 | | |
19-03-2006, 9:26 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hitchin
Posts: 544
Thanks: Gave 83, Got 36 | Best Ulktra Zoom Camera - Sony, Panasonic or other?
At the moment I have a HP Photosmart R817 which is a nice little camera but I have no decided that being able to 'fit in my pocket' is not the top priority - I'd much rather have a digital camera with a decent optical zoom.
The two I have thought about are the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H1 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5. I was wondering what people thought was the better camera or if there are any others that are better than the both? These are 12x Optical Zoom cameras and are around the £250ish mark.
EDIT: add in the Canon PowerShot S2 and also the Panasonic FZ7 - though that's more expensive, I think!
many thanks
Last edited by mutamist; 19-03-2006 at 11:20 AM.
|
| |
19-03-2006, 4:32 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Plymouth
Posts: 140
Thanks: Gave 0, Got 5 |
I think the best Prosumer with regards to optical zoom has almost certainly got to be the 8 megapixel Samsung Pro815. It has an unprecedented X15 OPTICAL zoom.
Personally, however, I use a Fuji Finepix S5500 (10x) with a telephoto additon (1.5x) which combine to give me a similar performance, but with more glass. The Samsung is somewhat more expensive, though.
Last edited by FeiJi Fancier; 19-03-2006 at 4:58 PM.
|
| |
19-03-2006, 4:35 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bromley
Posts: 1,990
Thanks: Gave 32, Got 145 |
that doesnt in anyway make it the best ultra zoom camera
|
| |
19-03-2006, 5:04 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Plymouth
Posts: 140
Thanks: Gave 0, Got 5 |
Well, as that's always going to be a subjective issue, my point is that both are worth considering.
There's no such thing as "best" anything - because a horse for one course maybe a donkey for another (of course, you may prefer a donkey - it's steady, and carries a heavy weight - although stubborn).
However, having read my reply, I take your point - I did say "best" - I take that back - I should have said that "worth considering is".
|
| |
19-03-2006, 7:49 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 324
Thanks: Gave 1, Got 8 |
either of the Panasonics, the FZ7 is alittle berter IMO, though not a huge cahnge, but the larger screen is nice,
heres alink to a thread i took some tests shots with.
Dont like the Sony..way too big.......Canon is way to expensive plus its just been replaced by the s3.
We wont be selling the new Sony H2 as jessops will have a specail Black version going for around 250.
But the Panny wins by a mile for me. The "new" camera thread.... (Updated regularly) |
| |
19-03-2006, 8:33 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 966
Thanks: Gave 71, Got 59 |
am i right in thinking the samsung 815 has'ent got an image stabilizer,as having a 15x optical zoom i would have thought you would definately need one, unless you have an extremely steady hand or are going to carry a tripod around with you.
|
| |
19-03-2006, 9:10 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Watford
Posts: 119
Thanks: Gave 0, Got 1 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by beachy am i right in thinking the samsung 815 has'ent got an image stabilizer,as having a 15x optical zoom i would have thought you would definately need one, unless you have an extremely steady hand or are going to carry a tripod around with you. | I.S. is worth a lot, but don't get zoom figures confused with actual reach... the Samsung doesn't get you any closer than most competitors, it's 420mm (35mm equiv.) at maximum, and that's par for the course for similar 'big zoom; cameras.
|
| |
19-03-2006, 11:16 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 324
Thanks: Gave 1, Got 8 |
You have to bear in mind that the Samsung starts at 28mm, unlike most of the others.
Yes the Samsung has what they call a Handshake Stability system in the lens.
|
| |
20-03-2006, 5:24 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Prominent Member
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,325
Thanks: Gave 81, Got 34 |
I will be selling a Finepix S5500 ( still under warranty) very soon and also have the TCON17 Tele
__________________ better to go in a blaze of glory than to fade away |
| |
20-03-2006, 5:58 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hitchin
Posts: 544
Thanks: Gave 83, Got 36 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by kavster | That's an awesome photo - thanks for sharing.
Thanks for all the replies people - I think the FZ7 is the one Ill go for but I have a couple of weeks until i will be buying it so I can still be persuaded otherwise!
|
| |
20-03-2006, 6:20 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 572
Thanks: Gave 4, Got 34 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by mutamist That's an awesome photo - thanks for sharing.
Thanks for all the replies people - I think the FZ7 is the one Ill go for but I have a couple of weeks until i will be buying it so I can still be persuaded otherwise! | Cool
Pop on over to the DPreview forums, link to Panasonic forum below: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033
There are a ton of photos with all the FZs in there, macros with the Oly MCONs, Nikon 4T/6T, and TCONs so you can see a wide variety of shots, also standard
The Sony and Canon forums on there are useful too.
Hope that helps,
K.
|
| |
20-03-2006, 7:47 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Plymouth
Posts: 140
Thanks: Gave 0, Got 5 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Pink Fairy I.S. is worth a lot, but don't get zoom figures confused with actual reach... the Samsung doesn't get you any closer than most competitors, it's 420mm (35mm equiv.) at maximum, and that's par for the course for similar 'big zoom; cameras. | Interesting, not being a photography expert (just an educated point and shooter really), I'd not really considered the thought that lens reach might be anything other than 15 times closer than no zoom at all.
Am I right in believing that what you're saying is that this camera (the Pro815) starts with a wider angle view than most, and therefore the lens may be more flexible than many, giving it good telephoto reach, but a noticeably better wide angle starting point with no zoom applied?
|
| |
20-03-2006, 8:19 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Prominent Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Coventry
Posts: 4,085
Thanks: Gave 107, Got 271 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by petrolhead I will be selling a Finepix S5500 ( still under warranty) very soon and also have the TCON17 Tele | will the tele adaptor fit my s9(5)000?
__________________ Relysis 40 inch LCD, Harman Kardon AVR 630, MCPC (Silverstone case, IMON, Tosh HDDVD-ROM, E2200@2.5GHz, 4670 ultimate, 3GB, 80GB 2.5" drive, Sweetspot SDI card,Happauge HVR4000, Win 7 Enterprise), Kef XQ5/XQ2C/Q2DS/Q8S, Cyrus aca7.5, PSXR, CD6, Quad 303 x 3, Sky+ 250 SDI |
| |
20-03-2006, 10:16 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Watford
Posts: 119
Thanks: Gave 0, Got 1 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by FeiJi Fancier Interesting, not being a photography expert (just an educated point and shooter really), I'd not really considered the thought that lens reach might be anything other than 15 times closer than no zoom at all.
Am I right in believing that what you're saying is that this camera (the Pro815) starts with a wider angle view than most, and therefore the lens may be more flexible than many, giving it good telephoto reach, but a noticeably better wide angle starting point with no zoom applied? |
Yep, the zoom figure 8x, 10x , 12x or whatever just describes the focal length coverage of the lens, not how much closer the subject will be in the final image compared to your standard view of it (by which i mean your naked eye or about 50mm focal length in 35mm film equivillant).
If you are buying a camera for it's telephoto capabilities, always look at the quoted 35mm equivillant figure for the lens, not the zoom figure like 10x.
15x is quite dramatic coverage, giving a good spread from genuine wide angle to good telephoto... but there's often an optical compromise with increased zoom coverage.
|
| | | |