FZ50 or DSLR

[ziggy]

I have been happily using an FX7, now FX01 as well as a FZ5 mainly because of the Leica lenses. So far I have not been disappointed - the colours are good and sharp up to A4 size.

I am now thinking of buying either an FZ50 or a Nikon DSLR mainly for larger prints. DSLRs will probably have lower noise and maybe retain its sharpness for 16 x 20 prints.

My main concern is the colour. I had a Nikon system as well as a Leica R system previously. The Leica, altho much harder to use gave me colours that are richer and more real espcially in low light than any of the Nikons I had, even the Nikon 400 f2.8, 80-200 f2.8 AFS, which in my opinion are some of their best lenses . In fact my very old 55mm f3.5 micro (non-AI) badly scratched, not very sharp Nikkor gave better colours. The current Nikkors seem rather 'cool' and etched, unlike the natural colours of the Leica especially on enlargments.

Options for DSLR could be the Pana L1, or fit an adaptor to a Canon for Leica lenses. After reading the L1 preview in Luminous Landscape, it seems it isn't so great a body. We shall see. Also if I need a long lens, 300mm upwards (for bird photography), the Pana/Leica option will seem very expensive for occasional shoots. Canon/Leica combo will be too slow.

I always liked the Nikon bodies, favourites were the F3 and F100. The D80 looks like what I need. However it's the lenses and quality. I am useless with Photoshop so tweaking too much in a PC will be a problem.

Anyone who has a FZ30 as well as a Nikon system who could perhaps tell me what compromises to expect? Any comments much appreciated.

 

[CYRN]

I tot nikon DSLRs allows you to load custom curves and do some tone/hue adjustment?

Ypu can always shoot RAW mah.

 

[metallilan]

I didn't use an Fz5 but an Fz30. So can't help you out much. But many of the old timers here who have used Fz5 have upgraded to DSLR..

Eg.

FZOwner - KM5D
Myself - Nikon D70
ExplorerZ - Nikon D50
DaXiong - D70
Littledigitalartist - 300D (think so la lol)
and many more... you guys can continue the list if you want...
and the list continues.

Really, Fz50 is, well, IMO i good upgrade to an Fz30, well at least in terms of TTL flash connectivity is concerned, where other features is im not very sure Panasonic has improved on that much aside from L1.

If you wish to buy L1, you have to remember that the DSLR is built not for high speed photography like sports where you cannot afford the 'live view' shutter lag, theres where the WYSIWYG view comes in.

Photoshop is something all of us, even Pro's will have to touch one way of the other. Its abit hard to bypass that option of getting out of the camera shot image unless of course

1. You yourself is a pro
2. You are using a pro body
3. You have a pro lens

So yeah. Choose your next camera wisely. =)

 

[ExplorerZ]

I have been happily using an FX7, now FX01 as well as a FZ5 mainly because of the Leica lenses. So far I have not been disappointed - the colours are good and sharp up to A4 size.

eh 1stly 5MP is enough for you to go up to A3 with still decent quality(unless the photos you going to print have lots of noise)

I am now thinking of buying either an FZ50 or a Nikon DSLR mainly for larger prints. DSLRs will probably have lower noise and maybe retain its sharpness for 16 x 20 prints.

My main concern is the colour. I had a Nikon system as well as a Leica R system previously. The Leica, altho much harder to use gave me colours that are richer and more real espcially in low light than any of the Nikons I had, even the Nikon 400 f2.8, 80-200 f2.8 AFS, which in my opinion are some of their best lenses . In fact my very old 55mm f3.5 micro (non-AI) badly scratched, not very sharp Nikkor gave better colours. The current Nikkors seem rather 'cool' and etched, unlike the natural colours of the Leica especially on enlargments.

Options for DSLR could be the Pana L1, or fit an adaptor to a Canon for Leica lenses. After reading the L1 preview in Luminous Landscape, it seems it isn't so great a body. We shall see. Also if I need a long lens, 300mm upwards (for bird photography), the Pana/Leica option will seem very expensive for occasional shoots. Canon/Leica combo will be too slow.

I always liked the Nikon bodies, favourites were the F3 and F100. The D80 looks like what I need. However it's the lenses and quality. I am useless with Photoshop so tweaking too much in a PC will be a problem.

Anyone who has a FZ30 as well as a Nikon system who could perhaps tell me what compromises to expect? Any comments much appreciated.

as for this part, nearly every one know getting dSLR will give you better image quality as compared to any fz (provided you got good set of lens as well) D80 is a pretty good camera (or should i say a very good camera :sweatsm as for color in low light/high iso photography, i pretty much believed that the new nikon are able to give you good color as well(you might want to take a look at d50 which doesn't seems too desaturated even in ISO1600 as compared to the older nikon dSLR, d80 should do that well or even better :thumbsup.
Changing from FZ to dSLR, one main problem you might encountered would surely be the lost of OIS (unless you can afford VR lenses), this could jolly well mean that you will have to push up some ISO.
2ndly would be you will lose a 35-420mm near f2.8 constant 12x zoom featured in FZ30.
3rd would be you will be missing ur live preview LCD :lovegrin:

thats mainly the few factor which hit me seriously when i upgrade from FZ5 to D50, but slowly recovered now, and doesn't bother me that much.

oopz 4got 1 more things to include. you will have to carry a MUCH MUCH heavier load if you are going for the f2.8

 

[ziggy]

Thanks everyone.

I am using photoshop but when it comes to correcting colours, I am pretty useless. Both Panas are very good when it comes to colours (much better than my early Coolpix which is ... cool). And therefore my concerns.

I can live with some noise, after all I had been shooting ISO 400/800 film in the past and had pretty good enlargments. But Leica lenses (I use the R) generally have more natural colours, a somewhat 'pop-out' effect that no amount of manipulation in the lab or PS can replicate. The difference becomes very obvious when you enlarge. The closest I got in terms of colours was the Nikkor AFS 80-200 f2.8, and maybe the old 55 f3.5 Micro.

For bird and sports photography, the L1 will probably be too slow and no long lenses at the moment. At this moment, it seems to me that the FZ50 may be the best bet. Or maybe keep my FZ5 and get a D80+18-200VR and see what happens. Or are there other alternatives?

 

[metallilan]

Thanks everyone.

I am using photoshop but when it comes to correcting colours, I am pretty useless. Both Panas are very good when it comes to colours (much better than my early Coolpix which is ... cool). And therefore my concerns.

I can live with some noise, after all I had been shooting ISO 400/800 film in the past and had pretty good enlargments. But Leica lenses (I use the R) generally have more natural colours, a somewhat 'pop-out' effect that no amount of manipulation in the lab or PS can replicate. The difference becomes very obvious when you enlarge. The closest I got in terms of colours was the Nikkor AFS 80-200 f2.8, and maybe the old 55 f3.5 Micro.

For bird and sports photography, the L1 will probably be too slow and no long lenses at the moment. At this moment, it seems to me that the FZ50 may be the best bet. Or maybe keep my FZ5 and get a D80+18-200VR and see what happens. Or are there other alternatives?

If cost is not an issue, then theres no problem getting a DSLR...

 

[CYRN]

If cost is not an issue, then theres no problem getting a DSLR...

and weight too. :sweat:

 

[ziggy]

Reasonable costs, below $3k is not an issue at this moment. Noise will be better for a DSLR. But will a Nikon/Canon body+lens be better than the FZ50 for colour and the 'pop-up' effect?

 

[metallilan]

Reasonable costs, below $3k is not an issue at this moment. Noise will be better for a DSLR. But will a Nikon/Canon body+lens be better than the FZ50 for colour and the 'pop-up' effect?

With a DSLR you're able to load in custom curves that are essential curves made by other people to achieve the 'colour' you want. Most DSLR have a settings for increasing the saturation changing the colour space to ARGB or SRGB, depending on your needs.

Btw, what 'pop-up' effect... or do i sense its something to do with 'bokeh' :sweat:

 

[ExplorerZ]

Reasonable costs, below $3k is not an issue at this moment. Noise will be better for a DSLR. But will a Nikon/Canon body+lens be better than the FZ50 for colour and the 'pop-up' effect?

do try out, or visit some of the dSLR user gallery. They might have the results you wanted. As for me i take d50 any time over my fz5 :thumbsup:, just love the handling and high ISO :lovegrin:.
and any picture to show the 'pop-up' effect? would be better if we can see some examples.
just to add on, 3k is pretty good enough to get 1 decent set of dSLR. 2k will goes to D80 if you are going to the dark side, and the rest of the $ can be spent on a SB600 perhaps, 50/f1.8 and another $500 left on a lens which you will most probably be using most, either a tele, prime or wide angle.

 

[Hexlord]

With a DSLR you're able to load in custom curves that are essential curves made by other people to achieve the 'colour' you want. Most DSLR have a settings for increasing the saturation changing the colour space to ARGB or SRGB, depending on your needs.

Btw, what 'pop-up' effect... or do i sense its something to do with 'bokeh' :sweat:

I guess Ziggy's talking about vibrant and lively colours.. the type that make you go whoa and look at it just a wee bit longer...

Kinda the same type of reasons why ppl go for S3Pro?

 

[ExplorerZ]

I guess Ziggy's talking about vibrant and lively colours.. the type that make you go whoa and look at it just a wee bit longer...

Kinda the same type of reasons why ppl go for S3Pro?

i think dSLR can achieve that vibracy as well, just use vivid mode should be more than enough.
most people go for S3pro basically because of the superb dynamic range. :thumbsup:

my advise again, is to try out before deciding!

 

[hann_t]

DSLR, under most circumstances!

However, issues that favour the FZ50:

1. shooting from the hip, so to speak. The flip-out LCD would come in handy. and previewing the focusing on the "live preview" in this case would not be as laggy as what the LC1 or the Olympus E330 (the only 2 DSLRs to offer live preview, but I do stand corrected!) would offer.

2. the zoom range of 36mm to 432mm. Would be VERY heavy if such lenses were attached to a DSLR. Oh yeah, and costly too :bsmilie:

I personally would get the FZ50 as an upgrade over my current FZ7, especially if the Venus Engine III works better in cutting noise and preserving details.

 

[ExplorerZ]

DSLR, under most circumstances!

However, issues that favour the FZ50:

1. shooting from the hip, so to speak. The flip-out LCD would come in handy. and previewing the focusing on the "live preview" in this case would not be as laggy as what the LC1 or the Olympus E330 (the only 2 DSLRs to offer live preview, but I do stand corrected!) would offer.

2. the zoom range of 36mm to 432mm. Would be VERY heavy if such lenses were attached to a DSLR. Oh yeah, and costly too :bsmilie:

I personally would get the FZ50 as an upgrade over my current FZ7, especially if the Venus Engine III works better in cutting noise and preserving details.

LC1? u mean L1...
actually 36-432mm zoom lens is pretty light for dSLR just that the f2.8-3.7 aperture is hard to acheive. some of such lens are 18-200/28-300 (27-300mm/42-450mm) both of which are pretty close. iirc the nikon 18-200vr is just around 500g or maybe lesser.

 

[metallilan]

DSLR, under most circumstances!

However, issues that favour the FZ50:

1. shooting from the hip, so to speak. The flip-out LCD would come in handy. and previewing the focusing on the "live preview" in this case would not be as laggy as what the LC1 or the Olympus E330 (the only 2 DSLRs to offer live preview, but I do stand corrected!) would offer.

2. the zoom range of 36mm to 432mm. Would be VERY heavy if such lenses were attached to a DSLR. Oh yeah, and costly too :bsmilie:

I personally would get the FZ50 as an upgrade over my current FZ7, especially if the Venus Engine III works better in cutting noise and preserving details.

'Live View' in DSLR isnt the same as 'Live View' in digicamera's... do not that digicamera's do not have shutter mechanism thus the view from the lens is fed live to the CCD and the 'shutter' works electronically..thus there isn't any of the jittery lag in view unlike the 'Live View' DSLRs...

Shooting from the hip i think depends on per person really. Some like to shoot to the screen whilst other shoot through the EVF.

Zoom wise, not a problem really, well, in the case of ziggy who already stated below 3K is not an issue... 18-200 is pretty compact if you compare it to the super zooms like canon's white lenses. But yeah, 2.8 to 3.7 is hard to achieve on telephoto, as the flavours are usually 4-5.6 or just straight 2.8 (in the case of 18-200 is 3.5-5.6)

So i guess its up to ziggy now...remember its the photographer not the camera!

 

[hann_t]

LC1? u mean L1...
actually 36-432mm zoom lens is pretty light for dSLR just that the f2.8-3.7 aperture is hard to acheive. some of such lens are 18-200/28-300 (27-300mm/42-450mm) both of which are pretty close. iirc the nikon 18-200vr is just around 500g or maybe lesser.

OOps!! yeah, L1!! :embrass:

 

[ziggy]

Hi Hexlord

Yes that was what I was trying to put across, the natural colours and tones, especially shadow area details.



I had Nikons and Leicas. The reason for a Leica was for the colours, the vibrancy, tones, detail, the 'punch'... They are any time better than any of the Nikons including a 400mm f2.8 AF I had as far as colours etc are concerned altho the AFS 80-200 was close. This gives a not-so-patient and lazy photographer like me an advantage in producing photos that look as good as those who are artistically and technically better than me, i.e. most othr photgraphers.

But Leicas are expensive and very heavy. They are also very very slow to work with. Shooting birds in the Bird Park is fine but elsewhere, forget it. The Nikons are a joy to use but the photos were never as 'nice' as those with my Leicas. Most look pretty lifeless especially when it is a little underexposed.

As I hardly take any more pictures, I sold my Nikons and Leicas a few years ago, very cheaply.

However for the past 2 years, I have been taking more photos with first a Nikon Coolpix (3 MP forget model) which was not good as the colours were rather 'cool'. Then I bought a FX7. It was good so I bought an FZ5 which was even better. The colours were good, nothing like my Leica Rs but good enough. Recently I sold my FX7 to buy a FX01 for its wide angle. I am pretty happy with both given the limitations.

Now I am looking for a system so that I can enlarge some of my photos, like fireworks, birds, portraits.

I am sure the Nikon will give me good pictures. But would they be lifeless? If so, I would rather stick with the DCs like FZ50 if I do not wish to spend too much.

 

[drewdam]

Hi Hexlord

Yes that was what I was trying to put across, the natural colours and tones, especially shadow area details.



I had Nikons and Leicas. The reason for a Leica was for the colours, the vibrancy, tones, detail, the 'punch'... They are any time better than any of the Nikons including a 400mm f2.8 AF I had as far as colours etc are concerned altho the AFS 80-200 was close. This gives a not-so-patient and lazy photographer like me an advantage in producing photos that look as good as those who are artistically and technically better than me, i.e. most othr photgraphers.

But Leicas are expensive and very heavy. They are also very very slow to work with. Shooting birds in the Bird Park is fine but elsewhere, forget it. The Nikons are a joy to use but the photos were never as 'nice' as those with my Leicas. Most look pretty lifeless especially when it is a little underexposed.

As I hardly take any more pictures, I sold my Nikons and Leicas a few years ago, very cheaply.

However for the past 2 years, I have been taking more photos with first a Nikon Coolpix (3 MP forget model) which was not good as the colours were rather 'cool'. Then I bought a FX7. It was good so I bought an FZ5 which was even better. The colours were good, nothing like my Leica Rs but good enough. Recently I sold my FX7 to buy a FX01 for its wide angle. I am pretty happy with both given the limitations.

Now I am looking for a system so that I can enlarge some of my photos, like fireworks, birds, portraits.

I am sure the Nikon will give me good pictures. But would they be lifeless? If so, I would rather stick with the DCs like FZ50 if I do not wish to spend too much.

have u tot of Oly?

 

[ziggy]

Oly? Not really as I don't know much about it except using my brother's then OM-1 briefly many years ago. The colours were actually quite good, I remember. Do you think this could be a good alternative?

I have tried the Nikon bodies at CP and they felt very good but never thought of Oly.

 

[drewdam]

Oly? Not really as I don't know much about it except using my brother's then OM-1 briefly many years ago. The colours were actually quite good, I remember. Do you think this could be a good alternative?

I have tried the Nikon bodies at CP and they felt very good but never thought of Oly.

before i bought the Oly E500, i had handle D50 n D70s...too big for me, i have small palm n weak arm due to inquiry....i prefer Oly in term of size and ergonomics...well these opinion are very personal. but loose out the chooses of lenes and accessories tho..but it help to contain the BBB virus