Want to buy ultrazoom cam, some qns


Status
Not open for further replies.

DiGdUb

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2006
3,441
1
38
#1
i'm looking for a camera with ultrazoom, prefably 6x or more. i found the following models that seems good - canon s3is, fujifilm 6500fd, kodak p880.

1. the s3is has ois, but i want to check in what situations will the s3is be useful? will it be useful for >1s handheld shots?

2. 6500fd has good high iso, which is probably good at night. but no ois, will this affect handheld macro shots when near or at full tele range?

3. p880 also no ois, so same reservations as 6500fd.

my intended use is for nature closeup photography and night. can advise pls? thank you. :dunno:
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#2
i'm looking for a camera with ultrazoom, prefably 6x or more. i found the following models that seems good - canon s3is, fujifilm 6500fd, kodak p880.

1. the s3is has ois, but i want to check in what situations will the s3is be useful? will it be useful for >1s handheld shots?

2. 6500fd has good high iso, which is probably good at night. but no ois, will this affect handheld macro shots when near or at full tele range?

3. p880 also no ois, so same reservations as 6500fd.

my intended use is for nature closeup photography and night. can advise pls? thank you. :dunno:
I would ignore the kodak - AFAIK it has no real "advantages".

Also consider panasonic FZ30, FZ50, FZ7 and sony H2/H5.

All these cameras will suck for night photography (the 6500fd will be the best, the F30 will be better) , all will do pretty well for macro photography (potentially better than even a DSLR).

The 6500fd will suck as compared to all the rest if you want superzoom (long tele) ability, because while it can do a passable ISO400, there is still a loss of quality as compared to using a lower ISO, so having OSI is a better idea.

Frankly, if you just want to do closeup photograph and night photography (whether of people indoors or of landscapes) I can't see any advantage of having the longer range, and the best bet is probably the Fuji F30/F31fd, which is the best low-light P&S. Unless, of course, you need more working distance between the camera and the subject for macro photography - I'm not sure about the dynamics of this, but I suspect that even a superzoom won't really give you much working distance if you want decent magnification. Please check this.

FWIW, I was in your position a month ago, and I ended up getting a Pentax K100D. The other obvious alternative (around the same price) is a Nikon D40, although there are reasons to prefer the pentax. (and, P&S cameras are better for certain types of photography (including types of macro photography) because you get more depth of field automatically, due to the smaller sensor.)
 

DiGdUb

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2006
3,441
1
38
#3
I would ignore the kodak - AFAIK it has no real "advantages".

Also consider panasonic FZ30, FZ50, FZ7 and sony H2/H5.

All these cameras will suck for night photography (the 6500fd will be the best, the F30 will be better) , all will do pretty well for macro photography (potentially better than even a DSLR).

The 6500fd will suck as compared to all the rest if you want superzoom (long tele) ability, because while it can do a passable ISO400, there is still a loss of quality as compared to using a lower ISO, so having OSI is a better idea.

Frankly, if you just want to do closeup photograph and night photography (whether of people indoors or of landscapes) I can't see any advantage of having the longer range, and the best bet is probably the Fuji F30/F31fd, which is the best low-light P&S. Unless, of course, you need more working distance between the camera and the subject for macro photography - I'm not sure about the dynamics of this, but I suspect that even a superzoom won't really give you much working distance if you want decent magnification. Please check this.

FWIW, I was in your position a month ago, and I ended up getting a Pentax K100D. The other obvious alternative (around the same price) is a Nikon D40, although there are reasons to prefer the pentax. (and, P&S cameras are for certain usages better for macro photography because you get more depth of field automatically, due to the smaller sensor.)
thanks for your advice. i'm thinking of taking birds and insects without going too close and cause them to fly or run away. will a ultrazoom be suitable for this? night probably i will put it on tripod if high iso is not available. :sweat:
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#4
thanks for your advice. i'm thinking of taking birds and insects without going too close and cause them to fly or run away. will a ultrazoom be suitable for this? night probably i will put it on tripod if high iso is not available. :sweat:
At night, if you're using a tripod and for shots where motion is not an issue (landscapes), OIS is irrelevant, as is high ISO performance.

For example, if I'm using a tripod at night I set my camera to the -lowest- ISO possible, just to reduce noise.

OIS/high ISO is not useful for exposures which require exposure times which run into the seconds.

I suspect that the maximum working distance will be 1.6 inches.

See : http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/macro1.html

Of course, there are examples of nature shots of insects taken with a similar working distance. http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/articles/a70_reversed_35mmf2/

One thing about macro is that you'll need lots and lots of light.

--

Birds are something else altogether - they're a classic telezoom subject, but I kinda doubt that a superzoom will be the best alternative - you probably want OIS as -well- as usable high ISO. You'll also probably also want more zoom than any superzoom provides by default. If you're serious about it, perhaps also consider the cost of the relevant tele extender - e.g. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=21015895

So I don't know which superzoom I would pick for birds - consider the other things about the cameras to decide (like how they handle).
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#5
thanks for your advice. i'm thinking of taking birds and insects without going too close and cause them to fly or run away. will a ultrazoom be suitable for this? night probably i will put it on tripod if high iso is not available. :sweat:
lumix fz-series will be you best bet for both birds and insects shooting...
there are a few macro shooter getting far better result than some dSLR user(including me :embrass:) with their fz (depends on your skill as well)
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#6
lumix fz-series will be you best bet for both birds and insects shooting...
there are a few macro shooter getting far better result than some dSLR user(including me :embrass:) with their fz (depends on your skill as well)
why fz over the other options?
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#7
why fz over the other options?
for macro shooting there is a very high demand for detail and would be the best if one can use long focal length especially on very small subject. the fz series meet the two demand the best. (note the word 'best'... other are good as well, but fz have an edge)
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#8
for macro shooting there is a very high demand for detail and would be the best if one can use long focal length especially on very small subject. the fz series meet the two demand the best. (note the word 'best'... other are good as well, but fz have an edge)
YEs, yes, WHY does it have an edge?

I have no vested interest, but you must have some reason for your statement? There are lots of competing models with similar specifications.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#9
YEs, yes, WHY does it have an edge?

I have no vested interest, but you must have some reason for your statement? There are lots of competing models with similar specifications.
simple... the leica lens are sharper than the other...

you might disagree, but this is my reason.
 

blueskye168

Senior Member
Aug 28, 2006
2,874
1
0
AVPS
#10
simple... the leica lens are sharper than the other...

you might disagree, but this is my reason.
Absolutely, thats right. Leica lens really:thumbsup::thumbsup: If high iso is concern on fz then try NeatImage + iso800 = :thumbsup: results(cos tats what I'd tried + it really works wonder:bigeyes:)

Thanks:cool:
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#11
simple... the leica lens are sharper than the other...

you might disagree, but this is my reason.
True, but unfortunately panasonic sensors are also lousier than the others, and image = lens + sensor, so the difference kinda evens out.
 

cheersjy

New Member
Jul 1, 2003
917
0
0
Hougang
www.pbase.com
#12
Have used FZ5, S3IS, H1 and F6500.
FZ5 has the fastest response and AF, but let down by poor image quality (even at ISO100);
S3IS has nice image quality and flipping LCD, but accessing to the exposure controls is a bit clumpsy;
H1/H2 gives good images and good access to manual control, but using expensive MS;
F6500 feels like DSLR if u dun mind the bulkiness. It has mechanical zoom, good image at high ISO, but using XD and user interface a bit unfriendly.

Try them out and feel them for yourself. Hope this helps :)
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#14
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom