Camera Labs

I am an American who lived in Canada for eleven years. As someone who was fortunate to spend a significant amount of my life living abroad, I do not subscribe to the "America is the best country in the world" jingoism which is disturbingly common in my country.

That being said, I was not pleased when I saw the above example of America-bashing on the Camera Labs forum. I didn't like hearing this kind of prejudice when I visited the UK in 1994, I didn't like hearing it when I lived in Canada from 1995-2006, and I don't like reading it now.

This is an international community and all are welcome here. I have no authority to set forum policy, but as a participant in these forums I will ask that everyone please refrain from taking cheap shots at your fellow forum members based on nationality or any other demographic.

Thank you,

Fred "Citizen of the World" Chapman
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

Myself, I would not lump superzooms together with compact cameras. I tend to think of superzooms as "bridge" cameras between compacts and DSLRs. I see the choices before the prospective camera buyer not as a dichotomy (non-DSLR vs. DSLR) but as a spectrum of options (compact, bridge, DSLR). I feel very enthusiastic about the superzoom/bridge category in general (and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 in particular).

I believe bridge cameras offer a "best of both worlds approach" which deserves serious consideration by anyone in the market for a new camera. Bridge cameras offer lower cost, smaller size, lighter weight, and greater convenience and ease of use than DSLRs, while at the same time providing better optics and a larger focal range than compacts, along with DSLR-like features such as full manual control and RAW files, which most compacts do not have. (High-end compacts like the Panasonic LX3 and Canon G9/G10 are exceptions, but these are in the price range of an entry-level DSLR.)

I used to think that I would start with a superzoom like the FZ28 and eventually "grow into" a DSLR. With the advent of Micro Four Thirds (e.g., the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1), I now seriously doubt I will ever get a DSLR. I am philosophically opposed to putting "new wine into old wine skins." I think the optomechanical system at the core of the SLR was a clever idea in its time, but that time has passed. I believe Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras, hopefully based on the M4/3 standard, will ultimately replace DSLRs. If the M4/3 standard catches on, I believe that's what I'll get if I ever outgrow a superzoom/bridge camera -- I just don't see a DSLR as a desirable part of my future any more!

Fred "Superzoom/Bridge Camera Evangelist" Chapman
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

To respond to Fred Chapman's comments, I have a bridge camera and in general am pleased with it. However, coming from a film SLR/TLR background, I do find it slow to respond and this would be my reason for moving to a DSLR.

As Fred says, the micro 4/3rds could be a solution for me. However, comments suggesting that this format has reached its maximum pixel density at 10Mp are holding me back from taking that route. The Canon 450D has a lot of things going for it; small size, light weight and affordable price. Perhaps that's my solution.

David

p.s. I've just seen that the new Lumix DMC-G1 has 12Mp.

_________________
David
http://www.davidraison.co.uk
http://www.jumpsystems.co.uk

Nikon E5700 (only 5Mp but good results)
Artist

I've read that DSLRs are typically faster than bridge and compact cameras, but I don't understand why. Can anyone explain the reason for that? What, exactly, gives DSLRs their competitive edge on speed? It is a fundamental difference in design or is it that DSLRs cost more and thus use more high-performance components?

I also wanted to add that since Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras and the Micro Four Thirds Standard are both new, I don't expect them to replace DSLRs overnight. I think DSLRs will out-compete the new paradigm in the short-run; e.g., someone who needs a fast, high-quality camera today may be best served by today's DSLR. In a year, or two, or five, or ten I will not be surprised if that no longer holds true.

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

DSLRs generally use higher end components partly because the cost allows and because this is demanded of them. They use sensors with faster readouts from multiple channels, larger buffers and more powerful processors.

I think part of it is also down to the fact that DSLRs have dedicated different functions to different components within the camera. In a compact, the sensor handles WB, AF, preview and the final capture. A DSLR has a component for each one of these but notice how it all slows down in live-view?

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Graham, thanks for your reply, which definitely cleared a few things up for me. One reason I was puzzled by all this is that electronics are usually faster than moving parts, as a general rule. Compacts have no mechanical shutter and are all-electronic, which suggests that they should be faster than a DSLR with a reflex mirror and mechanical shutter mechanism. It sounds like computational issues are what makes compact cameras slower.

From what you described, it also seems like DSLRs achieve faster speed by using proven techniques from the high-performance computing world -- basically, by doing parallel processing with multiple computational units taking input from multiple peripheral units (dedicated sensors serving different purposes). Compacts seem to be performing computations one after another instead of simultaneously, processing everything with a single computational unit, which takes input from one peripheral (a multi-purpose sensor). If this is right, it means the difference in speed is primarily due to differences in computer architecture. That's an explanation I can live with.

My next question is this: If price were no issue, is there any reason a bridge camera which uses the same high-end components and parallel computer architecture as a DSLR could not be just as fast as a DSLR? If there is no reason why not, that suggests the future of E.V.I.L. and/or Micro Four Thirds cameras is very promising.

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

I resisted the purchase of a dSLR for a long time since I didn't want to "bother" with all the lens changing, not to mention the size of the dSLR to lug around. I went with the Powershot G9 but even though it is rich in features, it still didn't produce the kinds of photos I wanted. So now it's a backup for my 40D. It's kind of a costly way to learn, but taught me a lot.

NurseDiesel1, I'm very interested in what prompts people to upgrade from a non-DSLR to a DSLR. Would you mind describing what your 40D does for you that the G9 did not?

Thanks,

Fred

_________________
Frederick W. Chapman: Consultant & Scientist @ F.W. Chapman Solutions / Expertise in Web Design, Digital Imaging, E-Learning, Math & Comp Sci / www.fwchapman.com

Cameras: Oly E-P1; Pan G1, FZ28, LZ10 | FT Lenses: Oly 50mm f/2.0; Sig 18-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 | MFT Lenses: Pan 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, 45-200mm f/4-5.6

fwchapman: I was not really "unhappy" with my G9, but I needed greater control over depth of field than it offered, particularly in portraits and other macro type shots. Once in awhile, I'd get lucky. Also, sometimes the metering system on my G9 would get "fooled" and produce too dark a subject against a blown-out background (or the reverse). The lens itself was a limitation since I wanted longer zoom and wider angles you just can't get without interchangeable lenses. The G9 also tended to over saturate images, and colors were not always accurate. Of course, I can fix most of that in the RAW utility or in Photoshop, but why add work. It's still a great camera for a back up.

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nursediesel
Canon EOS 5D & 5D2 | EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS | EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 24-105 f4 L IS | EF 17-40 F4 L | 580 EX II | Fujifilm X10

lets not forget the size of the sensor??? DSLRs offer much better noise performance at all isos. All point-and-shoots these days start to show noise at ISO 400 or even 200, which for me is absolutely unacceptable. This is why I chose to move to the 40D from my Kodak point-and-shoot. It is also personal preference that I like holding something in my hands that feels like a tool and not a toy. DSLRs are for the most part, constructed to a much higher standard, and are in turn more durable and future-proof then flimsy point-and-shoots. Optical viewfinders are much better, in my opinion, then electronic viewfinders, which strain my eye and given the way they function, don't give an accurate representation of what you are actually seeing. DSLRs are also more performance oriented, offering direct-access to all essential functions, rather then having to hunt through menus and annoying presets on point-and-shoots.

That's just me.

_________________
Sony A850 | Sony Battery Grip | Carl Zeiss 24-70 Vario-Sonnar T f/2.8 | Sony 70-200G f/2.8 SSM | Lensbaby Composer Pro | Sony HVL-F58AM

Alienbees B800 (x3) | Alienbees Cyber Commander | CSR+ Receivers | Grids, Softbox, Gels, Manfrotto/Century/Avenger stands

www.flickr.com/frankiewithers
www.fkwstudio.blogspot.com
www.fkwstudio.com

Hi djfsolo,

May I offer you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forums. Another 40D owner.

Bob.

P.S. Any chance of replacing some of the line breaks in your Signature with commas? Keeping the Signature height down helps other forum members scan through a thread. Thanks.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

with D90 Nikon has introduced video recording into the DSLR. One less point in favour of the compacts.

_________________
Re,
Varun
Advanced Photography

I'd definitely say getting good shots is down to being in the right place at the right time.

Unless they are lying, plenty of people have produced brilliant photos with the Fuji s5600. (Which annoys me to no end. I have approx 5 shots which were very good but not brilliant composition/focus wise)

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/267896 ... teresting/

A lot have moved on to dSLR. However without the nack of being in the right place at the right time a high spec compact is the best choice.

An even then, a good backup camera to the dSLRs... as stated above.

I currently have a five year old Canon Powershot A60 camera. I have taken thousands of pictures over the years, and I do not think that there are more than a dozen of those that stand out from my average family/holiday/flowers-in-the-garden pictures.

I know that a new camera will not change that, and ease-of-use is much more important to me than discovering my inner pro. On the other hand, I do like learning new things, if the implementation is right.

Still, I am in the market for something new, costing less than 400 euro's.

The article clearly shows why I will not buy a DSLR. However, I am still in doubt between a compact and a compact superzoom.

Are there any disadvantages of a superzoom versus a regular compact, other than price and dimensions? This is something the article does not seem to confirm.

For now, I am thinking to buy a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28.

Its RAW format seems to be supported by dcraw (http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/), which is important for me, since I want to continue using Ubuntu.

Hi Blimundus,

May I wish you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forum.

This is already a mature thread so please forgive me if it's already been mentioned but have you had a look at Gordon's Should you buy a DSLR or a Compact? feature?

In direct answer to your question, I can't think of any disadvantages of a superzoom versus a regular compact, other than price and dimensions, but maybe that's down to my own lack of imagination.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.