Canon EOS 20D vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30

Technology website FiringSquad have intriguingly compared the 8 megapixel Canon EOS 20D DSLR and the 8 megapixel Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 all-in-one compact digicam.

“Today we’re going to review two cameras. Both are 8 megapixels. Both allow you to reach the “super telephoto” range of at least 400mm in 35mm equivalent measurement. Both represent fourth generation products within their company line-up. The catch is that one is a $600 all-in-one point-and-shoot camera and the other is an over $5400 digital SLR and lens/accessory package. It would seem to be an unfair fight, but we’ve all been told that it’s the photographer that’s responsible for good pictures, not the camera. How true is that statement? What does that extra cash buy you? What shots will be missed with the lower-end camera? What shots are missed with the digital SLR? This is an article for anyone interested in digital photography. It doesn’t matter if you think you know the outcome, or even if your budget doesn’t come close to this price range.”

Website: FiringSquad - Canon EOS 20D vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30

Check the Latest Prices for the Canon EOS 20D

Write a Review of the Canon EOS 20D

Check the Latest Prices for the Panasonic DMC-FZ30

Write a Review of the Panasonic DMC-FZ30

Published: Friday, October 14, 2005

Reader Comments

1. Now that was an excellent, excellent read.
   
   If only I could explain it that well!
   
   That's a must read for everybody who are stuck in the situation of deciding between 2 such cameras.

   AA at 02:07am on Saturday, October 15, 2005

2. I had no intention of reading this ridiculous comparison, but did so on
   your recommendation. And I am glad that I did, just for the wealth of
   information offered. A more useful comparison, however, would have
   included the Sony DMC-R1, as a third choice, to bridge the gap.
   
   It would have been interesting to see how the fixed lens R1 compared
   in image quality with the multi-lens 20D, as both cameras utilize CMOS
   APS-C image sensors. The effect of lens quality on final image quality
   would have been better isolated, and thus, far more apparent.
   
   It would also have been interesting to see how the large-sensored R1
   compared with the small-sensored, but much more full-featured FZ30.
   The effects of sensor size on noise and depth of field utilization would
   have been better isolated, and thus, far more apparent.
   
   Shame that an R1 was unavailable at the time of this review. For had
   it been, we might have gained further insight into the age old question
   of which is more important, the photographer or the equipment.
   
   Of course, we all already knew the answer to that question.

   GARY POGODA at 04:45am on Saturday, October 15, 2005

3. Definitely a boat load of information there for sure.
   
   I liked it because I would use that article and offer it to people who always ask me about the differences between a "proper" DSLR and a camera like a FZ30, as people always tell me, "which I am looking at, because it's cheaper, smaller, lighter, and has a big lens."
   
   Ha--------ha.
   
   Photographer or equipment? Ah yes, please bash me over the head with the debate some more! Heeheehee!
   I think the PRICE difference, which was mentioned a couple of times in the article, is what bridges that gap, huh, for some folks who are just getting in to this silly game of digital photography.

   AA at 05:05am on Saturday, October 15, 2005

4. The price difference was academic for me, since I have no intention
   of purchasing a dSLR, or a dSLR-like camera. I just like keeping up
   with the latest technology used in these cameras, since eventually it
   will filter down to ultra-compacts.
   
   I do not think that we will be seeing APS-C sensors in ultra-compacts
   due to physical constraints, but I do think that their CMOS technology
   will filter down to 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" sensors, with noise characteristics
   rivaling those of the APS-C size.
   
   I also predict ultra-compacts will utilize in-camera, DOF algorithms to
   simulate the shallow DOF characteristics of 35mm film while retaining
   the large DOF benefits of small sensors.

   GARY POGODA at 06:27am on Saturday, October 15, 2005

5. This article has a lot of interesting, and valid, comments about the merits of the cost of the respective cameras. However, as in the conclusion, the cost is irrelevant if you are a photographer that "wants" to have a DSLR, for whatever reason. The final observation that the DSLR Canon 20D is the better camera goes without saying. Afterall, what you are buying is the features and extra controls and facilities. However, equally true is that one size does not fit all. When going on a true family beach vacation where the point of photography is snapshots, all the high quality issues take a back seat to simplicity and convenience of an all-in-one, point-and-shoot device. I have both a 20D and a Canon A85, a lesser point-and-shoot and enjoy both, in the appropriate circumstance.
   
   Conclusion, each one does have its place.
   
   Mike
   http://www.scenicsensations.com

   Mike at 04:40pm on Sunday, October 16, 2005

6. While the 20D is certainly not recommended for family beach outings,
   neither is the FZ30, so that is really not a good example of one or the
   other being advantageous. I do, however, see an advantage to using
   an FZ30 in place of a 20D for situations where one would want to use
   a DSLR, but where large DOF was a major concern.
   
   So in view of that example, I would have to agree with your conclusion.

   GARY POGODA at 08:49pm on Sunday, October 16, 2005

7. I'm glad I wasn't the only one comparing these two very different cameras. What a great explanation of the depth-of-field and dynamic range issues deriving from sensor size! I wound up getting the FZ30 mostly because the articulated LCD gives me more shooting options - I can hold the camera waaay overhead in a crowd (esp. w/ image stabilization) and still frame the shot. If I want candids at a party, I can hold the camera in my lap and look down at the LCD to frame.
   
   I wonder if I could have a huge sensor with either an SLR or an articulated LCD which one I would choose...

   Ty at 06:38pm on Thursday, October 20, 2005

8. I've been looking (for too long it seems now) for a 8mp prosumer. I thought the FZ30 would be the one for me but now I'm worried that no prosumer will do what I want. We've just had a new baby and I want to do a lot of portrait shots with a resonably shallow depth of field and nicely blurred background.
   Given what the review explains about DOF also being a function of sensor size maybe none of my short list P880, FZ30, Oly8080 can give me the shots I need. I'd think about the Sony DSC-R1 but I'm sure we'd get some use from a movie mode too.
   
   On the other hand shot I want to blow up and print I'll be doing post-processing on anyway and maybe blurring the background in PS will suffice.
   
   Just when I think I'm approaching a decision...

   darragh at 02:23pm on Wednesday, October 26, 2005

9. I think you are reading much too much into this DOF issue. You can
   still get beautiful blurred background shots with a 1/1.8" CCD, you will
   just have to work a little harder at it, i.e., open up the lens as much as
   possible, get as close to the subject as possible, etc. Besides, with a
   baby, it is not like you would be focusing on just the eyes, for example,
   and then want everything else blurred. You will at least want the entire
   baby in focus, as well as probably the crib, playpen, highchair, or other
   immediate surroundings.
   
   Babies grow up quickly, so make a decision soon.

   GARY POGODA at 07:48pm on Wednesday, October 26, 2005

10. I think you might be right Gary. Like lots of people I see, on these and other forums, I'm struck by a bit of "paralysis by analysis". I've read too many reviews and focused too much on the shortcomings highlighted for each camera. Having seen some of the sample pics on dpreview I'm sure all of my shortlist are capable of producing great shots.
    I've had an email from Panasonic yesterday saying that the noise issue was present only in early versions of the FZ30 and has been rectified now. If I get one of these "early" cameras simply return it to the re-seller and they'll replace it with one that has not got the excess noise problem! Hmm....they can't just make that up can they?
    Approaching a buying decision rapidly....

    darragh at 10:43am on Thursday, October 27, 2005

11. One thing about noise is, unless you are really looking for it, you may
    not even notice it. Another thing is, there is always a workaround, i.e.,
    shooting at lower ISOs. A final thing is, you can always fix it with post
    processing. If you like everything about the FZ30 except for its noise,
    I would not let that deter you. And if Panasonic has actually improved
    the noise situation, better still.
    
    If you cannot get past the noise problem, there is always the Sony R1.
    Lack of movie mode can be easily rectified, i.e., buy an ultra-compact
    for those unavoidable times when you will not feel like lugging around
    the R1, and use it for movies.
    
    Bottom line, they have not yet made the perfect camera, and it may be
    quite some time before they do.

    GARY POGODA at 05:06pm on Thursday, October 27, 2005

12. I got one of the FZ30's a few days after it was released in Japan, and have taken it with me (and a FZ5) on a safari/beach holiday in Kenya. I have found that both cameras (including the FZ30) with one- or three-spot metering tended to produce slightly under-exposed pictures in virtually all lighting conditions and with nearly all subjects. I haven't tested the FZ30 with other metering set-ups, but I was slightly disappointed to find the results were quite dull. Since the Auto mode ought to produce good results, at present, I am not convinced that this is the case.
    Having said all this, about 5% of the 400 or so photos were just about right, and the camera is easy to handle; the zoom is good; the detail is great; colour balance is neutral; the OIS is excellent; and the autofocus didn't fail me once!! The much-vaunted noise doesn't seem to be an issue.
    One other thing worth noting is that the 8M pixels are only available for photos at 4:3 ratio (OK for 8 x 6 prints), but if you want the standard 6 x 4 or 5 x 7 you'll have to make do with fewer pixels (only 7M for 3:2 ratio). As things stand, this means (when compared with Nikon and one or two other Digital cameras) the 'usable' number of pixels (in the most common format) is probably being overstated.
    Ultimately I have found it necessary to spend a lot of time post-processing the images to a) get acceptable images and b) cropping to suit 6 x 4 photo 'cards'.
    (I am not a camera expert, and maybe I expected too much of the camera in Auto Mode)

    Mike Scott at 11:43pm on Friday, October 28, 2005

13. Reduced pixels doesn't bother me, but why crop in post-processing,
    rather than selecting the built-in 3:2 mode?
    
    What does bother me is your dull pictures. I agree, the Auto mode
    should produce acceptable results the majority of the time, and only
    occasionally should you "need" to use the manual settings. Shame
    that the FZ30 does not have a "Beach" scene mode.

    GARY POGODA at 04:39pm on Saturday, October 29, 2005

14. I had to crop because I hadn't apprecaited the fact that I was goiung to have problems sourcing a suitable small photo paper/card with a 4:3 ratio!!

    Mike Scott at 12:51pm on Sunday, October 30, 2005

15. Live and learn. Have you tried the FZ30's RAW/TIFF modes yet?

    GARY POGODA at 05:26pm on Sunday, October 30, 2005

16. No, I haven't yet tried RAW or TIFF.

    Mike Scott at 05:50pm on Sunday, October 30, 2005