Need Recommendation: Digital SLR or ???

Kits/Ritz camera has the same price for the D50 kit. Camera alone is $550 .

Panasonic DMC-FZ7K appear to be available!

http://www.bizrate.com/digitalcameras/pid408937709/compareprices.html

Big Dog said:

Panasonic DMC-FZ7K appear to be available!

Click to expand...

Yup, I've been watching them come down in priced for the past week or two. Ebay had a bunch of them them early last week for roughly $429 +s/h. Last Sunday's sale pages had an advertisement from Circuit City or Best Buy (can't remember which it was) that had the older FZ5 "on sale" for $429. I played with an FZ5 and really liked it, but I want the added features and lower price of the newer FZ7. Beach Camera, a mail order operation out of New Jersey that I've purchased video equipement from in the past, had the FZ7 at $344.

I don't need the camera until the spring sports season for my daughter starts to get active. I figure I have another month before I need to buy. That gives me the opportunity to shop the price a little longer. I know what I want, the question is what will I have to pay.

I have a Nikon D50 SLR and it is very nice and a great value in this class of digicams.

Go here to see photos I took with it (hockey action shots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pryor-place/http://www.flickr.com/

Note: Look in the addtional info (bottom right) of each photo to see if I used the D50 to take it, because I also have a Canon A75.

Ricochet said:

I have a Nikon D50 SLR and it is very nice and a great value in this class of digicams.

Go here to see photos I took with it (hockey action shots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pryor-place/

Note: Look in the addtional info (bottom right) of each photo to see if I used the D50 to take it, because I also have a Canon A75.

Click to expand...

The Nikon does a nice job!

I couldn't find your Canon A75 pictures to compare to the Nikon. (Canon's picture numbers should start with 'IMG--') Can you point out some sets from the A75?

How do the results from these two cameras compare for making web-size pictures?

I bought an A75 in 2004 for tourist travel. Its unobtrusive in use, and easy to get it out of sight quickly when necessary.

Market day - Otavalo, Ecuador

It looks like that pretty young Senorita is asking her man to explain once again why he came in really late last night.

Bob,

Panasonic is about to release another new model, the Travel Zoom 1. It's 10 x zoom in a pocketable size, Leica optics, $350.

Description and pre-release sample pictures

DMC-TZ1 Specs in English

dpreview.com - discussion and speculation (search on 'TZ1')

I intend to get one as soon as they are available, apparently mid-March.

Over 6500 pix on the Canon A75 in 16 months and I've worn the paint off the corners - its time to give it to younger daughter, and upgrade!

California said:

The Nikon does a nice job!

I couldn't find your Canon A75 pictures to compare to the Nikon. (Canon's picture numbers should start with 'IMG--') Can you point out some sets from the A75?

How do the results from these two cameras compare for making web-size pictures?

I bought an A75 in 2004 for tourist travel. Its unobtrusive in use, and easy to get it out of sight quickly when necessary.

Market day - Otavalo, Ecuador

Click to expand...

Red Wings @ The Joe photo set was taken with the A75. I wish I had the D50, but like you mentioned the A75 is more portable.

The A75 is more or less my son's digicam now but he is too young to enjoy it and the A75 makes little video clips (if needed).

Ricochet said:

I have a Nikon D50 SLR and it is very nice and a great value in this class of digicams.

Go here to see photos I took with it (hockey action shots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pryor-place/

Note: Look in the addtional info (bottom right) of each photo to see if I used the D50 to take it, because I also have a Canon A75.

Click to expand...

Ricochet,

I would say I agree with you. I was all set on either a D70 or a Canon 20D. In the end, I have bought a D50 (minus the kit lens). Sure it does not have the quality at 1600 ISO+ as the Canon but then again you can buy two and a half D50s for the price of a D20. With the money saved over the competition, applied that money to nice lens instead. Which is how it should be.. Lens are the part where you should be putting your money into. A great lens will last you a very long time.. A great DSLR is not so great a few years down the road. With the same or slightly better performance then the D70, the D50 is hard to pass up at $500.

Read this review from Ken Rockwell.. who is known for being very hard to impress in his other reviews.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d50.htm

I was avoiding Nikon a few months ago because their lens are more money then the Canon lens. After more research, I decided that the lens I was considering will mostly NOT be made by Nikon and ones that were made by Nikon seem better build then the Canon lens. So it was no longer an issue for me. After much research, it is clear the D50 was a clear winner for me. I know a lot of people who have bought the D70 are now selling them because the D50 has canibalized the D70 value through the cost/performance equation. Many are upgrading to the D200 now.

I got a $400 lens to go along with my $500 D50. Feeling much better about my decision now, knowing I was able to put more money into the lens and not break the budget. My father in law is a professional "film" photographer. After using my camera for a week, on loan from me, he was so impressed that he went out and bought one too. Hasn't shot film since he got his own D50.
The capabilities you get with RAW file manipulation blew him away.

Ricochet said:

I have a Nikon D50 SLR and it is very nice and a great value in this class of digicams.

Go here to see photos I took with it (hockey action shots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pryor-place/

Note: Look in the addtional info (bottom right) of each photo to see if I used the D50 to take it, because I also have a Canon A75.

Click to expand...

Ricocet,

what Lens did you get with the D50? Try changing the D50 into shooting Mode 1a (realistic color, D70 default) photos from the D50 default Mode III (landscape/vivid)? Photos will be less "punchy" but you might appreciate the colors being more true. Call me weird but I like to turn most of the in-camera "post processing" off. I can always manipulate it later in Photoshop. Then again, I shot RAW so it goes it doesn't matter, I can always change it on the fly if need be.

some pretty fun stuff.. find a photo of a portrait of person you have taken a picture of (subjet looking into the camera) without the flash. Zoom up on to their eyeball. Most of the time you can see yourself taking the picture... ;-)

OregonAlex said:

Ricocet,

what Lens did you get with the D50? Try changing the D50 into shooting Mode 1a (realistic color, D70 default) photos from the D50 default Mode III (landscape/vivid)? Photos will be less "punchy" but you might appreciate the colors being more true. Call me weird but I like to turn most of the in-camera "post processing" off. I can always manipulate it later in Photoshop. Then again, I shot RAW so it goes it doesn't matter, I can always change it on the fly if need be.

some pretty fun stuff.. find a photo of a portrait of person you have taken a picture of (subjet looking into the camera) without the flash. Zoom up on to their eyeball. Most of the time you can see yourself taking the picture... ;-)

Click to expand...

I just have the standard 80mm Nikon lens and borrowed a friend's 200mm Tamron (I think) for my photos of the Thrashers vs. Pens game. He has a 35mm Nikon film camera with a few nice auto focus lens that work with the SLR’s as well. I will probably get a Tamron 200-300mm sooner or later...good value and good enough quality for me. I will be at RIR for the NASCAR races in May and want a telephoto style lens for the race action...plus any future hockey games or my son's soccer games.

BTW, I'll try some different modes and I suck at Photoshop...I just haven't taken the time to learn it.

Tamrom has made some really good higher end lens, but you kind of need to check the reviews first. I have two Tamron lens myself. 28-75mm/f2.8 (throughout) and a 19-35mm/f3.5-4.5.

check out

www.fredmiranda.com to see what people say about various lens.

If your friend had a prime 200mm (a fixed, non zoom lens) it will give most likely give you much better performance then a zoom lens would at 200mm.


what kind of Tamrom 200mm was it?? a fixed telephoto or zoom?


Anyhow.. from what I hear an inexpensive lens above 200mm is pretty much unusable. If you want a decent zoom lens for an affordable price I suggest you keep it below 200mm. The new Nikon 55-200mm/f4-5.6G DX lens is supposed to be a great performer for the money. It is around $150 at www.thecamerabox.com. $250+ at your local camera shop. I tried out this lens at the local camera shop and although it felt really cheaply made, it did seem to produce good quality shots. Note very useable however indoors.. (w/ tripod) fine for outdoor shots.

For a review.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm

Another one is the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6G. For about $99. Also at www.thecamerabox.com Ken Rockwell seems to like this lens over the 55-200mm.. but I don't know .. seems pretty much unusable at above 200 anyways.. so I don't see the point. dunno.. that's a head scratcher.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=+1][/size][/font]

herer is a thread I found on D50s, zoom lens and the Panasonics. Interesting.


http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=82849&forum_id=66&jump_to=467548

OregonAlex said:

herer is a thread I found on D50s, zoom lens and the Panasonics. Interesting.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=82849&forum_id=66&jump_to=467548

Click to expand...

I got as far as "Just ordered the body only for £320" and "£450 for a 18-200 vr lens" "next up id like some zoom to replace what im loosing from using my [Panasonic] fz5..."

That's a different market than my emphasis on a small travel camera. No way would I whip that thing out while I'm jammed into a crowd of strangers!

Hong Kong, November 2004. I'm not happy with the blown sharpness, but the pic documents an unforgettable visit.

California, I agree with you about the size issue. Bigger is not better. My biggest concern is that the camera is going to be too large to carry around. I actually played with a Nikon D50 today at a store, compared it to a Canon Rebel and Canon S2 and liked the size of the smaller Canon S2 far better. Kodak had a nice size camera, but its not in consideration, don't even recall the designation of it. I'm pretty set on the Lumix DMC FZ7. Its rougly the size of the Canon S2, not ideal, but it is the best compromise of quality, features, and size for my needs. I'd still prefer a pocket camera but I can't get the fast follow up shots or optical zoom that I want for action shots. I'm not giving up my cigarette pack size Canon S500, but I do need more for documenting my daughter's sporting events.

OregonAlex said:

Tamrom has made some really good higher end lens, but you kind of need to check the reviews first. I have two Tamron lens myself. 28-75mm/f2.8 (throughout) and a 19-35mm/f3.5-4.5.

check out

www.fredmiranda.com to see what people say about various lens.

If your friend had a prime 200mm (a fixed, non zoom lens) it will give most likely give you much better performance then a zoom lens would at 200mm.


what kind of Tamrom 200mm was it?? a fixed telephoto or zoom?


Anyhow.. from what I hear an inexpensive lens above 200mm is pretty much unusable. If you want a decent zoom lens for an affordable price I suggest you keep it below 200mm. The new Nikon 55-200mm/f4-5.6G DX lens is supposed to be a great performer for the money. It is around $150 at www.thecamerabox.com. $250+ at your local camera shop. I tried out this lens at the local camera shop and although it felt really cheaply made, it did seem to produce good quality shots. Note very useable however indoors.. (w/ tripod) fine for outdoor shots.

For a review.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm

Another one is the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6G. For about $99. Also at www.thecamerabox.com Ken Rockwell seems to like this lens over the 55-200mm.. but I don't know .. seems pretty much unusable at above 200 anyways.. so I don't see the point. dunno.. that's a head scratcher.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

Click to expand...

My friend's lens was a zoom. I didn't realize there was a difference between a zoom and telephoto, but I see know. Thanks for the links and info! It also sounds like this is good lens: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm I bet I can find one on eBay, if not I will go for the 70-300mm. I thought the Nikon lens were more expensive than that...that's why I was eye'ing the Tamrom. Also, my standard Nikkor lens is a 28-80mm.

BTW, here are my pics from Japan last May/June:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pryor-place/sets/385448/



I hope to go on biz trip to China, S. Korea and Taiwan next month.

Ricochet said:

My friend's lens was a zoom. I didn't realize there was a difference between a zoom and telephoto, but I see know. Thanks for the links and info! It also sounds like this is good lens: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm I bet I can find one on eBay, if not I will go for the 70-300mm. I thought the Nikon lens were more expensive than that...that's why I was eye'ing the Tamrom. Also, my standard Nikkor lens is a 28-80mm.

Click to expand...

unfortunatley, the Nikon 70-210 D has increased in demand. Used price on eBay is around $350!!! People are nuts. Dont confuse this with a 70-210 (without the "D") which is NOT the same lens and much less expensive (about $150).

Another lens to consider is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Make sure it says APO, again without the APO it is half price.

neat little focal length comparision web page.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focalflash.swf

Panasonic FZ7 Review has arrrived at dpreview.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ7

We had our first official snow day today... been driving all winter long with studded tires and the week after I take them off it snows. Had 7" up here.
Murphy's law.. right?

Anyhow.. here is one I took today. Having a little fun with a shallow depth of field in order make the snow flakes show up. Taken with a D50 at 75mm/f2.8.

kind of hard to get stuff to look good and only take 100kb.. but we shall see what happens.

Doc,

whats the max file size allowed for posting?? size and resolution.
Thanks

OregonAlex said:

whats the max file size allowed for posting?? size and resolution.
Thanks

Click to expand...

In the threads, a JPEG file limit is right about 190kb or 195kb. There is a pixel limit size too, I think it is 1000 tall by 700 wide?

But in the photo gallery you can easily go over 1MB, not sure what the upper limit in the photo gallery is, but I suspect it is right around 2MB

By the way, what do you think about the "noise" issue in the dpreview of the Lumix? I don't know that I would have much cause to shoot over 100ASA equivalent most of the time, but I'm sure there will be times when I would push it up to 200 or 400. Bear in mind, 98.9% of my prints are 4x6.

Thoughts?

B_Skurka said:

By the way, what do you think about the "noise" issue in the dpreview of the Lumix? I don't know that I would have much cause to shoot over 100ASA equivalent most of the time, but I'm sure there will be times when I would push it up to 200 or 400. Bear in mind, 98.9% of my prints are 4x6.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Bob,

I think that would be your call. I think Panasonic is counting on the image stabilization helping with that. As they will try to lower the shutter speed in order to keep you in the lowest ISO possible. However, obviously that will do the opposite of what you want if you are shotting action. i would recommend that you bring along your own SD card to the store and take a few sample shots with the FZ5 (which actually has less noise compared to the FZ7). Take a few shots in Auto mode of the inside of the store..without the flash going off (if that is even possible). Then switch it into shutter priority mode.. zoom all the way to 12x. And take more pictures at various shutter speeds. Note you will need between 1/250-1/500 to prevent your subject from being blurred. I say zoom in all the way because that way you can test camera stability system. Keep it mind you are telling it to keep the shutter speed up. So I am curious what it will do to the stability. I am guessing it will turn it off and shake will be very noticable. Then go home, and take a look at the photos. Crop the photos as you normally think you would.. Then print out the photos on 4x6 and see if you feel the noise is tolerable. I am very interested in your opinion of this camera. A mid $300 camera with the type of zoom it has is very attractive. It would definately make a good camera for taking outdoor landscape photos. I would be just a little concerned about its ability to take photos indoors and of action zoomed all the way in (12x).

California said:

Panasonic is about to release another new model, the Travel Zoom 1. [Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1] It's 10 x zoom in a pocketable size, Leica optics, $350.

Click to expand...

Followup - I got one, and I love it. Now if I just had some photographer's light. Weeks of rain and overcast, and more coming.

I took this when we had a brief moment of sunlight. The flower is actually the diameter of a quarter. Whole frame (reduced) and crop (original size) of same 10x zoom photo.

California . . . how many frames per second can you shoot? One think I like about the SLR type cameras (Lumix FX7, Canon S1, etc) is that you can shoot 2 or 3 frames per second while most pocket cameras do not allow for that. Given that my daughter is in some sports, that is a feature I really want to get with the next camera. I do like the size/form factor of this little Panasonic, it is certainly would be much easier to tote around!!!

Very good question Bob. That issue alone has me thinking of upgrading my digital camera. With flash on mine takes 10 seconds or more to recover. It seems like forever when waiting to shoot the next pic.

CA please post frames per second with and without flash.
Thanks!

California said:

Followup - I got one, and I love it. Now if I just had some photographer's light. Weeks of rain and overcast, and more coming.

Click to expand...

Overcast is great lighting ... no harsh shadows to deal with.

The following is from the manual - I haven't experimented with burst other than EV bracket.

Movie mode: 30 fps @ vga 640 x 480 or wide-screen 848 x 480. Autofocus and zoom operate during filming. No flash. Requires a high speed SD card.

Burst:
Unlimited mode: 2 fps approximate, no flash, continuous until SD card filled. Focus is set by the first frame.
Or: 3fps x 3 frames (hi-res) or 5 frames (std res), slower if flash is used, flash cannot be enabled above ISO 200.

This is a pocket camera with a tiny battery. Flash recovery seems to take a second or two. The flash is only strong enough to use in your living room, not for a wedding reception or sports photography.

Sample photos: See Doug Lerner's posts at:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18184
His posts in about the first week of April illustrate the TZ1's capabilities better than Panasonic's own sites.

Also: Endless discussion of Panasonics, search on TZ1:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033

Here's a dpreview.com thread started by an enthusiastic new owner. His TZ1 is better than his FZ15, he says.

A second new owner posts, agreeing.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=17978311

California said:

Burst:
Focus is set by the first frame.

Click to expand...

This is not good for sports photography. If the focus is set and your athlete is moving, anything after the first shot will be out of focus.