Panasonic Lumix G1 vs. Nikon D60
anir...@gmail.com
attracted to get a Lumix G1. I had 2 other P&S Lumix cameras, and they
are excellent cameras and I like them very much. One of them was over
5 years old,and it is still running with over 10,000 photos (only 3
MP).
I have not seen the Lumix G1, as it is not yet available in our local
shops. It seems to be a very nice compact camera. The sensor size is
approx. 70% of the APS-C DSLR, but it is over 6x bigger than a Canon
G7 P&S.
Then, I saw today, there is a sale of Nikon D60, with 18-55mm DX VR
and 55-200 mm DX lenses. All together (camera + 2 lenses) will be
about the same price as the Lumix G1. For a DSLR, I like the small
size of a Nikon D40x (or a Canon XSI). I sometime wonder whether it is
physically possible to jam in a Nikon D700's features in a D40 size
camera. The D60 is bigger than D40x (one of my minuses).
I know a lot of readers here will suggest to get a DSLR with APS-C
sensor size (or even a full size sensor like D700 or 5D). However, how
much improvement in image quality is for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C?. I can
see the arguments between P&S and DSLR cameras never ends in this
newsgroup. Would the G1 actually answer the shortcoming of the P&S
cameras? My other question is whether image quality and performance of
a Lumix G1 will overpowering the Canon G7 P&S camera, or about the
same. My Canon G7 is good, but when I shoot in low light conditions,
the picture quality is not that great. Do you think the Lumix G1 will
be much better?. I saw just a few samples in the Panasonic website, as
well as a few photos taken from early buy happy owners of the new G1
in the DPreview's talk forum. I was impressed with the image quality.
I will use my camera for photos in everyday's life, no sport or fast
photography, and definitely no movie (I never use such features from
my P&S camera anyway). For the old SLR cameras, I used Fujica and
Konica. For medium cameras, I used Mamiyas RB67 and 645 in the past.
So, I am not going to the route of the heavy and bulky cameras (thus
my preference for a small camera that will fit in my relatively small
hand ... although I will always miss that depth of field when shooting
with the medium size camera and the sound of the shutter when you push
the shutter button... a deep, mechanical sound!).
So... is it a G1 or a D60 (+ 2 lenses) for approx. the same price? Of
course, with the G1, I can claim/brag to have the smallest
interchangeable camera, the first time it comes out of the shop! I
like colours that produced from Lumix camera. although I heard that
the new G1 will not be a Leica lens.
Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks for the discussion!
nospam
<d890f943-deec-4b33...@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
<anir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The D60 is bigger than D40x (one of my minuses).
it's exactly the same size.
> I know a lot of readers here will suggest to get a DSLR with APS-C
> sensor size (or even a full size sensor like D700 or 5D). However, how
> much improvement in image quality is for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C?.
about one stop of noise, roughly.
> I can
> see the arguments between P&S and DSLR cameras never ends in this
> newsgroup. Would the G1 actually answer the shortcoming of the P&S
> cameras?
the g1 is a huge step up from a p&s camera, however, it's still new,
and as you said, not yet available where you live.
> My other question is whether image quality and performance of
> a Lumix G1 will overpowering the Canon G7 P&S camera, or about the
> same. My Canon G7 is good, but when I shoot in low light conditions,
> the picture quality is not that great. Do you think the Lumix G1 will
> be much better?.
the g1 should be a lot better than a canon g7.
anir...@gmail.com
> In article
> <d890f943-deec-4b33-a585-e706ca394...@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <anira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The D60 is bigger than D40x (one of my minuses).
>
> it's exactly the same size.
>
bigger than the D40x. I must have hold the Nikon D80 a the store, as I
noticed that my right fingers could not fully get around the battery
knob. The Canon 40D is even bigger than the D80!. It is just too big
for me.
Are the lenses that came with the D60 deal (18-55mm DX VR and 55-200mm
DX) good quality lenses, or are they the low quality ones?
Thanks for your correction!
nospam
<19883d4e-7be0-4ca9...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
<anir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The D60 is bigger than D40x (one of my minuses).
> >
> > it's exactly the same size.
> >
> Thanks for the quick reply. My correction: the D60 is just a tiny bit
> bigger than the D40x.
no, they are exactly the same size and weight, 126 x 94 x 64mm, 522g
w/battery:
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page2.asp>
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page2.asp>
> Are the lenses that came with the D60 deal (18-55mm DX VR and 55-200mm
> DX) good quality lenses, or are they the low quality ones?
the kit lenses are decent, especially for the money. you can always
get better lenses later. get vr in both lenses if possible, or at
least in the 55-200, where it's more useful.
ASAAR
> Are the lenses that came with the D60 deal (18-55mm DX VR and
> 55-200mm DX) good quality lenses, or are they the low quality ones?
From what I've read, the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR lenses provide
pretty good image quality despite being lightweight, inexpensive and
not having the build quality of other non-pro lenses such as the
16-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR. The slightly older 55-200mm lens is
not as good optically and doesn't have the VR that's often needed by
longer lenses. It's possible that there was a typo in the sale ad
you saw and the package really includes a 55-200mm VR lens, but
check first to avoid later disappointment. I may be mistaken, but
I'm assuming that this isn't a Nikon supplied kit, and one or both
lenses may have been added by the dealer. If so, and if the kit
really includes the older non-VR lens, see if you can upgrade the
kit to include the 55-200mm VR - after all, for cameras and lenses,
right now it's a buyer's market!
anir...@gmail.com
I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
features in the camera? Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
(Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
Is the DX lenses are the cheap quality lenses from Nikon?
I notice that for Canon lenses, the ones with red ring (fluorite
coated component for the lens) has good, professional quality lenses
---> perhaps also more expensive?
Are similar lens lines can be found on Nikkor lenses? I recall that
some lenses has plastic barrel or even plastic lenses (which are
lighter in weight)
nospam
<be5db615-6a4a-4c4e...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
<anir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
> VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell.
try to get the 55-200 vr version. it's optically better and has
stabilization.
> The
> camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
> good bargain?
check b&h <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/>
> Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
> features in the camera?
they'll autofocus just fine, as will something like 70 lenses from
nikon, sigma, tamron and tokina.
> Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
> (Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
it's the same thing.
> Is the DX lenses are the cheap quality lenses from Nikon?
dx means the lens is designed for a smaller sensor and will generally
vignette on a full frame camera. non-dx lenses cover a full frame and
can be used on both full frame and dx cameras.
> I notice that for Canon lenses, the ones with red ring (fluorite
> coated component for the lens) has good, professional quality lenses
> ---> perhaps also more expensive?
> Are similar lens lines can be found on Nikkor lenses? I recall that
> some lenses has plastic barrel or even plastic lenses (which are
> lighter in weight)
nikon uses a gold ring on the better lenses but they don't make a big
deal about expensive lenses like canon does. basically, you get what
you pay for no matter who makes the lens.
Jürgen Exner
>I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
>VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
>camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
>good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
>features in the camera?
What is the designation on those lenses? Like the D40/40X the D60 does
not have a builtin focus motor, therefore lenses need to be AF-S
(instead of AF) for autofocus to work. All recent Nikkor lenses are
AF-S. I think (but I may be wrong here) that any Nikkor lens you can buy
new today is either AF-S or a legacy lens from the fixed focal length
assortment. And there may be some odd lenses for rather special
purposes, too.
>Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
>(Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
Yes.
>Is the DX lenses are the cheap quality lenses from Nikon?
No. DX lenses are specifically designed for the small-size DX-sensors
and will not illuminate the full area of a full-size sensor. Because of
the smaller image circle they are easier to design and to build, can be
smaller, and therefore are usually lighter and less expensive than their
full-frame brethrens.
jue
David J Taylor
[]
> Are the lenses that came with the D60 deal (18-55mm DX VR and 55-200mm
> DX) good quality lenses, or are they the low quality ones?
> Thanks for your correction!
The are very good lenses for the money. Make sure the 55-200mm is the VR
version.
I eventually went for the 16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR lenses which suit my
photographic needs better, but they are rather more expensive. My wife
went for the 18-200mm VR which gives you a single walk-round lens and
avoids the need to change lenses. Plenty of choice with the Nikon D60.
I like the idea of the smaller camera which the sensor on the Lumix G1 and
its mirrorless design allow, but I'm not sure how good the viewfinder will
be compared to, say, the D60. Trying both in the shop will be the best
way to compare that, and which camera feels right in your hands, which
menu system suits you best and so on. Do handle before you buy.
David
David J Taylor
[]
> I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
> VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
> camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
> good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
> features in the camera?
Don't buy the 55-200mm if it's not VR, but do check that it's not just an
omission from the leaflet.
> Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
> (Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
Yes, and it works very well.
> Is the DX lenses are the cheap quality lenses from Nikon?
No, simply that they are designed for the smaller image circle of the D60
(APS-C) sensor, so can be lighter, smaller and cheaper.
> I notice that for Canon lenses, the ones with red ring (fluorite
> coated component for the lens) has good, professional quality lenses
> ---> perhaps also more expensive?
> Are similar lens lines can be found on Nikkor lenses? I recall that
> some lenses has plastic barrel or even plastic lenses (which are
> lighter in weight)
It seems to me that Canon have some cheap lenses and some good, but
expensive, ones. I feel that the Nikon lens range is better balanced and
their average quality is higher. You can get good lenses from both
manufacturers.
David
SMS
> I know a lot of readers here will suggest to get a DSLR with APS-C
> sensor size (or even a full size sensor like D700 or 5D). However, how
> much improvement in image quality is for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C?.
A lot, judging from the reviews of the 4:3 sensor D-SLRs from Olympus.
> I can
> see the arguments between P&S and DSLR cameras never ends in this
> newsgroup. Would the G1 actually answer the shortcoming of the P&S
> cameras?
Partially. It has a relatively large sensor, so you won't have the poor
noise characteristics and the poor dynamic range that are inherent in
the small sensor P&S cameras (though it's still not as good as the 1.5
crop factor sensor in the Nikon D60). It accepts interchangeable lenses,
(though there are very few Micro 4:3 lenses at this time) so you'll be
able to cover a wide range of focal lengths without having to use
conversion lenses which all the experts agree should be avoided at all
costs. However it still uses contrast-detection for auto-focus so
auto-focus will be significantly slower than what you'd get with a D-SLR.
> My other question is whether image quality and performance of
> a Lumix G1 will overpowering the Canon G7 P&S camera, or about the
> same.
Hard to know. Historically Panasonic P&S cameras have been very noisy,
and Canon P&S cameras have not been noisy. This is a new Panasonic with
a larger sensor, so maybe it'll be fine.
My Canon G7 is good, but when I shoot in low light conditions,
> the picture quality is not that great. Do you think the Lumix G1 will
> be much better?.
Yes. The poor low light performance of the G7 is to be expected with its
small sensor (though most P&S cameras are even worse).
> I saw just a few samples in the Panasonic website, as
> well as a few photos taken from early buy happy owners of the new G1
> in the DPreview's talk forum. I was impressed with the image quality.
Yeah, well photos on the screen are not a good indicator. You need some
photos in difficult lighting, and need to see prints. Also, beware of
"happy owners" since some people feel compelled to defend whatever they
buy, or don't have a good frame of reference with which to compare their
own equipment.
> hand ... although I will always miss that depth of field when shooting
> with the medium size camera and the sound of the shutter when you push
> the shutter button... a deep, mechanical sound!).
You can get good depth of field with a D60, but not with a P&S.
> So... is it a G1 or a D60 (+ 2 lenses) for approx. the same price?
I would not spend more money on a G1 given Panasonic's reputation. I
would not give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for what is essentially
a glorified P&S.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> However it still uses contrast-detection for auto-focus so
> auto-focus will be significantly slower than what you'd get with a D-SLR.
it's contrast detection autofocus is actually quite good, and it's just
a little slower than a typical dslr. a post in another thread had some
numbers.
Mark Thomas
> anir...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I know a lot of readers here will suggest to get a DSLR with APS-C
>> sensor size (or even a full size sensor like D700 or 5D). However, how
>> much improvement in image quality is for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C?.
>
> A lot, judging from the reviews of the 4:3 sensor D-SLRs from Olympus.
sms, who is one of those folk who doesn't actually use a camera, just
posts secondhand or made up information and trolls for his made-up websites.
No-one here yet knows for sure how the G1 engine will perform, but let's
assume it is something similar to the old Olympus E420 (another 4/3
camera, similar pixel density). Here's a link to a test showing the
difference between the Olympus E420, Nikon D60, Canon 450D and Sony 350
at 800 and 1600.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page32.asp
Significant? Are you likely to shoot higher than that? The high-iso
difference between 4/3 and APS-C cameras is not as great as the
difference between the typical p&s and 4/3. But make up your own mind
by visiting *reputable sources*, rather than listening to the SMS's of
this world. And it all depends on what you shoot and your own quality
standards.
> However it still uses contrast-detection for auto-focus so
> auto-focus will be significantly slower than what you'd get with a D-SLR.
The D60 has an AF time of 0.26s. Admittedly that is one of the slower
dslrs, but do you see many folk complaining about its AF? The G1 has an
AF time of ~0.36s, which is not very much slower and *significantly*
faster than any p&s. The G1 also has a shorter shutter-lag time, so if
you pre-focus it is is much faster than a dslr. It all depends on
what/how you shoot (SMS has a problem with this concept).
As an aside, contrast-detect AF is more accurate than phase-detect and
does not suffer from front-/back-focus... (Now *I'm* trolling!)
>> My other question is whether image quality and performance of
>> a Lumix G1 will overpowering the Canon G7 P&S camera, or about the
>> same.
>
> Hard to know. Historically Panasonic P&S cameras have been very noisy,
> and Canon P&S cameras have not been noisy.
Canon p&s not noisy?? Forgive me while I choke. Canon p&s are less
noisy than most panasonic p&s, yes, but they ARE very noisy compared to
the typical 4/3 sensor. Having said that, we've not seen any noise
tests of the G1 so it is dangerous to speculate.
>> I saw just a few samples in the Panasonic website, as
>> well as a few photos taken from early buy happy owners of the new G1
>> in the DPreview's talk forum. I was impressed with the image quality.
Just bear in mind that every new owner will tend to love their camera -
after all, they must justify their recent purchase, and likely haven't
tested it out under trying circumstances!
> You can get good depth of field with a D60, but not with a P&S.
As Anira was asking about the G1, this is a bit stupid. The G1 will
give much better d-o-f control than a p&s but less than a dslr, all
things being equal.. but they aren't, and it really depends on the lenses.
>> So... is it a G1 or a D60 (+ 2 lenses) for approx. the same price?
The D60, of course! Having said all that, I would not dream of buying
such a ground-breaking camera as the G1 until I saw several reviews at
places like dpreview, imaging-resource and cameralabs. Despite the
frequent accusations of bias (from all camps, so it all balances out),
these are relatively reputable sources, unlike some of the sources
posting here.
> I would not spend more money on a G1 given Panasonic's reputation. I
> would not give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for what is essentially
> a glorified P&S.
Again, this is a silly, uninformed, premature statement from sms. 4/3
sensors are in a different league to p&s, and this camera is a relative
unknown. What real information that has come out so far is promising,
but who knows.
In the meantime, buy the D60, and then if the G1 (or G2/G3..) is showing
its worth over time, sell the Nikon and 'upgrade'.
(O:
Ed_Topeman
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
ASAAR
> I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
> VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
> camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
> good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
> features in the camera? Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
> (Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
If the kit is complete, that is, if it includes all of the things
normally provided with the camera, it's a good deal. If the D60 is
like all of the Nikon DSLR kits that I've seen, it will include a
battery, a battery charger, cables (A.C., USB, video), manuals and
quick guides (an English and a Spanish version), an errata sheet, an
eyepiece cap, a 1 year warranty for the camera and each lens, and a
4 year warranty extension for each of the lenses.
I just checked B&H's website, and their price for the D60 kit that
includes only the 18-55mm VR lens is $599.95 ($649.95 minus a $50
instant rebate). A way to look at it is that your dealer is giving
you B&H's kit for the same price and adding the 55-200mm lens for
another $50. B&H has a two lens kit for $849.95 (this includes a
$100 instant rebate), but both lenses have VR. Their price for the
55-200mm lenses is $144.95 for the non-VR and $199.95 for the VR
version. So you could buy the two lens kit from your dealer for
$650, buy the VR version of the lens from B&H for $200 and try to
sell the non-VR 55-200mm lens. If you can get more than $50 for it
you'll come out ahead.
tony cooper
In today's local newspaper, both camera stores in this town are
advertising the D60 at $599 for the body and 18-55, and $149 more for
the 55-200. With the purchase of both, you get a camera bag and some
extra goodies.
The lenses are VR.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
ASAAR
> In today's local newspaper, both camera stores in this town are
> advertising the D60 at $599 for the body and 18-55, and $149 more for
> the 55-200. With the purchase of both, you get a camera bag and some
> extra goodies.
>
> The lenses are VR.
With prices are dropping as fast as the Dow it might be best to
wait a while to see how low they go. As I said a couple of replies
back it's a buyer's market, and the holiday shopping season is about
to start.
SMS
<snip>
> In today's local newspaper, both camera stores in this town are
> advertising the D60 at $599 for the body and 18-55, and $149 more for
> the 55-200. With the purchase of both, you get a camera bag and some
> extra goodies.
>
> The lenses are VR.
Buydig has it with both VR for $729 and a 4GB card, but no bag.