File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I'm looking to buy a superzoom (I think that's what these are called) digital camera. So far, I'm really looking at the Panasonic FZ50 and the DSC-H9 from Sony. The FZ50 is 10 MP (as opposed to the H9's 8MP) and has widescreen movie taking capability which I like, but the H9 has 15X optical zoom (versus 12X), a larger LCD (3 inches vs. 2 inches), Nightshot capability (which is a nifty gimmick I suppose) and I already have a 4GB memory stick pro duo for my PSP....

So...which one of these is the better buy? They cost the same on amazon. Is there something else I should also be considering?

Pic is of the Sony DSC-H9
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
yes. you should be considering an SLR. my dad gave me his old film SLR when i visited him in florida and now every time i pull out my point and shoot superzoom (canon s3 IS) i am disgusted. i feel like i bought a child's toy.
>> Anonymous
Signed for the DSLR (though it will cost you a lot to get that zoom range in a DSLR) (Say a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 AF-s VR would run you about $1500)

Also anything over 8MP is overkill, trust me the difference will just amplify the noise, so Get the Sony if you are adamant on it.
>> Anonymous
Slim-

The S3IS, like most cameras of its type, is actually a very good photographic instrument.

It's only real flaws are the lack of RAW, high noise at ISO 800, the lack of a hotshoe, and only having one lens.

The latter is compensated for by the fact that its lens covers ground it would take at least three lenses to cover on a camera with interchangeable lenses, all of which would be very expensive with the image stabilization.

Even if just for reasons of practicality of digital over film, I'd take an S3IS as my main shooting camera over a film SLR any day.

Something people need to realize is that an SLR is not automatically a better camera than a point-and-shoot. They take interchangeable lenses and tend to do better with noise and resolution. Otherwise, it all depends on what application one is putting them towards. Point and shoots are much better than SLRs for, for instance, street photography. They have, by design, more depth of field, making it easier to prefocus. They are less noticable, both visually and auditorily.

There are definately cameras that are child's toys. Cameras like superzooms, the Canon G series and similar cameras by other manufacturers, and the Ricoh GR Digital are not.
>> Anonymous
>>45804
Go with the Panasonic, for several reasons:

1. A larger back screen doesn't really matter. You will use the electronic viewfinder for 90% of the shooting you will do. Generally, a larger back screen just means one more likely to be broken.

2. 12x zoom will almost always be more than enough. There is (I think) a telephoto convertor you can buy for the Panasonic if you happen to have to do a lot of shooting beyond that length. You won't. 420mm equivalent lens is more than enough for almost all applications.

3. It shoots RAW and the Sony does not. This settles it, absolutely. If you're looking at the Sony for its smaller size, get the smaller version of the Panasonic FZ-50, the FZ-8. It shoots RAW as well.

4. It has lens controls like the lens on an SLR, with rings that twist on the lens. The Sony has one of those little toggle things.

5. It does not have a flash hot shoe.

6. Even though you might already have Sony storage, you will want to use the SD card system, if for no other reason than that they're the standard and (I think) they are smaller.

The only real advantages I see for the Sony are a wider angle lens and a smaller size.
>> Anonymous
>>45819
> Something people need to realize is that an SLR is not automatically a better camera than a point-and-shoot.
Yes it is. The questions are: "Can you afford it?" and "Do you need it?".
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>45830

I think that should be rephrased to 'An SLR will not make you a better photographer and will not mean "BETTER" photos.

I use the qualitative word BETTER with tongue in cheek here of course.

I would also recommend the FZ50 and ignore alot of the GET SLR NOW!!! Whilst there certainly is a great quality to SLRs and their image processing is unmatched by P&S at large prints, it's obviously not what you need in this case.

MY GF just bought a FZ50 and she's VERY VERY happy with it, she had originally wanted an SLR but her needs for a camera were essentially 'Macro photography, landscape and SLR like features'

And the FZ50 has all of that including Video like you said.

As mentioned the Zoom factor is not really a selling point, i havent tested the Sony's 15x range but if it's anything like Olympus... it'll be crap at the long end.

The Raw feature is really attractive for night shots and if you like a bit of post processing.

The flash hot shoe is great as the inbult flash tends to cast a shadow if shooting with the lens bayonet hood.

The LCD is only 2 inches. BUT it's a Swivel making some difficult angles possible.

It has the front and rear dials like my D70s for manual control of aperture and shutter speed.

I bought my gf a wide converter, which just attaches to the lens and turns it from a 35mm to an 24mm, only cost 100 bucks extra.

In other words, to get a great macro, telephoto setup on an SLR would cost you in the thousands, with the FZ50 it'll be about 700 US dollars.
>> Anonymous
>>45830
SLRs have more features and tend to have less image noise and better resolution. The SLR mechanism itself has advantages (optical TTL view) and disadvantages (weight, the loud clank of the mirror, and the vibration caused by the mirror).

Point and shoots are quieter, more compact, and have a greater depth of field. The Electronic Viewfinder mechanism itself has some advantages (one can see the exposure in advance) and some disadvantages (a little bit of lag, less sharp but sharp enough for anything I've ever done with one).
>> Anonymous
OP here. I just came back from Best Buy where I played around with a few cameras for a few minutes. I got a chance to see the DSC-H9 in person and the two things I got out of my hands on experience are a) the LCD is very nice and b) it seemed very uncomfortable. The XTi for example rested really nicely in my hands, but the Sony just didn't feel right. Perhaps it's too small or the design isn't the most intuitive or what, but I dunno...it didn't rest nicely in my hands (perhaps that security "baton" at the bottom had something to do with it, I dunno).

Unfortunately they didn't have the FZ50 in store. I need to find some place that has it, so I can test it out.

And yes, I actually would really like an SLR but it's way too expensive. I hear that an SLR is useless if you're not going to buy additional lenses and those are way too pricy. Both of the cameras I'm looking at right now are $480.
>> Anonymous
>>45836
If the camera doesn't feel right in your hands, do not buy it, no matter what features or whatever it has.

The single most important thing in a camera, once one gets past junk cameras with plastic lenses and a single megapixel and so on, is that it is comfortable for the photographer that will be using it.
>> Anonymous
OP again. So after looking around, neither Circuit City, Best Buy or Compusa carries the FZ50 in their stores (although they are available online). What are some camera stores (chains?) out there that would have it on display? I live in a big city, so I think we have everything here.
>> Anonymous
>>45862
Go to an actual photographic store. They're the most likely to carry anything.

If they don't have the FZ-50, ask if they have the Leica V-Lux 1. It's basically the same camera, with a few differences; Panasonic and Leica collaborated in the design of the camera. I don't think any modifications have been made to the casing. I don't know for sure, though.

And if they don't have that, order it from somewhere with a good return policy. Try shooting with it for a week or two. If you like it, then keep it, if not, send it back.
>> Anonymous
The big lcd isn't a advantage as you'll be using the electronic viewfinder exclusively in no time at all.

I've tried both cameras and they are both very nice. However, i feel the panasonic is the better buy. The control scheme of the FZ-50 is far superior to the DSC-H9. SD cards are dirt cheap compared to the Memory Sticks. THe manual focus ring is fantastic. The camera feels alot more balenced in hand.

ALSO.

THe sony can only shoot at 2.2fps at max resolution. THe panasonic does 1fps! This is very important. However you can drop the megapixel for better continuous shooting.

These reasons coupled with RAW shooting means the FZ-50 is a better choice for most applications. That zoom difference can be partially compensated with the extra megapixels anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>45895
Wait...wouldn't more frames per second = better? Forgive my ignorance since I know next to nothing about photography.
>> Anonymous
>>45896
No, you're right.
>> Anonymous
>>45897
Yeah, ok, it's just that post>>45895made it sound like the Panasonic wins in that aspect.

So basically, saying that, for example, the Sony can shoot 2.2 frames per second means that in essence, I can push the button twice in one second for 2 separate shots, right? (not talking about burst mode)
>> Anonymous
>>45899
No, you would hold down the shutter. also a thing to look out for is the proprietary battery packs. IMO, i think its just a hassle. Having 4AA slots on my camera just suits me better.
>> Anonymous
>>45900
Yeah, I think both of these come with their own battery packs, but personally I don't think it will be a problem.

BTW what stat says how long the camera makes you wait between separate shutter presses?
>> Anonymous
>>45909
Shutter lag.

If the FZ-50 is anything like the FZ-8, it won't be a problem.