Canon EOS 20D vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30

#1 AA

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.

2:07 am - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#2 GARY POGODA

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.

4:45 am - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#3 AA

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.

5:05 am - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#4 GARY POGODA

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.

6:27 am - Saturday, October 15, 2005

#5 Mike

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

4:40 pm - Sunday, October 16, 2005

#6 GARY POGODA

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.

8:49 pm - Sunday, October 16, 2005

#7 Ty

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...

6:38 pm - Thursday, October 20, 2005

#8 darragh

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...

2:23 pm - Wednesday, October 26, 2005

#9 GARY POGODA

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.

7:48 pm - Wednesday, October 26, 2005

#10 darragh

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....

10:43 am - Thursday, October 27, 2005

#11 GARY POGODA

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.

5:06 pm - Thursday, October 27, 2005

#12 Mike Scott

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)

11:43 pm - Friday, October 28, 2005

#13 GARY POGODA

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.

4:39 pm - Saturday, October 29, 2005

#14 Mike Scott

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!!

12:51 pm - Sunday, October 30, 2005

#15 GARY POGODA

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

5:26 pm - Sunday, October 30, 2005

#16 Mike Scott

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

5:50 pm - Sunday, October 30, 2005