superzoom

[revolver]

<p>looking for a new super Zoom</p>

<p>My Kodak Z612 lost its shutter button and after 4 years its time to move on.<br>

I have had great luck with my Z612 as a daily throw in the back of the car camera ( actually I usually just leave it there)<br>

Been looking at the Pentax X90, Panasonic FZ 38,45 and 100.<br>

trying to keep it under 300 bucks but could go 4. seems silly to go further than that if its not DSLR</p>

<p>maybe a 4/3 sensor camera</p>

<p>what say you?</p>

<p> </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I was dissapointed when I read the specifications of the FZ100 after having loved in turn the FZ20/FZ30 and currently the FZ50. Panasonic started a good feature with a ';constant' f/2.8 lens in the FZ20. This means that at full zoom the aperture was still f/2.8 instead of the uaual practice of loosing one or two stops of light [ half or quarter ] when zooming out. Sadly they seem to have completely forgotten or thought irrelevant with the FZ100. A big dissapointment. The argument against the 'small' FZ range is that the lens goes to sleep in the body so therefore takes 'some time', however small, to come out and be ready for action.<br>

With the FZ50 she is ready by the time I have the EVF to my eye and the zoom is, if not manual, effectively manual with fire-by-wire. So one doesn't have to wait for an electric motor to do the zooming. But on occassions I have found the AF a bit on the slow side ... a bird teasing me by hopping from branch to branch while within five to ten feet of me :-)<br>

But I don't know if you can get an FZ50 for $400 and I disagree with your sentiment about how much to pay for a pro-sumer. The pro-sumer and the entry level DSLR are quite different animals and I rate what you get with an entry level DSLR as definitely inferior to a top line pro-sumer such as the FZ50. The DSLR is probably a bit faster and has a larger sensor which makes it easier to get the good IQ but unless you plan on making large prints, bigger than A3, you should be satisfied with the prosumer if you work at low ISO. It depends on what you want to shoot and how you approach the matter. When I was using my old Nikon 5700 [ 5Mp and x7 zoom without OIS ] the standard of my work went up considerably when I started using a monopod ... but with the FZ's and OIS I have gotten lazy and standards have slipped I'm sure. My target in those days were exhibition A3's.<br>

The closing down of zoom lens when zooming out was why earlier this year when I seriously considered a 4/3 but rejected them. Maybe one can get adaptors and fit other constant or near constant lens but I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of going down that path, which likely would have meant working manually. I don't see the point is having automatics available in a camera and working manually except for the odd shot here and there ... but that is a maveric position which is likely not shared by many here ... so I could be on a false path there. It may well be that the ability of 4/3 and DSLR cameras to work satisfactorilly at higher ISO compensates for the loss of light as one zooms, and if you never work below say f/5.6 you will never know the difference :-) This may well be why 4/3 lens have been kept small to match the camera bodies.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>You can get a Kodak Z915 for around $100 and Z950 for $150. Be loyal to Kodak and save some too</p>

[revolver]

<p>JC, Will respond to you later. you gave me a lot to think about.</p>

<p>John, Trust me I tried to stay loyal to Kodak. I love my Z612. I bought a M580 and a Z981 and was very disappointed in the IQ and build quality of both those cameras as compared to the Z612.<br>

The Z981 had very bad motor sounds when extending the lens and while trying to focus.<br>

maybe I got a bad one, it happens but the IQ on both, the M580 and the Z981 was terrible.<br>

The red indicator lights on battery charger that came with the Z981 would never go out. Kodak said that those lights were just a indication that power was being supplied to the charger....really?</p>

<p>why does every other battery charger I have ever used either turn green or go out when the charging cycle was complete?<br>

I did look at the 950 and 915....maybe Ill look again<br>

would rather go for a Kodak or Pentax over a Panasonic anyday but I hear great things about Lumix </p>

[bill_tuthill]

The Pentax X90 is pretty good. I would not buy a Panasonic FZ40 or FZ100 because of its proprietary (chipped) battery. Maybe you can pick up an FZ35 on close-out. Image quality is slightly better than the newer models anyway.

[john_tran14]

<p>Christopher, the Z981 uses 4 AA rechargable (or not). You can use any generic NiMh AA charger from Walmart and all those chargers I've ever used never turn the LED off. Those LEDs only mean the charger is still on, that's very normal</p>

[revolver]

<p>JC...Thanks a Lot! now why did ya have to go throw a wrench in my plans?</p>

<p>That FZ50 sounds like a great camera and the 1/1.8 sensoe is very appealing and its the right physical dimensions for me. but again for a $1000 bucks I'd go for a close to full frame sensor on a DSLR</p>

<p>thats the thing that kills me about a lot of these go anywhere cameras....they focus on a lot of stuff but still have a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7 sensor still way too small for 12-14 MP in my opinion.</p>

<p>the thing thats keeping me away from the 4/3rds is that they seem to be in a lot of sub compact bodies.</p>

<p>I do not like those pocket cameras at all. they are too small in my hands.<br>

I am however getting one of those subcompacts though. The Pentax I-10 its just so damn cute I have to have it.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I have a Kodak charger for my Z612 battery. I have my Pentax Charger for the batteries for my K100D. I have a off brand Power 2000 wall charger for AA batteries</p>

<p>all three are red when charging and turn green when charged</p>

<p>odd</p>

<p>Bill, thanks for the opinion. never saw anything about Proprietary batteries in my reviews or I missed it, the latter being more likely.<br>

you have the X90?</p>

<p>whats the build quality like , does it feel flimsy?</p>

<p>thanks for the input people, appreciate it</p>

[bill_tuthill]

I do not have the X90, but it seems OK in the July 2010 dpreview.com survey of superzooms. We have S200EXR and FZ18, which we thought about replacing with the FZ35, but the FZ18 still works. I really like the S200EXR for dynamic range. If you don't mind a heavy camera, I feel it is the best superzoom produced so far. Of course the FZ series is lighter.

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>"The pro-sumer and the entry level DSLR are quite different animals and <strong>I rate what you get with an entry level DSLR as definitely inferior to a top line pro-sumer such as the FZ50</strong>. The DSLR is probably a bit faster and has a larger sensor which makes it easier to get the good IQ but unless you plan on making large prints, bigger than A3, you should be satisfied with the prosumer if you work at low ISO."</em></p>

<p>uh, no. a 1 2/3 or 1.7 sensor cannot match a larger APS-C sensor for IQ. you will get more chromatic aberration and worse high-ISO performance across the board, as well as more heavy-handed NR at lower ISOs. a superzoom P&S will also suffer from more distortion. and, there's the shutter lag issue. also, subject isolation is much more difficult to achieve due to increased DoF. there are other differences too, such as top shutter speed, slowest shutter speed, frames per second, AF points, filter/accessory use, etc.</p>

<p>some of the newer P&S superzooms like sony HX5V and HX1, Samsung HZ50W and HZ30W, Panasonic FZ40/100, Pentax x90, Nikon p100, Kodak Z981, Fuji HS10 and S2800HD, Casio EX-FH25, Canon SX30, and SX130, and Olympus SP600UZ and 800UZ offer some DSLR-like features, but superzooms as a class are inferior to hi-end compacts like the LX5 or G12 (which have more modest zooms), which are inferior to even entry-level DSLRS.</p>

<p>don't kid yourself; essentially, with a 10x,12x, 15x, 20x, or 30x zoom, you're getting an all-in-one convenience package --and a whole lotta zoom-- at a reasonable price. the trade-off for convenience is IQ. for shooting still subjects at base IQ and printing up to 8x10, these cameras should be ok but not great. just too many compromises involved.</p>

<p>if superzooms could do what DSLRS could do, you'd see pros using them, not tourists. it's still an attractive market for <em>con-sumers</em>, but an FZ100 isn't quite a true <em>pro-sumer </em>camera like the LX5, G12, TL500, or P7000. if you know what you're doing and are willing to shoot in manual modes, you can get better results than with Auto/Scene mode, and if you shoot in RAW, you can correct some of the lens/sensor liabilities.</p>

<p>what it usually comes down to is price; for around $300, the x90's 26x zoom covers an amazing range, longer than even a 4/3rds camera with a 70-300 mounted and an acceptable-wide 26mm at the short end. but just try to shoot anything requiring fast AF, and an entry-level DSLR like the d3100 is a much better tool for the job.</p>

<p> </p>

[revolver]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>thank you....you got exactly what I was trying to say.</p>

<p>the X90 or the Panasonic FZ cameras mentioned would be exactly what you called "convenience packages" something that I leave in the car because there is always something to take a picture of while at work ( I travel a lot) without have to carry around my Pentax DSLR.<br>

I also use my "everyday" camera to document things at work. I am a Safe and Vault technician, I work for banks. a lot of stuff I work on is both very old and very interesting. sometimes I need to document failures or repairs I have made to justify a new sale, show a process of repair or just because something is just so cool I need a picture of it.<br>

wish there was something with 10MP 26-150MM equiv. with a 4/3 sensor in a 300 package. If I want DSLR like I will get or use my DLSR. Most people, myself included use the superzoom in auto. I use my Pentax 100D like a manual K1000</p>

<p>I just hate that they keep cramming MP into the cameras that still have the 1/2.33 sensors</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>If you use the superzoom in auto, are you sure you want a superzoom (as opposed to a travel zoom)? I've had 2 superzooms, but they were both older. They've gotten a lot better recently, but the zoom ranges are simply absurd. It's a headline number, like the megapixel race.</p>

<p>Anyways, the two superzooms I like are from Panasonic and Nikon. The Nikon P100 is just a nice, portable, feature-rich camera. The Panasonic FZ series: it's nice that they can output RAW. I don't think the cameras are all that different in this class so it's best to just pick one that you think will be fun to use and has features that you'll tinker with (for example, P100 shoots 1080P HD Video... it could come in handy).</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>Add my vote for the Panny FZ38/35. I've got one, and while it can't match any DSLR for IQ, I love the iAuto mode. It actually works. Granted, most of my shots are snapshots that never go beyond 8 x 10, but the quality from this cam is very good. And having that long zoom sure is convenient.<br>

Based on the tests I've seen, I'd avoid the newer models, the FZ45 and FZ100. Panny stuffed the sensors and it shows. IQ dropped a bit from the FZ35.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have a Fuji HS10 in addition to a D90 and D3100. There's no doubt that the two DSLR's have advantages over any superzoom bridge camera, but the HS10 is capable of beautiful photos when used within its limits. What I like about the HS10 besides IQ is that it is the most DSLR like superzoom out there. It has a manual zoom ring instead of the power zooms the others have. The manual zoom ring is faster and more precise than the power zooms. It also has dedicated buttons for most commonly used settings. Most other superzooms make you go into menus for most settings. Last, unlike most superzooms it has a hot shoe. It does not offer TTL fash through the hot shoe, but it takes auto flashes that you can bounce off the ceiling, wall, or diffuser.</p>

<p>Adorama has the HS10 for for $399.95.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Eric ... it does depend on how you judge a camera .. if IQ and ruggedness are your major aims then obviously the DLSR is better. On the other hand if you want an all in one tool the the top pro-sumers have always been the answer. This was true of the Nikon 5700 and remains so with the FZ50, but not the FZ100 which suffers from the fad of compactness. The pro-sumer is also a very flexible tool when used with a minimum of accessories and by an experienced photographer. There were two reasons why I bought a DSLR. No.1 was curiosity about them since they are rated so highlly ... I was dissapointed. No.2 was so that I could use my extension tubes and bellows, so I bought a Canon, I have rarely used it except to see what it could do in the way of big close-ups and the telephoto lens from my film cameras.<br>

The key point about the superiority of the FZ30/50 over the other FZ's is that their lens remains in position ready to shoot 24/7 .. now I have it I'd be loath to give that feature away. It started with the FZ30 and saves all the messing with adaptor tubes that so many cameras are cursed with their fragile collapsing lens :-)</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Panny fz100 looks interesting. Why? Because it takes 11 frames a second.<br>

5 frames shot at At base ISO and put together can make a nice image, without blown skies or blocked shadows.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Anurag, I follow the FZ series because we like our FZ18. The FZ100 is certainly feature packed, but it has a CMOS sensor. This accounts for its high speed, but CMOS has not yet reached CCD quality when pixels are densely packed. CMOS is more than good enough for DSLR, but in small sensor cameras, so far equivalent models show worse quality. For example, the Canon SX1 was worse than the Canon SX10 so Canon abandoned the experiment. The FZ100 is worse than the FZ40, which is almost the same camera with CCD sensor. However Panasonic has made progress with postprocessing and the gap is not as wide as with the Canon SX. You can see that FZ100 images have a lot of noise reduction and sharpening. I would not buy an FZ100: it seems too unpredictable at the pixel level.

 

Lots of P&S cameras now have in-body automatic HDR, especially ones based on CMOS. My favorite model based on the Sony Exmor is the Casio FH100, although the Fuji HS10 has a better lens.

 

Currently the best answer to dynamic range is something like EXR, but Fuji seems to be wandering in the wilderness, so I doubt it will ever come to anything. Meanwhile I love my F200EXR. Fuji and Sony are partnering for the next iteration of EXR, but in a high-end camera, so production volume will be miniscule.

[MTC Photography]

<p>I bought a FZ40 from bhphoto for $299. At iAUTO mode, the tele extends up to 32x or<br>

800mm equiv. <br>

Some test shots at wide /tele at<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=998917">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=998917</a><br>

FZ40 now replaces my FZ30 which has a 400mm equiv zoom, not quite enough for my<br>

architecture detail study photos such as the bracket structure , roof top figures of far eastern architeture. The effectiveness of FZ40's stabilzer suits my need.<br>

I undersstand the naturally poorer quality of FZ at low light situation, hence I also bring a<br>

Canon 5D mark II along for low light photos and ultra wide angle photos. <br>

Although I have also 180mm and 400mm telephoto lenses for it, but they are too heavy for going up mountains, I use the FZ40 instead for tele</p>