File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/P/, I've been shooting with and S3IS for awhile and found it near-perfect, especially just in its physical interface as being remarkably good.

Then it got stolen. I've just heard about a similar camera, the Panasonic DMC-FZ8. It has RAW capture, more megapixels, a Leica lens, more ISO settings and more aspect ratio settings.

On the other hand, I've heard the Panasonics with Leica lenses aren't so sharp somehow, and I'm not sure if I want to give up the S3IS's user interface for something involving a joystick, without trying it out first.

Is what I've heard about Panasonic-Leica cameras true, and is the joystick good or bad? Are there any other reasons to choose one over the other?

Pic related, as it is the Panasonic in question.
>> Anonymous
For a second there, i thought I was looking at the DMC-L1.then i saw that it wasnt.
>> Anonymous
>>41851
The DMC-FZ8 has a fully-zoomed-in maximum aperture of f/3.1; the S3Is has a fully-zoomed-in maximum aperture of f/3.5.

I forgot to mention that. Has anyone shot with this camera? It's the ergonomics (it has some joystick thing) I'm particuarly concerned about, especially relative to the S3IS's.
>> Anonymous
>>41856
Oh, and I just went and read up some.

Apparently, it has some sort of anti-noise software in the camera that ruins the photographs at ISO 400. Does the camera apply this on RAW and JPEG, or just JPEG?
>> Anonymous
I was planning on getting an FZ8, and then read reviews where they said that the camera is really bad in low light, and really at any ISO setting higher than 200 or so. I ended up getting the Fujifilm s6000fd, as it was nicer, and has a $50 rebate right now.
>> Anonymous
i've got a FZ-50 which is the closest thing to an DSLR without being one. I tried the FZ8 too, but i wanted more manual controls.

The built in noise reduction is a bit crap, but you can simply turn it off. Use Software to get rid of noise instead.

The Canon S3 isn't exactly a great performer either in HIGH ISO, that's an issue that exists for every point and shoot on there that wants to cram more than 6 megapixels onto a tiny sensor.

The Leica lens is great and the 12x zoom is superb by P&S standards.

I've got Nikon Digi and Film SLRs so it took me a while to get use to the fact that these camera had lower quality, but that's what they are, they are not DSLRs.

at the wide end, the Leica has f/2.8 pretty damn good i think.
>> Anonymous
>>41938
>The built in noise reduction is a bit crap, but you can simply turn it off. Use Software to get rid of noise instead.

I've heard from different sources you can and you can't turn off the noise reduction in an FZ8. True/False, /p/? Also, is the noise reduction applied to its raw mode, or not?

>The Canon S3 isn't exactly a great performer either in HIGH ISO
Right, shooting at ISO 800 with it almost always involved noise removal afterwards and extreme care not to underexpose.

The problem I've heard with the FZ8 is not noise, but that the noise reduction ruins all sharpness in the photograph.
>> Anonymous
>>41995

Leave noise reduction on 'LOW' and you'll be fine, it wont be intrusive that way.

The Lumix actually has a really good RAW system and it includes a decent raw converter, though i still prefer raw shooter premium.

I'd prefer to use in RAW and it usually means getting a better photo than the inbuilt camera compression can give me as a jpeg.

I'd recommend checking out afew of the test shots of the FZ 8 on dpreview.com, you'll be able to see the comparisons fairly clearly against the S3 too.

... i'll post some photos from the FZ 50 if you like, since they wont be that different.
>> Anonymous
>>42015
Does noise reduction run in RAW mode at all?

I think the dpreview.com photographs are JPEGs.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>42019

No :), otherwise it'd ruin the purpose of 'RAW'.

Lord i hope i'm right about that actually.
>> Dale
I would be more wanting to go for a low end D-SLR like the Pentax K100 or something like that.

Unless you want to splurge, and get a Canon EOS 1Ds mark 2 ;)

D-SLR's have generally less noise at higher ISO ratings, and have the ability to change lenses.

Also, take a look at http://www.dpreview.com it has great reviews on lots of cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>42094
I looked at the Pentax SLRs, and was about to buy one (image stabilized, smaller than other SLRs, etc.) when I found its lowest ISO setting is 200. That's begging for overexposure during daylight in the outdoors.

Plus, I like electronic viewfinders betters than SLR mechanisms; the ability to see a TTL view of how the photograph will expose on a screen in the viewfinder is as much of a gain over an SLR as an SLR's plain TTL view is over a simple glass tunnel through the camera. Plus, given two cameras otherwise identical, an electronic viewfinder camera would be smaller than an SLR, which is important for some types of photography.

Now, the ideal would be a camera that had all the features of an SLR- including interchangeable lenses- but with an electronic viewfinder. I honestly have no clue why no one has come out with something like that yet. I'd buy it instantly, provided I could afford it.
>> Anonymous
>>42133
because the reason you want to see straight through the lens instead of something electronic is the lag between whats happening and what you see.
>> Anonymous
>>42133
Also Olympus has a live LCD feature, and so does the newest Canon Mark III.

But IMO they are useless, On a DSLR You can take pictures and adjust the Exposure compensation if you feel the camera did a bad job. (Just as fast as looking at an LCD and then deciding if it looks good)

And for time sensitive pictures, the SLR style is always better, Only problem is when you can't look through the Viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
>>42136
I realize that, but most electronic viewfinder cameras are small enough where one can keep one eye in the viewfinder and one eye on the scene. It's not exactly the same as seeing exactly when an object enters the frame, but it's close enough. I did it all the time with the S3IS.

>>42141
Those LCDs are on the back of the camera, and shooting with a screen on the back of a camera is by no means something I want to do. It just feels damned unnatural.

>On a DSLR You can take pictures and adjust the Exposure compensation if you feel the camera did a bad job.

That works for taking photographs of buildings, landscapes, and other static objects. That won't work for taking candid shots of people or other moving things.

The only times I have used the screen on the back of the S3IS for shooting was (since it rotates) the times I was taking pictures of myself, and when I had to shoot from the hip. Since the screens on the back of those cameras don't rotate, it wouldn't work for those purposes.
>> Anonymous
>>42152
Ah, damn. That last paragraph should go before the green text, not at the end.