Expensive (Canon?!) SLRs versus old lumix bridge?!

[The Black Rabbit]

Got quite a nice shot of a Robin yesterday (with flash - 'twas dark under that Hawthorn bush you know...).
I am of the opinion that the old Panasonic Lumix DMC fZ20 (no teleconverter) more than holds its own, CERTAINLY when you take into account price of kit, if nothing else....


Please click on thumbnail and then the image to see it in its original, sharpest size.


Would be interested to hear what others think?

TBR.

[Tobyh]

Well, not experienced enough to get into the kit debate but....I do like your shot, I'd be well pleased with that!

TobyH

[richardkm]

Lovely photo. Your camera has an excellent lens made by Leica I believe, which is the most important thing for getting good sharp images.

have a look at these two, taken with a Canon 400D plus 100-400 IS lens. The day was extremely dull and both were taken at 800 ISO and no flash.

[The Black Rabbit]

Thanks for your comments so far!

Here's another Panasonic bridge shot for comparison with shots taken by much more expensive setups (10X more expensive sometimes)...

Please click on the thumbnail and then the image to get it as sharp as the original.



TBR

[HowlinWolf]

Originally Posted by
I am of the opinion that the old Panasonic Lumix DMC fZ20 (no teleconverter) [U

more than holds its own[/u], CERTAINLY when you take into account price of kit, if nothing else....

Would be interested to hear what others think?

TBR.

The notion that bridge cameras can be directly compared to professional specification DSLR's might be be likened to a Ferrari and a Ford Ka: both cars will get you down to the shops with similar performance; It's on the motorway that the Ferrari will begin to show its class.

The point made about the Leica lens can also be misleading. It's only when you fork out something like £1800 for a Leica Apo-Summicron M 90mm f/2 lens that you begin to get the best from this company.

HW

HW

[Ukwildlifeo]

In resonable conditions my fz7 has pulled off some pretty good shots. Plus its far more portable than a DSLR with 400mm lens!

The macro lens ain't half bad either!

[colincurry]

TBR

I like your pictures very much.

After a lot of research, I bought an FZ20 and then went for the FZ30 that I still have - along with an Olympus TCon 14 tc. I have in the past got some very good shots with both Pannies.

I then started going out with Cordlessdave (a neighbour, friend and fellow-WABer) who at that time had a Canon 20D and 300f4 L IS USM. We were largely looking for kingfishers in the early morning and across the other side of the river. This was very much a stretch for the FZ30. Generally speaking, he was able to get what I considered to be better shots in a wider range of conditions than I could. Close up and in good light the FZ30 compared very favourably.


Without knocking the FZ20/30 in any way, I decided that I wanted to be more ambitious and adventurous in what I was trying to photograph. After much humming and harring, I went for a Canon 30D and 100-400. This cost me around 5 times the price of the FZ30 but I have no regrets. I do consider that I can achieve better results overall. I then began to use the FZ30 mainly as a walk-around camera or for macro using a Raynox DCR150. I also take it along as reserve when I am away from home.

This is a very personal choice.

Since then, I have bought a second hand Tamron 28-75 as a portrait and walk-around lens to use with the 30D.

From a macro point of view, I am seriously looking at a Sigma 150. This whole thing becomes addictive - the more you have, the more you want - the higher you consider your kit's capactity and capability, the more you want to improve it.

From the high standard of your pictures above, clearly you are getting the best out of your camera - and all power to your elbow. It's a matter of horses for courses.

Best

Colin

[Fourwings]

I know exactly what you are saying Doug and in certain circumstances bridge cameras can produce results equal to those of a DSLR, the main difference is that DSLR's are infinately far more adaptable to a huge range of shooting conditions, plus you can change the lens to suit the subject.
Just as an example, check these two images out, one was taken with a Fuji S7000 bridge camera and the other was taken with a Canon DSLR, without looking at the camera data on the image could you tell which was taken with which camera?

[richardkm]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

The point made about the Leica lens can also be misleading. It's only when you fork out something like £1800 for a Leica Apo-Summicron M 90mm f/2 lens that you begin to get the best from this company.

I think you're being a bit unkind to Leica here. The Leica lens on this camera is certainly of higher quality than many that are fitted to fixed-lens digital cameras and I think the pictures prove it!

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Fourwings

I know exactly what you are saying Doug and in certain circumstances bridge cameras can produce results equal to those of a DSLR, the main difference is that DSLR's are infinately far more adaptable to a huge range of shooting conditions, plus you can change the lens to suit the subject.
Just as an example, check these two images out, one was taken with a Fuji S7000 bridge camera and the other was taken with a Canon DSLR, without looking at the camera data on the image could you tell which was taken with which camera?

Steve
I genuinely have not checked any data so I would imagine the top image was taken with the SLR. It is certainly a better image though I would say both are excellent. The lighting plays a big part and I think this is also a contributory factor in these two shots
Jon