FZ7 better than 350D!

[Saudidave]

I Just thought I'd stir things up! I'd decided to upgrade from a 350D to a 400 for the simple reason that the 350D LCD is to small to read without my glasses - no other reason at all, in every respect I've considered the 350D to be brilliant. With the prospect of a few weeks without my slr, I gave my FZ7 a work out (I use it for record shots and keep it in the car). I did a lot of comparison shots using my 17-85IS and set the parameters to max saturation and sharpness. I have discovered, to my surprise (and dismay) that the FZ7 shots are sharper, time after time at 100 iso. I appreciate all the advantages of the 350D, particularly as the light fails, but you would think that the images from a grands worth of kit would be at least as good as £250 worth!

[ssim]

You are comparing a P&S to a DSLR. Personally I don't think anything else really needs to be said. Ok , I will. Are the processing parameters set even close to each other. Is this an apples to apples comparison.

Personally I tire of this comparison that is followed by "for what I paid for this it should butter my toast". Life is full of choices and god knows I've made some poor ones but if you feel you aren't getting full value for what you paid for then sell it.

[PAFC2004]

PnS are designed to get the best results straight out of the camera...

[goatee]

Saudidave - photos from point and shoot cameras will almost always be sharper and have richer colours, with more contrast than shots straight from a digital SLR. This is because the images are sharpened, and contrast and saturation boosted in-camera, whereas if you have a digital SLR, you're expected to do the work yourself. Scott Kelby has written a good few easy books on Photoshop for photographers - I'd suggest a read :).

[Andy_T]

Saudidave,

what sharpness are you referring to?
The sharpness of your subject, that is in focus, or the out-of-focus areas. It is very easy to confuse shallow DOF with unsharpness.

Maybe you'd have an example?

Best regards,
Andy

[Saudidave]

I'm talking crisp, clear, in focus , sharp defined images.Not DOF issues, but the clarity of the bits that are supposed to be in focus. Would the muppets firing one off at me calm down and please note that I stated in my post that the 350D was set up for max sharpness. I also (muppets please note) saved images as raw+jpeg and did a teak in rawshooter pro before tweaking further in photoshop. It's called post processing and I'm very familiar and experienced in it. What I'm saying, quite categorically, is that the image sharpness, definition and focus is consistently better from the FZ7 than the 17-85. The glass is better. (Probably because of it's size - smaller lenses are easier to grind than bigger ones) As for selling my 350D, I am doing, it's on ebay now. I shall be buying a camera with IS in the body, so I don't get ripped off every time I buy a lens. I'll post some samples tonight - I'm on my lunch break at work now.

[Tom W]

Personally I tire of this comparison that is followed by "for what I paid for this it should butter my toast".

My 5D butters both sides of my toast! ;)

[tbrasington]

I'm talking crisp, clear, in focus , sharp defined images.Not DOF issues, but the clarity of the bits that are supposed to be in focus. Would the muppets firing one off at me calm down and please note that I stated in my post that the 350D was set up for max sharpness. I also (muppets please note) saved images as raw+jpeg and did a teak in rawshooter pro before tweaking further in photoshop. It's called post processing and I'm very familiar and experienced in it. What I'm saying, quite categorically, is that the image sharpness, definition and focus is consistently better from the FZ7 than the 17-85. The glass is better. (Probably because of it's size - smaller lenses are easier to grind than bigger ones) As for selling my 350D, I am doing, it's on ebay now. I shall be buying a camera with IS in the body, so I don't get ripped off every time I buy a lens. I'll post some samples tonight - I'm on my lunch break at work now.

Could you not match the sharpness in Photoshop ?

[red hot sheep]

IF, you are right (and that's a very big if), then your FZ7 is not better than a 350d: the FZ7 glass is better (for it's size) than the 17-85mm.

Attach a pro lens and the 350d image would be much better.

[Dave_G]

One of my mates had a PowerShot Pro 1 which produced lovely sharp crisp shots compared to his 350D. Once the shots from the 350D had been PPd up they were as good and maybe better.

What did you take photos of? Was it moving? I bet that the 350D would produce much better images a bridge camera like your Panasonic if you factored some movement into it - point and shoots and bridge cameras just cannot focus as quick as a DSLR.

Good luck with your S*ny Alpha purchase.

[Mark_Cohran]

Some people are just better off with P&S cameras. If you think you're getting "ripped off" when you buy an IS lens, you're probably one of them. If you like the photos from your FZ7, then stick with it. You're not going to convince me that it's a bettter camera than the 350D, nor many of the other "muppets" on here. But to each their own. Good luck with you sale and new purchase.

Mark

[gjl711]

As a recent convert from a PS camera, (Nikon 8700) I have also done many side by side comparisons and also noticed that in certain cases, the Nikon outperforms my 350 XT. This is especially true in very bright conditions (daylight) and with subjects that do not move very quickly (trees) The Nikon has a very nice lens, autofocus’ well, though a bit slowly, and has beautiful color saturation and like you I was a bit torqued that I did not see a great improvement in image quality.

Then I took my first picture at dusk and remembered why I upgraded. The Nikon hunted and hunted, finally focusing. The resulting picture had a multi colored sky as there were more noise pixels than blue sky pixels and the graininess was so extreme that it was unfixable in PS. I still use my Nikon as a backup as it does something very nicely (35 sec. movie and such) but any time I would wander away from the trees sitting in a bright sunny field, there is no comparison, the XT kicks butt.

[hudsonch]

Lets put it this way - If you go to a theme park and want to take a pic of your family, both FZ7 and 350D/17-85 would do a great job if their lenses are set at 50mm equivalent. For casual users, definitely FZ7 has certain advantages - the movie mode, for instance. If someone wants to get 4x6 prints at chain pharmacy stores directly from the camera's memory card, he/she would pick FZ7.

I would say, FZ7 can handle 80% of my photo needs, not bad. But, as a serious enthusiast, I have to choose a DSLR to cater for the rest 20% of my photo needs (that is the Pareto's Principle, or 80/20 rule! :lol: )

To me, the biggest advantage to use a DSLR is the interchangeable lenses. FZ7 has a lens 6-72mm (or 36-432mm equivalent). 432mm is really impressive, however 36mm is not wide enough. 17-85 is not the best lens, but you can always add other expensive or not-so expensive lenses...

Please also note that the FZ7's lens' minimum aperture is f/8 - propably because its sensor size is only 1/6 of a 35mm slide. What if you really need f/11 or 16 to get the maximum DOF (I know, the IQ may suffer, but sometimes you would really NEED this)

Under special circumstances when manual focusing is necessary, again, FZ7 is not the best option. Manual focus by a joystick can never be accurate. OK, 350D has a small screen, but it is still workable if you get a large aperture lens.

This is only my personal opinion. However, if you get satisfactory results with FZ7 or other advance P&S cameras and can live with their limits, I can't see the reason why FZ7 is not good enough.

[Saudidave]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. A 350D is a much better camera than an FZ7. I stated that in poor light you have an advantage, as with moving objects and many other things. I know what I'm talking about. I merely stated that at 100 iso, the images from my FZ7 were better than the ones from my 350D & 17-85IS (which has horrendous CA as well) The mere mention on here that Canon might not be perfect and everyone has a wobbler. Canon make amazing cameras - at a price. I'm considering a Sony alpha for sure, but I may wait a while and research deeper. There is no logical reason to buy an IS every time you buy a lens. In fact it is highly illogical. In camera is much more logical. There are other camera manufacturers who produce quality cameras and it's time some of you guys accepted that.

[condyk]

I've had an FZ3, FZ5 and FZ20, which was their top of the range at the time, and I have to say they are very good indeed: Leica lenses and built in IS. Under ideal conditions I doubt many would notice much difference even after PP by the average Joe. However, in less than ideal conditions, using 'higher' ISO on the P&S's, i.e. 400, noise doesn't hold up for me. I've always got better shots with my DSLR's overall, but at a longer focal length, when IS kicks in some added value on the FZ's, and in good light conditions, then they do deliver. Very good cameras. The Sony Alpha also reviews very well. Take your choice fella and just enjoy taking pictures ;-)

[steved110]

The Sony alpha is a nice looking camera and well-specified - BUT have you checked out what they want to charge for the good lenses? Far more than Canon for the equivalent focal length Ls, and this with an untried system.

If i had a cupboard full of Minolta G i might be tempted......but I'm waiting for a full frame, self cleaning sensor version of the 5D that costs what a 30D does now...

wishful thinking I know, but bear in mind just how much the cost of DSLR has dropped in the last few years - and also consider that a 350D until very recently cost the same as an Eos 3 - which Canon still has not produced a digital equivalent of.

[Saudidave]

Could you not match the sharpness in Photoshop ?
No. I also have never stated that I'm buying a Sony either. I may still buy another Canon yet. I'm only sellling the 350D because I can't see that little screen without my glasses on!. It is a brilliant camera. All I said was that the FZ7 lens is sharper than my 17-85IS, then everyone went psycho like I had comitted a heinous crime

[GyRob]

Well i for one am quite prepered to knock Canon and i do - they are the best but by no means have they come up with a dslr that im happy with that includes a 300d - 20d and 1dmk2 if my little s2is had worked quicker and had an optical VF it would have done me for a while longer only at iso 50 though to much noise for me above that .
i really do see what your saying NOTHING is said about having to PP in the adverts for the dslr's camera's to give there best YET a p&s can give super crisp shots from the word go and can even be inproved with a little pp but the point is the image looks right from the start..
untill people start talking about a few things as in your post Canon will think they have it right and we are all totally happy .
i do shoot raw with my mk2 but what a pain it can be to get everthing right, im sticking with Canon thats for sure as i think they will be the first to produce what i want -
only the other day they showed a CLEAR pitchure style that can be put onto a few camera's and that is very close to what im hopeing future cam's will have because at the end of the day there will still be the RAW to play with .
Rob.

[evandavies]

A P&S may produce better looking pics out of the camera but try it at ISO 400 and higher is a different story...

I was also a bit put off when I started a DSLR and realised I had to PP everything to get the best results but I guess thats the same as developing film.

The main point of a DLSR is to capture the maximum information in an image to allow the most freedom when PPing.

You can use picture styles on the 30D and 400D to do some in camera PP.

[sando]

muppets please note :lol: :D

It's refreshing to see that someone will post their findings of real-world usage of a P&S/compact/prosumer camera wthout fear of a flaming - please dont shoot this guy down because he has the balls to say that maybe an SLR can be out-done by a mere compact - we should encourage free-thinking, especially from somebody who has both the SLR and the compact to do the comparison.

Personally, I've seen some gash shots taken with SLR's, as with compacts. For the price, and if you know what you're doing, then I would nearly always advise someone to go for a higher-end compact than an SLR, the rewards will be easier to gain and it will be instantly more satisfying.

I think a lot of people go for an SLR because they think the camera will take the better picture for them, rather than them going out and learning to do it themselves, in which case they would realise that maybe a compact is better for them.

Remember: 10% equipment - 90% user/application
:)

[Moppie]

Nicly said Sando, saved me a post :)

[kram]

I dont doubt that in certain situations, a P&S has the capacity to deliver a sharper image than a DSLR.

I had a high end P&S before moving to a DSLR and hated not having IS built in. In fact, I hope that people without too much investment in lenses (read converts to DSLRs) start going after stuff like the Alpha - and hopefully force Canon to look at whether they should do something different.

And yes, if it can be done right (read 'if') paying for IS on each lens is a ripoff vs having it on the body.

[sando]

Nicly said Sando, saved me a post :)Cheers. Totally OT, sorry, but do you have a link to some info on how you get the 50EX working with your A80? Ta.

[cdifoto]

Sharpness isn't everything.

[Salleke]

Sharpness isn't everything.

It's the only thing ... ;)

[sando]

It's the only thing ... ;)... that most lens-junkies think about :lol:

Wrongly so, though. :D

[goatee]

Saudidave, the only person in this thread who is attacking anyone, is you. Nobody said "You must be insane, there's no way that a crappy p&s couldn't get as good, if not better quality than a 350D". I know that the FZ5/7 is/are a great camera, but many (if not most) people who move from p&s whether prosumer or not, do not know about the extra PP needed to make the most out of a DSLR image. And even though you can turn up the sharpness in camera on the 350D, the quality of image does not come close to sharpening yourself - as I am sure you well know, you almost never sharpen any two images to the same degree.

The only thing I object to, is the aggressive tone you use in your post, calling anyone who dares to disagree with you a muppet. Alongside my EOS 20D and Sigma EX 18-50 f/2.8, and Canon 85mm f/1.8 (which is one of Canon's sharpest lenses), I also have a Minolta 3MP p&s compact camera. I know how good some of the images it produces are - see exhibit 1) http://static.flickr.com/28/54530975_c12c9b6c16_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/goatee/54530975/)

This is a friendly place - sure there are some flamers, but you haven't been attacked, so don't attack people who are questioning your results.

[RadAL]

get the Canon Powershot A620! 7.1MP and about 90 percent of your needs, except serious panning and DOF shots... macro mode is nice too.

[citrinella]

I'm not in the least disturbed if another camera, many hundreds of pounds cheaper, might produce better results than mine. After all, the chances are very good that the next photographer in the line _is_ producing better shots, whatever his gear. That is much more important - I could improve much more by doing something about my practice, than by changing kit.

However, I too am delighted you have raised this issue for the reason several have mentioned. It won't do Canon any harm to have the deficiencies in their kit pointed out. Yes, in camera stabilization seems to make sense - I have friends who swear by it, one has really bad handshake. I also saw adverts for a DSLR with MF/AF switch on the camera. Seems sensible - particularly as I have often had those switches on the lenses moved slipping them in and out of holders. So Canon - why not put the switches on the bodies ? Wouldn't matter if they didn't work for all lenses, it would have loads of advantages. (At the very least, what about rotating the switches on the lens through 90 degrees so they don't get pushed about so easily ?)

Competition is good for us all. On that subject, buying a camera for my mother : brother reminds me she is anti-Japanese (relatives and friends in POW camps). Umm ... well I do know other far-east manufacturers but not in the price / quality range I was looking at. He says it's OK - Canon doesn't sound Japanese ;-)

Mike.

[Moppie]

There will always be people who judge themselves, and therefore others based on material things. Be it the house they own, the car they drive, or the camera they use.

With respect to camera's, having the best camera some how makes you the better person.
Its a very ignorant, and extremly closed minded approach, but its one that a small number of DSLR users like to have.
Im sure there are some medium format digital back users out there who look down on DSLR users, simply because a medium format digital back costs more, just like the DSLR users who look down on compact users, and the compact users who look down on point and shoot users.

And while there are people who like to express that atitude on this forum, they are in the minority, and generaly kept in check by the far more rational majority here who know that at the end of the day, a camera is a camera, whether its a 1D MKII with a 300 2.8 on it that has only ever been used as a point and shoot in P mode, or a little A series that has spent its life stuck in the creative modes.

[Stump]

Well, a lot of you have already said this. but i wanna say it. :)

P&S cameras are made to have good results straight from the camera

DSLR's are made to be post processed. Even with the in camera sharpening all the way up.

I just owned a fz30 and it was nice, but its not comparbale to a rebel XT. My pictures look just as good with this 350d as the fz30 and probably better. Crank the iso and see what happens with that p&s, or try shooting something that moves constantly. YOu can't focus and take the picture before it moves out of focus. Thats what made me go with a 350d.
Remember - Your final pictures will only be as good as your post processing skills are.

[Dave_G]

I've seen some gash shots taken with SLR's

If you post them, please put a Not Safe For Work in the thread title.

Whoops, how off topic of me :D

[Anders Östberg]

Some (like you) would say that the pictures from the P&S are sharper than those from the dSLR. Others would say the pictures from the dSLR are great raw material for the photographer to decide how sharp they should become in post processing, and that the pictures from the P&S are oversharpened out of the box and make no allowance for the photograher's taste and artistic touch. P&S pictures are ready-made out of the camera but you have no say in the matter. If the look is fine to you - great.

Anyway, I'm using both type of camera and they have different pros and cons, different toosl for different jobs. I didn't buy my Canon dSLRs to take pictures that could just as well be handled using a P&S, I bought them for those pictures that are neigh on impossible to take with a P&S. Wildlife and sports are two examples where a dSLR is a better choice than a P&S.

If you feel your photographic needs are fulfilled by your P&S, great for you, just please don't think your needs and your taste are universally applicable to other photograpers.

[05Xrunner]

go take that P&S and shoot at ISO 200 and the 350D at ISO 800 and I bet the 350 still has less noise

[kram]

I Just thought I'd stir things up! I'd decided to upgrade from a 350D to a 400 for the simple reason that the 350D LCD is to small to read without my glasses - no other reason at all, in every respect I've considered the 350D to be brilliant.

I shall be buying a camera with IS in the body, so I don't get ripped off every time I buy a lens. I'll post some samples tonight - I'm on my lunch break at work now.


Not very sure if you plan to return here OP but from those lines, I guess you just wanted to flame up some stuff and leave. If yes, all the best.

To each person their conclusions ;)

[twalker294]

All I said was that the FZ7 lens is sharper than my 17-85IS, then everyone went psycho like I had comitted a heinous crime

WRONG. Don't come in here trying to start trouble then back pedal when people call you on it. Let's review exactly what you said:

"I Just thought I'd stir things up!"

and

"but you would think that the images from a grands worth of kit would be at least as good as £250 worth!"

Then you called anyone who dared challenge you a "muppet."

If you're gonna be "man" enough to start it, be man enough to take the heat.

[Saudidave]

WRONG. Don't come in here trying to start trouble then back pedal when people call you on it. Let's review exactly what you said:

"I Just thought I'd stir things up!"

and

"but you would think that the images from a grands worth of kit would be at least as good as £250 worth!"

Then you called anyone who dared challenge you a "muppet."

If you're gonna be "man" enough to start it, be man enough to take the heat.

My apologies for not uploading copies of the shots in question or indeed responding to posts for the last couple of days, but I've been unable to log on due to a fault on my home phone line (I'm typing this from work in my lunch break).
Why don't people read posts before they start going ballistic and replying incorrectly? I stated in my original post that the comparison was at iso 100 and that I appreciated the advantages of dslr's when the light fades, yet responses are referring me to how much better dslr's are at 400 iso! I know they are! I made a simple observation about image quality (and I stand by that), yet people here are slagging me off left right and centre. (Thanks to those who offered agreement and support). Why are people so faithful to a brand and unable to see that another might be as good or better in certain circumstances. One sad individual couldn't even bring themselves to spell Sony. The bigotry has been unbelievable.

[Anders Östberg]

So upload the samples already so we can "slag you off" some more! ;)

Seriously though, what and why are you comparing? Images out of the dSLR aren't the finshed product. Upload the files and let people have a go at them, maybe you'll be convinced there is a relevant difference after post processing. If sharpness and color saturation are the only things you are interested in comparing then it makes sense to stay with the P&S. If you want to do more with your pictures and don't use the SLR as if it was a P&S then I think you'll see more of a difference and understand the creative possibilities that you don't have with the P&S.

[twalker294]

I made a simple observation about image quality (and I stand by that), yet people here are slagging me off left right and centre.

No, once again that is NOT what you did. See my post above if you are still wondering why people reacted the way they did.

Why are people so faithful to a brand and unable to see that another might be as good or better in certain circumstances. One sad individual couldn't even bring themselves to spell Sony. The bigotry has been unbelievable.

This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. The Panasonics are great cameras with fantastic lenses. I've owned 4 Panasonics myself -- an FZ20, FZ5, FZ30, and another FZ20 which I have right now (I regretted selling the first one so I bought another.) I don't think many would have argued with you if your tone had been different, but stating things the way you did put people on the defensive. Surely you can understand that.

If you want to see REAL rudeness check out the forums at DP Review (www.dpreview.com) -- that will make you appreciate how civil things are here.

[Hellashot]

I'm talking crisp, clear, in focus , sharp defined images.Not DOF issues, but the clarity of the bits that are supposed to be in focus. Would the muppets firing one off at me calm down and please note that I stated in my post that the 350D was set up for max sharpness. I also (muppets please note) saved images as raw+jpeg and did a teak in rawshooter pro before tweaking further in photoshop. It's called post processing and I'm very familiar and experienced in it. What I'm saying, quite categorically, is that the image sharpness, definition and focus is consistently better from the FZ7 than the 17-85. The glass is better. (Probably because of it's size - smaller lenses are easier to grind than bigger ones) As for selling my 350D, I am doing, it's on ebay now. I shall be buying a camera with IS in the body, so I don't get ripped off every time I buy a lens. I'll post some samples tonight - I'm on my lunch break at work now.

Goodbye. It sounds you were made for just a P&S camera. :)

[Moppie]

Iv been a member of this forum for coming up 2 years now, all of that time I have owned nothing more advanced than a Canon A80.

Iv encountered a small amount of snobishness, and ignorance towards other users and thier cameras, sometimes towards me and my camera, always from DSLR users.

But I have yet to see anyone as misguided as you Saudidave.
Im sorry, but while I might agree with some of your points about the quality and ablity of compact cameras, you attitude towards other users here is nothing short of the very snobishness you seem to disagree with so much.

[motion_projekt]

Moppie's got a point.

Although i do feel that even though you P&S camera userers have got your valid points, Point and Shoot Cameras and Single Lens reflex cameras are their own beasts. They have their own high and low points each seperate from each other. remember taht even if someone says "blah blah blah DSLRs suck!" He/She probably isnt talking about your slr...they're just voicing their opinion. Or if they say "blah blah blah you dont need a brain to operate a P&S camera" let them be ignorant. The last time i checked everyone is entitled to free speech, and they all have the right to believe what they want to believe. To me honestly, what matters in the big picture/ grand scheme of things is the photos we take, the stories those photos tell, and the memories we share. That is what photography is about. not who has better equipment. Because in the grand scheme of things no one will remember what equipment you had, how big your lens was or how heavy your camera was...what they'll remember is the impact you made on them with your pictures.

//Happy shooting

[sandro9mm]

check this out :D

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page17.asp

[goatee]

To be fair, the OP is referring to low ISO performance, so http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page16.asp would be a fairer comparison, where the FZ7 gives the Rebel XT a much closer run for its money.

[Coco-Puffs]

woohoo!!
more e-drama on web forum!

who cares, one more 350XT on the used market for another prospective user. blah.

[sandro9mm]

goatee
FZ7 better than 350D!
than he needs to edit out tittle :) "FZ7 has similar results as 350D at iso100" :) now that make a difference...

and I gave that link to show him why it costs more :) he felt kinda deceived :D

[goatee]

hehe, fair point - see it's not that hard to concede a point! :p