Question for panasonic owner

mysteryscribe · Dec 8, 2006

Im looking for someone who uses a pansaonic fz 20 30 or 50 and upgraded to a dslr. Im wondering what was it that got you to make the jump and is the difference significant. thanks.

mysteryscribe · Dec 8, 2006

I know someone had a panasonic and then bought a nikon because I saw it on their equipment list. I just dont remember who

Don Simon · Dec 9, 2006

I think that might have been Holly. Not sure though.

By the way I can't answer the question specifically, but can say there will be one significant difference - sensor size. Noise is an issue - compact or fixed-lens models with smaller sensors usually do just fine at the lower ISO levels but once you get to ISO 400 things start to go wrong. Needless to say digital noise is very different from film grain; in my opinion it's a lot uglier. My experience with current digital SLRs is that they produce images that are useable even at 3200 ISO. There's less noise than in the compact models and what noise there is doesn't look as bad.

Apart from that, the FZ30 looks to have some fairly good specs - RAW files, F/2.8-3.7 on the (big) zoom, fine tuning white balance, spot metering.

The viewfinders on digital SLRs tend not to be very good compared to their film counterparts. If that is likely to cause an issue then the LCD screen on the Panasonic could be very useful indeed. Otherwise in my view a digital SLR would remain the better choice; the price difference between something like the Panasonic and the lower-end 6-megapixel dSLRs is not huge now that everyone is convinced they need 10 megapixels.

Plus of course you could use the lenses on a "film" (whatever that is) body too.

mysteryscribe · Dec 9, 2006

You mean there is an iso more than 400 what on earth would one need that for. That's why they make strobe lights and slow shutter speeds isn't it.

I have a nephew who has a panasonic fx20 and 30 but he has no experience with the dslr just the old film slr. I have seen his shots but not on paper. I'm curious as to how the person who made the switch views their decisson in retropect.

For instance, I have a full film slr system bought since my forced sell off of my previous cameras. I bought it as a just in case kind of thing. I wish now I had went rangefinder since even though it is an older technology. I like the range finders better. However the slr is faster to use, if you ever have to produce a volume of shots.

Still I just like rangefinders better no particular reason. as to the megapix thing.

My son in law had a d100 and went up to a d200. The real difference to the viewer of the prints seems to be the larger sized ones look better. Even he admits that mostly that was really needed because he didn't follow the shooting rules he was taught. He was forced to post production crop the crap out of his shots. Leaving him with about 3.5 megapix to print in most cases. Not really enough to do an adaquate 20x30 print.

Would I pay $3000 on the off chance I was going to make a 20x30. Probably not I would just whip out a film camera. These days, as was pointed out in a different thread, you can buy a film camera capable of shooting med format for a couple of hundred bucks. Even if they eventually do away with film, by then there well be three newer generations of digi cams out there. Not that I will be around to see it.

I'm curious to see what someone who has used both has to say.

Holly where are you?

Don Simon · Dec 9, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
You mean there is an iso more than 400 what on earth would one need that for. That's why they make strobe lights and slow shutter speeds isn't it.

That seems to be the thinking of the camera companies anyway. Often I shoot in low available light where I can't set up a tripod (or there's too much movement for a slow shutter speed) and a flash would completely change the 'mood'. With film I can shoot Ilford 3200 at 1600 or 3200 ISO and it looks pretty good; the grain adds to the effect. I can do that on a second-hand $20 SLR and prime. With digital to get the same shot I have to spend equivalent of $750 just on the camera body, the sensors on cheaper ones simply can't do it. And that's before I factor in the cost of software, upgrading the computer to run it, batteries and memory sticks, more lenses to cover the focal lengths that I no longer have with a 1.5x conversion factor, and the fact that most digitals have virtually no resale value... yep, everyone's right, digital is so much cheaper. :roll: Rant over

Alex_B · Dec 9, 2006

i use ISO 1600 in low light .. often stobes wreck it all (spoil an event) or things are to far away to be illuminated, or simply are not allowed. And loger exposure times do only work when there is not to much motion

so to me certainly ISO above 400 makes sense! though admittedly in 90% of all my iamges I stay at 100 or 200 max.

mysteryscribe · Dec 9, 2006

Alex this is not disrepectful though I know I sometimes am. This is surprise and curiousity. Do you really shoot 10% of your shots over 400 iso. If so tell me is it more from necessity or just the pad.

By that I mean, "Oh I could shoot this at iso 400 at f5.6 but I can get f 11 if I shoot 1600 iso just to be safe."

Don Simon · Dec 9, 2006

Personally I do it that way sometimes if for example I'm using a fairly cheap zoom that performs noticeably better at F/8 and over; by setting it to ISO 1600 I could safely shoot handheld at say F/8 whereas with ISO 400 I'd have to shoot the lens wide-open at F4. It does seem a bit strange but my camera has a very clean 1600 ISO.

More often though it is out of necessity. For example say I need Ev 4 but can't use a tripod or flash. With a 50mm f/1.4 lens I can use 1600 ISO, stop the lens down to f/2 and safely shoot handeld at 1/60th. Which is nice.

mysteryscribe · Dec 9, 2006

Now I am really curious what are you shooting that has that low a light source. Just things around the house or things at an event like a party or something.

Don Simon · Dec 9, 2006

Mostly the latter - live music in really tiny venues with virtually no lighting. Admittedly that sort of photography isn't even close to being 10% of what I do, but being totally unable to take those shots with a compact digital model (especially since the built-in flash was no help for that sort of thing) was still annoying. Plus I just found the compact models limiting in a number of other little ways - for example with some $10 extension rings I get much better macro shots than with the macro mode on a compact model. Ultimately though it was just a case of realising that the combination of bigger sensor and interchangeable lenses leads to better images... although the image quality on compact models (whether their zoom is 3x or 12x) can be good I don't think it can touch the quality of a good prime on a dSLR. And I don't necessarily mean expensive modern lenses; I spent a whole load of cash on a digital SLR, and proceeded to use it with a 40-year old 50mm and a Soviet 85mm that weighs about as much as the camera. But then logic was never one of my strong points!

mysteryscribe · Dec 9, 2006

Yeah I don't think anybody even a little interested in shooting versitile stuff, should conside a camera without manual settings and an exterior flash capability.