Thread: New Panasonic DMC FZ18 (LUMIX)
12-29-2007, 09:39 AM #18
Nice hall with a concrete floor....
12-29-2007, 02:25 PM #19
Just to share with all of you....
... Just bought a new Yonex MP-45. My less than a year old Nano Ace 7000 twin are sold to my desperate friend who are looking for same racket model.
Some fun photos to remember my buddy 'Nano Ace 7000'. The last photo is my new ba....by the MP45.
09-05-2008, 01:31 AM #20
Cat and badminton bag & Guess famous player.
Picture 1: What the cat will do next?
Picture 2: Just concluded 1st KX-MBA Tournament. Guest the famous Badminton Player. He was a champ in MD90(combined age of 90) category.
05-16-2009, 03:40 PM #21
Before and After
One is new and after crashed became useless. (many moons ago)
The other is old but after overhauled become new. (That guy spend near to RM2K on this new Honda cup makeover). Some parts of the bike were chromed.
Talk about chrome. My google chrome not able to attached Pictures. When hover the mouse pointer to the pin (attachments) the pin icon did not focus. Nothing happened when click on this icon. Anyone encountered the same issue?. Any solution? No problem with Mozilla and MS Explorer.
05-16-2009, 08:31 PM #22
The FZ-18 is a good, great-value-for-money P&S camera
All my earlier photos in the 'Travel Thread' were shot using it.
But, for high-speed badminton.... it's simply not enough
05-17-2009, 09:35 AM #23
Haven't tried the FZ-18, but I have used my Mum's FZ-28 (the FZ-18's replacement). It is an absolutely fantastic camera - far superior to the equivalents from other brands, such as the Nikon P80 (I've tried a fair few compact superzooms).
Infact, my dad felt the need to buy a new camera as the FZ-28 took better pictures than he (an experienced photographer) could get with his Canon 350D DSLR!
Not sure how it would do on sports, but it copes very well with fast flying birds (by which I mean actual birds with flappy wings) which I'd have thought would be similar. Also it records HD video which is nice
05-17-2009, 02:20 PM #24
P&S camera is very easy to setup and shoot. The images below were taken during one of my many grazing out of the office window for idea after a long none stop working and *browsing this forum*. It were taken without opening the window. In the horizon, I saw a Helicopter. It was flying toward me. From the time I went to my computer bag, take out the camera from the casing and setup the camera to be readied for taking picture was about 6 seconds or less. All the images below were uploaded without any editing, but only resize it smaller.
Yes, you can capture in high speed 1/100 - 1/250 in Badminton action but as Oldhand mentioned it is not fast enough (picture quality will be affected). Most of the photos I captured during MO08-09 were around 1/100 to 1/250. Due to high ISO used around 800-1600, some photos look grainy. ISO 400 and 1/100 is acceptable. I am using manual setting.
05-19-2009, 07:53 PM #25
The Lumix DMC FZ18 is a bit large for a P & S camera, yet it has a very small sensor (1/2.5"). The Lumix LX3 is much smaller and has the typical P & S size and yet it has a much larger sensor. The LX3 also takes much better pictures and has a much faster and better lens (summicron-the king of lens).
05-19-2009, 11:48 PM #26
IMO FZ18 and LX3 can't be compared. I have limited knowledge in Panasonic cameras but they seem to be comparable with Canon's S series and G series. One is compact superzoom camera and the other is toward prosumer camera.
roughly if I'm going on travelling I will take FZ to take advantage of the zoom, but if I know I will be taking indoor or even outdoor and dark I will take LX3.
Also for comparing FZ28 to 350D. I don't think FZ28 can compete with 350D, one is SLR like camera and the other is dSLR. What lenses used for 350D?
05-20-2009, 03:01 AM #27
It would be better to go DSLR and there are small ones not much larger than the FZ18 (say Four Thirds). For the compact P & S you can choose the standard 1/2.5" sensor type or the top of the range, the LX3 with a 1/1.6" sensor and an f2 lens. The Canon G series are too big to be considered compact P & S.
05-20-2009, 07:26 AM #28
The FZ-18 (or FZ-28) obviously isn't going to compare well to the LX-3 - that's why the LX-3 costs £100+ more
Whilst they aren't going to fit in your shirt pocket, they are certainly nowhere near the size or weight of an SLR. If you are going on a hike with them around your neck, you are going to notice the difference - and that's without the extra lenses you would need to be able to take the same variety of pictures as is possible with a superzoom.
My parents are kind of "amateur naturalists" - they go on long walks / holidays, and want to take pictures of landscapes (wide angle), birds (telephoto), and insects etc (macro) along the way. Are you going to try telling me there's an SLR + lens combination that can do all that and still be as small and light as a compact superzoom?
I think not, and that's pretty much the point of compact superzooms - versatility (that and the price difference Vs an SLR). Obviously they have to compromise on image quality to some extent, but then all cameras compromise on something.
btw: None of the cameras mentioned on this page are "compact P & S".
Have you ever actually tried these cameras, or are you just looking at numbers on a spec sheet?
I've tried a few over the years, starting with the Konica Minolta Z10 (8X zoom, which was considered huge at the time) and Z5. As you'd expect, some are very bad - the Nikon P80 has terrible vignetting for example, and some others suffer from barrel distortion (not surprising for cameras with long zooms) and others the colors are bad.
However, they've come a long way, and some new models, like the FZ-28, are genuinely very good cameras. Maybe next time my parents come to visit I will post some pics...
05-20-2009, 08:40 AM #29
Of course cameras like the DMC FZ18 and FZ28 are larger in size than some of the smaller four thirds cameras, the latter also have sensor sizes that are 5 to 7 times larger than the former. Panasonic and Olympus both produce four thirds cameras, including Panasonic's DMC-G1 and DMC-GH1, which are much smaller but incomparably better than the FZ18 and FZ28.
Unless you are into wildlife photography which limits the photographer's movement, very long zooms are more for show and hardly used. I have immense size long focal lenses that I hardly ever used, after their initial novelty wears off.
05-20-2009, 10:44 AM #30
Saying that a camera costing 3 times as much is better, is stating the obvious.
Also, I don't think the difference is "immeasurable". Infact, I think the difference in quality between uncropped images, printed at A4 size, is not great at all.
I am into wildlife photography, which is why I like compact superzooms. I agree that the average person probably won't need the long zoom, or many of the other features these cameras have either, for that matter - that doesn't make them bad though - merely unsuitable. To the right user, they still represent outstanding value for money.
I mean, sure, if you've got £600 burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead and buy a G1.
If like most people however, you do not, but you'd still like a camera suitable for the kind of photography I talked about before, then right now - the FZ-28 is your best bet. That's all I'm saying.
05-22-2009, 04:50 AM #31
About wildlife photography, and photography in general, it is expansive, more expansive than you might think.
Any non-DSLR are really only good for every day photos, it has been designed that way to suit the most consumers. The limitation of a P&S means you will find it very hard to capture "non-standard" photos.
I am not saying you cannot take good pictures with a P&S, you can, but the type of photos you can take and yield satisfactory results will be limited. Usually there are only one situation you will yield good results with a P&S:
- Outdoor with plenty of light and short focal length plus a lot of time
P&S is not fast enough for wildlife photography, it doesnt matter if you can zoom 18x, if you press the shutter there will be a delay long enough to ruin your photo. The FPS is not high enough either, and you will be missing shots. Wildlife photography needs very short shutter-delay and very high fps that a P&S cannot provide.
You also will have a hard time to control the depth of field and shutter speed, also, noise will be problematic even at low ISO.
Just like sport photography, wildlife photography is one of the most expansive type of photography. DSLR gears used for these can easily go beyond 30k GBP for professionals that works for magazines or newspapers. It is not expansive because these companies can afford it, its because to capture high quality and artistic photos of such nature requires gears THAT expansive.
05-22-2009, 08:59 AM #32
I agree that you generally need good lighting - the lenses are physically smaller, so they just can't let as much light in.
I'm not sure why you think it should be hard to control shutter speed / depth of field?
Noise varies a lot between cameras, but yes, it's probably going to be worse than on SLRs.
As far as shutter-lag, and fps go, it again depends a lot on the camera. The Panasonics aren't fantastic in this respect, but others are.
Eg. Casio EX-FH20 (c.£300)
Shutter Lag : 0.01 seconds
Burst Rate: 40 fps (7MP)
Optical Zoom: x20
In my opinion, *by far* the most important thing in photography is being in the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment. If you use an SLR, that means carrying around a bulky camera, and an assortment of lenses, everywhere you go - otherwise you're going to miss opportunities. End result is that for most people, an SLR won't take better photographs, because either the camera, or the appropriate lense, is still sitting at home.
05-22-2009, 09:40 AM #33
40 FPS is pretty impressive lol I havnt paid much attention to P&S every since I got my DSLR and I didnt know they manage to crank to such an insane FPS :P
But there are a few things still worth noting:
- JPEG vs RAW , no argument here, RAW is better in many respect and since you probably cannot shoot at 40fps RAW, shooting in JPEG will be less favourable. I cant seem to understand the NEED of 40fps tho :P 10 fps is more than enough in most situation. Its good never the less, you probably just need to delete lots of photos haha
- About shutter delay, actually I meant the monitor lag. In DSLR you look through a viewfinder and what you see is in real-time. In P&S you look at the tiny LCD screen which has a significant delay, if you try doing some rapid camera movement you will see the blurry trail left behind. This delay affect your judgement of the timing to take the shot. When you see the object in the LCD its already too late, add this to your reaction time and shutter delay and it will be quite tricky to capture fast moving objects.
- Noise is a big problem and in P&S it will tend to be quite obvious beyond ISO 400.
- The camera lens is also of poor quality compared to even the worse DSLR lens. Sharpness of the image will be low, but if you are just shooting for pleasure this should be alright to live with.
- Another thing that I forgot to mention is focusing speed, since wildlife photography is all about capturing the moment, you are constantly making fast decision and focusing can be quite important. DSLR focus quite considerablly faster than P&S.
- Zoom is also important, not how far but how do you zoom, in DSLR you zoom in and out by turning the zoom ring, this is important because firstly the zoom is stepless, secondly this allow very fast zooming, you can take one wide angle shot as a safety, then zoom in real close, increase the shutter speed and take a second shot, this can be done in less half a second. while in P&S you probably will spend much longer, and risk loosing the "right moment"
as to why is it harder to control shutter speed and aperture, i guess you have to go through menu or maybe use a joystick etc? while in DSLR its just a flick of the index finger.
I understand not everyone is prepared to spend 1000 pounds of a DSLR. P&S will do great if you have a low requirement. everyday-shooting, parties and birthdays, holiday and travels, these normally have low requirement, its just a matter of capturing the object with nearly no artistic concern.
Wildlife photographer however has a higher requirement simply due to how difficult it is to capture moving animals without startling them.
Im just saying using less capable camera in shooting tricky photo will be so much more harder and perhaps hoping for good performance is just going to end in a bit of a disappointment.
05-22-2009, 11:31 AM #34
Some superzooms (eg. Panasonic FZ-30) have the manual zoom ring. The zooming is fast and smooth enough on most other cameras anyway (they use a very large number of "steps").
Lenses do usually suffer from various forms of distortion at the extremes of their zoom range, and in some cases chromatic abberation. This is inevitable given their size.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that:
* Yes, performance-wise even a high-end compact is not as good as an SLR, BUT the difference is nowhere near as big as most people (esp. "SLR Snobs" and people who haven't bought a camera lately) think - they are capable of A LOT more than "parties and birthdays, holidays and travels".
* SLRs are much bulkier, and may need up to 3 different lenses to match the versatility of a compact. They are also considerably more expensive.
Basically, they're designed for two entirely different groups of people, and you're going to know which is right for you without having to think about it too much.
For me, an SLR would be absolutely useless - I simply wouldn't take it anywhere, because it would be too cumbersome, and in a lot of situations I'd be too worried about damaging it.