to remove the nest yet.
|
>>I'd never encountered them until a week ago<<
Another sign of climate change!
;)
|
>> >> I've got a Stag Beetle living under my butt:-
>>
>> Lets hope there are no Americans reading this.
>>
I thought I'd lower the tone with some cheap innuendo :-)
|
>> Is that builder from Devon still on the forum?
>>
Dear Perro,
Thank you for your reasonable offer. I am not out of the woods yet....just gathering all the reviewers to line them up and.......................shoot the lot of them. Bloomin' teknology eh! it's driving me mad. One likes this....one slags that and the one in the middle (moi) is going around in circles. I Want an HS10 like Zeddo, but they are disappearing fast. A local respected camera shop states that they (HS10's)are likely to be Grey imports (they would) and that the back up would be poor. I retort with the fact that the likes of Tesco etc. (urghhh!) have no choice but to stand behind their sale. Have had a look at and a re-read of the HS20, but I am no further forward. I am sure that I read somewhere that the 20 was a step back from the 10, but now I cannot find it........Grrrrrrr.
|
Dearest Martine,
Thank you for your prompt reply, The Fuji Finepix S5800 is ideal for someone just starting out on digital photograpy but my new (ish) Samsung WB600 beats it on image quality, by a long chalk, i.e. things have moved on.
You mentioned last Sunday the Canon SX30 IS which is an excellent bridge camera, in fact if you lined up bridge camera from say Panasonic, Nikon and Canon etc., there would be very difference in their performance, in the same price range,
I'll throw another card on the table and suggest a bridge (type) camera with an optical view finder instead of the electronic viewfinders on the cameras you have been considering, although you wont get the ultra zoom that comes with the EVF but - size isn't everything :)
|
A good EVF is not a bad thing - but they aren't all good. I have to say the EVF on the Panasonic Lumix G2 is very good (same as on the G2H, G3). The one of the G10 is nowhere near as good so I avoided that.
What you need is a EVF that is fast and high resolution - something the G2 has.
|
Just come back from Videoing BR Merchant Navy Class 4-6-2 no 35028 Clan Line. I caught her on the way down this morning, and caught her again this evening. I could zoom THREE MILES down the line and see her stopped at Woking. It came through in failing light. The video was grainy by then but very moody!
Some of the video can be very sharp ay 1080i, but even using a tripod - at 720mm its a bit "nervy". Trying to zoom and pan is going to take some practise.
And to Martin, ignore the HS20, its picture quality is poorer than the HS10. Got mine on Amazon, nothing grey about it. Its EU sourced, and EU means UK!
|
Zero. I hear what you are saying, but where is the proof regarding Picture quality. As for the sourcing I agree. I had put this matter 'to bed' with the HS10 than as you said the price went up and then I procrastinated again and they disappeared from sale.
As an aside I went into Jessops today to get some passport photos done. What a casual bunch they were. Never again will I cross their threshold, ever.
|
Still available at Amazon at 250 quid.
As for proof, I haven't got an HS20 to compare, but most of the reviews say picture quality dropped with the move to a 14mp sensor.
Buy hey - your choice.
|
|
16mp even. My head hurts. Tea then sleep and then on my day off tomorrow I shall fit windows at Mil's. Deep joy........
|
>> 16mp even.
Even worse then.
|
For most size print or use on a HD TV or a high resolution monitor, we do not need 16MP even on a DSLR in my opinion. Not a consumer level camera anyway.
They put in smaller sized sensors which results in noise which then needs processing. Result is poor quality photos.
My 10MP DSLR with APS-C sized sensor produces excellent photos... wouldn't need more than 10MP on that either. And the sensor is a lot bigger than on a bridge camera of course.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg
|
>>Tea then sleep<<
Tea? ... on a Saturday night! - have you taken the pledge man??
|
|
Pledge! Given up on the polish mate.. Started early Old Hand. I was attacked from all sides by the Well's Bombardiers, only to be interrupted by some red upstart from the new world during Dinner.
|
>>Pledge! Given up on the polish mate..<<
Good fer you effendi - beer is loaded with 'simple' carbs anyway, could always have a dry white wine when dining owt, try n' keep orf the carbs in general, and you'll be as svelte as Mr Z in no time :)
|
>> YouTube it for us Zero
When I work out how to trim it.
I need some video editing tools that work in HD now! And a lot of practise with the camera!
|
>> I need some video editing tools that work in HD now
Like the sort that comes for free with Macs. People assume Macs are expensive because of the Apple premium on hardware. But apps like iPhoto and iMovie are very good. And included when you buy the computer. But also cheap to buy since the App Store came to Snow Leopard - £10.49 for iMove '11.
|
Oh
it appears my Windows Live Movie Maker will handle 1080 HD.
|
>> YouTube it for us Zero
>>
www.youtube.com/user/MrKnowwun
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 Jul 11 at 18:33
|
What I would say is after looking, reading, buying and returning I don't think the £300 bridge cameras are any better than the £200 ones unless there is a very specific facility you need that's only on one of the pricier ones.
Best value does seem to be in the £200-£249 range.
|
|
No raw capture Sir, but thanks anyway.
|
Review here of the new Olympus SZ-30MR (under £240) - its 24x zoom is rated highly.
tinyurl.com/3j8gyqx
|
A friend brought round his FZ45 at the weekend. He bought it recently to take to the Quo concert in Morzine where luckily he had a box to view from. The stills he took were in the main poor, but that was him and not the camera in my view. However, the videos were unbelievably good including the sound. These were all taken hand held and were incredible in their quality. I took some stills here on Saturday supported by me leaning on a window frame and they were very very good. I found the electronic viewfinder to be next to useless btw.
I am still in a quandary as I had settled on a Fuji HS20, but then saw a review on infosyncworld which has made me think again. I guess one can't have it all......Help!!!
|
Are you deaf man? How many times have I told you to forget the HS20
Get an HS10!
|
Hi Zeddo. The HS10 you bought from Amazon, can you tell me what came in the box please. Was there a Lens cap and perhaps a petal type filter as with the HS20 or not and any issues so far.
Regards……Martin.
|
Martin
In the box was Camera, Lens cap, Shoulder strap, USB lead, A/V lead (no HD lead needs to be bought) spare batteries, concise manual, CD with full PDF manual, viewer software and RAW reader.
Issues
Aufofocus is slow at times with areas of low contrast. Eats batteries, Zoom ring is sticky making video zoom jerky (it fees up with use apparently). Raw files that come out of the camera are not standard RAW format, but you can get converters or plugins for RAW apps.
Best features
Image stabilisation on stills at long zoom is fabulous. People complain about its low light performance, but check out the low light video of the A4. It was getting really quite dark, and sure the image is grainy but still impressive in that light.
I am happpy with my choice at that price point. I wouldnt be happy with the HS10 or HS20 at £300 or over.
|
|
Oh and BTW, the petal lens hood is not standard with the HS20 either.
|
I'd never heard of infosyncworld Martin but had a look at their review on the Lumix FZ45 I returned (called a FZ40 over there). It was spot on and I think refered to all show and no go.... the basic image quality let the camera down.
As a matter of interest we've had a whole load of images from daughters prom night printed, just in 6x4. 90% of the shots are indoor flash and the FZ45 grainy effect is noticeable on their faces even in this small size print. Everyone comments on it and are amazed they were the results from a supposedly good bridge camera. The results from my daughters £100 Samsung printed in the same run are perfect with crisp images and perfect skin tone.
Interestingly I had a day out at the Blackpool theme park/pleasure beach on Monday which was the perfect opportunity to test the high end Sony HX5V compact I bought in the end. It managed over 8hrs of being on almost all the while, 250 stills and 12 HD movies before the battery needed a swap ( I have a spare). The 1080 HD movies are superb but sound is just a little thin after the FZ45. All the stills are fine both inside and outdoors in blistering sun.
The panoramic facility works perfectly and we got some great shots with that. The 10fps burst mode was used loads too to get that perfect shot as they whooshed past in a rollercoaster.
A fantastic balanced design with above average to excellent performance in every area.... except in the bright conditions I really missed the excellent electronic viewfinder of the FZ45.
I would just say Zero low light performance can look OK in a video when it would look poor on a still of the same shot.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 27 Jul 11 at 11:14
|
>> I would just say Zero low light performance can look OK in a video when
>> it would look poor on a still of the same shot.
Agreed, low light noise on video makes it look moody, an effect you wouldn't countenance on a still
|
|
Good Evening Zeddo me ol' Mucker. Have a look at Amazon for the Fuji HS10 right now!!!
|
Clearly thats a mistake, they have it priced higher than the HS20.
I sometimes wonder about amazon prices techniques. I think there is some automatic algorithm at at work that racks up the price if it starts to become popular,
Anyway, you still havent bought one have you.
|
|
No Sir, but it is still the one of choice and I soo want to, but given the present climate I am quietly keeping my powder dry.
|
Looks like the normal price trend to me, gradually falling after introduction, then a bit of an upwards blip when it's superceded - maybe peopel go and buy one while they still can and push the price on demand based pricing sites (like Amazon) up.
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1500.html
|
|
Powder didn't stay dry for long Zeddo. In fact it's soaking now. I bought 2 yes 2 on the Bay. Know anyone who wants one???
|
|
TWO? < shakes head in disbelief >
|
|
Didn't pay much for No. 2.
|
Of course not. Both second hand, but I am happy with my gamble. The second finisher was the one I wanted, but I took the view that the law of S** would prevail if I bypassed the first and the second would elude me so I nailed No.1...then sitting there later playing about I decided to just up my bid by a fiver (for a laugh/bored) and won the second for pennies more with loads of extras. Strangely enough the first had all the bids, but to my mind the second was the better advert/option. Oh well, I will look and match the best with the extras and bay the other. Tum-te-tum.
M
|
|
Only played for 20 mins, but impressed so far, vary impressed to be precise. Funny old world innit as some of the extras weren't with the second one. Talking tactfully for now, but......................
|
|
so what extras did you get?
|
|
Zeddo me ol'd mate. What size/speed SD card do you advise??
|
>> Zeddo me ol'd mate. What size/speed SD card do you advise??
Large(ish) and high speed.
I bought one of these to go with my camera.
www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=111296
16gb, Fast (class 10)
Tho based on experience of the camera, one of these would have done
www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=109872
Not so big (8gb) but just as fast.
|
Considering one of my criteria for getting the HS10 was the fact it used rechargeable AA's, i was a bit miffed, to say the least, that it gobbled up AAs at an alarming rate.
Clearly my exiting AA's were a bit cream crackered, a set of newly purchased Branded Sanyo Eneloops have been performing admirably.
|
Looks like Panasonic listened to those who found the FZ100 wanting:
www.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082613panasonicfz150announcement_gallery.asp
The new camera uses a lower resolution sensor. Okay still too high IMO at 12MP but an improvement all the same.
|
New bridge type camera?? - spamcan61
