Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
October 25, 2020, 12:56:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional ICC Profiling Software for Windows
Create custom ICC profiles with
Profile Prism for accurate color!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Newer fixed lens SLR's  (Read 20845 times)
bgschatz
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« on: June 11, 2009, 01:54:22 PM »

I've looked recently at some of the newer fixed lens SLR's.  The ones with about 12 MP and 24x optical zoom.  Most seem to run anywhere from about $350. to $500.  I'm curious to hear opinions or experiences, likes and dislikes.  I'm currently still using an Olympus E-10, so any of these seem a big jump up, yet much cheaper than buying a body with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks
Logged
daniellouwrens
Newbie
*
Posts: 43


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2009, 09:29:16 PM »

Hi

I would not touch Olympus with a 10 Meter barge pole.

My C8080 will not focus on anything over 1000M away and they tell me
"that's the way it is" of course it does not say anything about that in the
documentation before you buy it.

Also as an indication of competence; a couple of years ago I went to the
Sydney Photography exhibition and the Olympus kiosk had a demonstration
of their Panorama stitching software and the picture had a massive and very obvious
error in it, the staff were oblivious.

AND the address they quote on their correspondence is incorrect and does not exist
in GPS or Street Directories... Go figure.

I would look elsewhere, which I will do when I have the time.

cheers

Daniel
Logged
hedwards
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2009, 12:12:01 AM »

I've looked recently at some of the newer fixed lens SLR's.  The ones with about 12 MP and 24x optical zoom.  Most seem to run anywhere from about $350. to $500.  I'm curious to hear opinions or experiences, likes and dislikes.  I'm currently still using an Olympus E-10, so any of these seem a big jump up, yet much cheaper than buying a body with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks
Technically speaking you're referring to a ZLR (Zoom Lens Reflex), there are benefits to that sort of thing, but at a cost. You're stuck with the lens that comes with it for better or for worse and have to put up with a limited range of zoom. On the upside though, you're not going to have any issues with dust getting into the sensor.

Yes, there can be a significant premium over the ZLRs to get an SLR, but I'd recommend that you consider what it is that you're planning to do with the camera. For many people, the ZLRs are just fine, I mean they wouldn't sell if that weren't the case. But what you're getting by plunking down for the dSLR is primarily flexibility and quality. A long zoom is always going to result in a drop in image quality, depending  upon the manufacturer and lens it can be substantial.

It's also worth noting, that you can get a decent Rebel complete with basic lens for not that much more, and the results are probably going to blow pretty much any of the ZLRs out of the water. I'm a Canon guy, but I'm sure that Nikon has similar offerings at this point, and really you're probably better off looking at their offerings than a lot of the competitors.
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3152



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2009, 12:44:14 AM »

There are some good fixed lens cameras out there and with a good matched lens with a large zoom range, you may only need one lens.  For me, I worry more about sensor size than anything.  Most of these fixed lens cameras have the same tiny sensors that you find in little pocket cameras: something like 1/1.7 sensors which aren't much bigger than a pencil eraser.  With such a small sensor, it is very difficult to get shallow depth of field.  For me, the Panasonic/Olympus Four Thirds format is about the smallest sensor that I find acceptable in a camera.  Much smaller than that and it's just going to look like a point and shoot.  The shallow depth of field that you need for expressive portraits and macros just won't happen with the tiny sensor cameras.  Here's a comparison of sensor size (from Wiki):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

The bottom row is pretty much what you'll find in the pocket cameras and many fixed lens "SLR" cameras.  The second line up from the bottom starts the better sensors that have enough size to make some good shallow DOF shots.  So check the sensor size on the camera you are buying and if you want photos that look like they came from a dSLR, make sure the size is at least as big as the Four Thirds System shown.  For pros/purists who are used to full frame (35mm sensor size), even the Four Thirds sensor size may not offer shallow enough depth of field but for the rest of us, I think you need the Four Thirds sensor size at a minimum if you want to get photos that have the expressive quality you can get from an SLR.

Mike
Logged
Robtek77
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 08:11:07 AM »

I have just bought the Panasonic FZ28 after using a Canon dslr and a bag full of lenses for the last couple of years, the reason was down to weight and size. My dslr, 5 lenses, flash plus several other item made my camera bag weight quite a bit and as I am getting older I started to find the weight a bit excessive at times. This meant I had to cut back on what I carried and missed quite a few shots because of it. I found that the resulting images from the FZ28 aren't up to the standard of the dslr and the camera is slower in severel ways but the results from this and others of the same type are perfectly good for normal use.

I used to print the occasional A2 size picture with the dslr but now I have the Panasonic I find that A3 pictures is the maximum size for really sharp images. This isn't a complaint of the camera it just the result of the smaller sensor as mentioned above. Also as mentioned above the depth of field is a lot greater which can be a problem at time.

All in all I am pleased with the camera which weighs about 500g and because of this I tend to carry it with me a lot more often than I did with dslr.

Logged
Gourdfather
Newbie
*
Posts: 15



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 09:49:24 PM »

I too have the Oly E-10, bought it when it first came out....a 4 megapixel camera for under $1800, WOW!!  I've loved it ever since and still use it for studio work (HEAVY!!)  About a year ago I bought the Olympus E-410 SLR.  It's about the size of the old OM-1 and much lighter!!  I read the reviews an DPReview and it convinced me the camera was worth the price.  I wouldn't trade it for a Nikon!!!  As for the dust problen, the Oly has a "supersonic" shaker that vibrates each time you change lenses and shakes the dust off.  EVERY camera and brand has its' "bad eggs" and you'll hear horror stories on any brand you pick.  Check the DPReviews and the prices and your needs...if you don't buy more camera than you need, you can use the money saved to buy accessories!!!  Grin

Cameras are only an extension of the photographer...I run rings around guys with Nikons and Canons, but not because of the camera...just get one to suit your needs.

John  PhF
Logged

John  Phf
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!