Canon S3 IS or Panasonic Lumix FZ8

[omegaRED]

I need to get a new camera now that my Minolta DImage 7i got stolen... DSLR i don`t need, too bulky and expensive, but i really don`t want a point-and-shoot idiot cam. So i`ve decided on a SuperZoom... The choice right now is between the Canon PowerShot S3 IS, and Panasonic Lumix FZ8. Olympus SP-510/550 and Fuji F6000fd don`t have Image Stabilization, so they`re off the list... Sony H2/H5... Well it`s Sony... Not necessarily bad, but still...

I don`t need anything special, indoor and outdoor shots, some prints, nothing out of the ordinary...

I like the swivel screen of the Canon, but it`s smaller and with lower res. than that of the FZ8.
Same goes for the EVF.
S3 IS has 6, FZ8 has 7 MP (not a deal breaker obviously).
FZ8 has better optics (Leica branded lens, supposedly among the best in that class).
FZ8 really has some noise issues, even at low ISO settings. Excessive noise reduction at higher ISO (400).

Both cost around the same...

Thoughts?

[az]

If you are concerned about image blur - and you are, or you wouldn't need the stabilizer - why would you get a cam where you can't turn up the sensitivity without getting excessive noise?

[RhinoZ]

Take a look at the pics Jon P Ingram took from the zoo. It's down a few threads, and then look at his gallery collection.
That Canon IS sure takes some really great shots. I have no clue about the picture quality of the other super zoom cameras thou.

[Nappe1]

Olympus SP-510/550 and Fuji F6000fd don`t have Image Stabilization, so they`re off the list...

few comments:
- SP-550UZ definetely has IS. It's moving panel acording to move of gyroscopes.
- Fuji F6000fd again has way better grip than any of other your choices and only one with ring-in-lens type zoom.
- All of the cameras have quite lot of noise from ISO200-400 and upwards. Olympus and Panasonic being worst, but again Panasonic has best optics and Olympus is most feature rich.

[ND66]

- All of the cameras have quite lot of noise from ISO200-400 and upwards. Olympus and Panasonic being worst, but again Panasonic has best optics and Olympus is most feature rich.

and Fuji S6000FD/S6500FD is one of the best in its class for low noise – low light shooting, including perfectly usable ISO 800.

Learn more from here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp

And here:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

Anyway, myself I’m looking to by something like you and I was waiting for the reviews of SP-550UZ. Turned out to be a camera with good lens & IS, not so good CCD sensor.

I had a chance to play with Panasonic Lumix FZ50, great Leica lens with IS, fairly good CCD, ISO 800 unusable – too much noise. Not bad but very pricy and SLR like.

Had Sony H5 in hand, IS was working great, a little slow AF but not bad, almost the same as Panasonic FZ50 on standard settings. But the H9 looks promising…… but then again, so did the SP-550UZ. Just have to wait until May and see.

If I was going to buy camera today, the choice would be Fuji S6000FD. Wonder why?
Couple months ago I just realized that my 35MM SLR camera set with 3 lenses and big flash that did cost me over $2500 several years back, it’s worth around $200~300 today.

I little too much for a hobby. Besides, it’s like a computer technology, the best today , obsolete 2 years from now… .
And since my 35MM SLR didn’t have IS, I’m sure I can take most pictures OK with S6000FD. This camera, I hold it with one hand at the end of the lens, therefore making it possibly more stable then holding it with both hands on the body only.

But that just my own opinion.

.

[omegaRED]

Well, i went and ordered the Canon... In the end, the SP550 was quite a bit expensiver than the rest, and the fd6000/6500 is a bit on the large size. I do need something portable (-ish)... I`m sure some have the upper hand in some fields, but overall ... I think it`s gonna serve its purpose well

[ND66]

Well, i went and ordered the Canon...
......I think it`s gonna serve its purpose well

Yes, it will. It is one of the better cameras out there.

It could be the best camera in the world, but if you don't like it....... forget it, you'll never be happy.

And after all those promotions of different cameras you still like yours, I'm sure you'll be happy.


.

[TransformX]

I think you did the smart thing going for the Cannon over the Fuji. You need to remember that most of the test reviews are being done in a controlled environment where the Fuji shines. Outside, not on a tripod, in real life, etc. cameras with image stabilizers rule the day.

Those are pictures my wife took, while playing with our Panasonic DMC FZ7:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/416462670/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/416462674/

Two most important things in my life:
Outside -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/416454015/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/416454013/

Indoors -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/416451588/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/399825679/

I'm -not- a good photographer unlike many others around here, I wish I was. I did learn how to better use the flash for indoor pictures and that's about it. You camera can, should and probably will give you some amazingly wonderful pictures and short videos.

[az]

You need to remember that most of the test reviews are being done in a controlled environment where the Fuji shines. Outside, not on a tripod, in real life, etc. cameras with image stabilizers rule the day.

Yes and no. You are perfectly right when you say that most shooting for most people will be in social situations with poor lighting (indoors, in the evening, etc.). And I am a big fan of stabilizers. But noise-free high sensitivity beats image stabilizers. Best would be a cam that can do both, but if you can't, take the one that can do ISO400 with the same noise as the other one at ISO100 with a stabilizer. Both give you two stops advantage when preventing camera shake, but the one with the higher sensitivity also reduces subject motion blur and allows you to take quicker shots.

BTW, OmegaRed, I've recently looked at old photos taken with a Dimage 7i and I must say that apart from the noise, this camera had a superb image quality. Better than almost anything I've seen since. Maybe not as flattering as Canon or Sony colors, but so realistic, so detailed. It had a really good lens. Shame that it was such a slow camera.

[TransformX]

Yes and no. You are perfectly right when you say that most shooting for most people will be in social situations with poor lighting (indoors, in the evening, etc.). And I am a big fan of stabilizers. But noise-free high sensitivity beats image stabilizers. Best would be a cam that can do both, but if you can't, take the one that can do ISO400 with the same noise as the other one at ISO100 with a stabilizer. Both give you two stops advantage when preventing camera shake, but the one with the higher sensitivity also reduces subject motion blur and allows you to take quicker shots.

I tend to disagree with you and go with this Cnet reviewer: http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_Lu...5171&tag=uolst stay with ISO100 and learn use your flash, it's far far far more effective than higher ISO for dealing with motion blur and sometimes, when properly tuned, can even make colors seem more realistic than they would otherwise.

[az]

I like available light. Flash is too much of a hassle for me, and when it isn't, it looks bad. If the lighting in a room makes people look a funny color, I want that on the photo.

BTW, absolutely fantastic pictures you posted! And a beautiful family!

[TransformX]

I like available light. Flash is too much of a hassle for me, and when it isn't, it looks bad. If the lighting in a room makes people look a funny color, I want that on the photo.

Problem is that usually pictures aren't what my eye sees. Maybe because my eye adjust to the light or whatever. When I want to take pictures in low light and really get the colors my eye sees, I need longer exposure. But then again, the world hardly waits, especially in the bathroom when Eitan is getting his shower. It took me a (long) while to tune the flash right, but now I manage to get good stills that are very very close to what my eye sees.

The reflection in Eitan's eyes is the flash. I've tuned it so that the picture is being taken with a small delay after the flash is fired.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56812967@N00/399827522/

BTW, absolutely fantastic pictures you posted! And a beautiful family!

Thanks, though people say those pictures don't really do them justice

[az]

Problem is that usually pictures aren't what my eye sees. Maybe because my eye adjust to the light or whatever. When I want to take pictures in low light and really get the colors my eye sees, I need longer exposure. But then again, the world hardly waits, especially in the bathroom when Eitan is getting his shower.

That's why you crank the ISO to 800 and get the same colors and exposure you'd have gotten at ISO100 with eight times as long an exposure, so for most situations, you get no motion blur anymore.

Then again, a flash can produce nice effects with water, but I really wouldn't want to (or know how to, or could afford to) play around with remotely triggered flashes to light up the scene from vis-a-vis.

[ND66]

....... But noise-free high sensitivity beats image stabilizers. Best would be a cam that can do both, but if you can't, take the one that can do ISO400 with the same noise as the other one at ISO100 with a stabilizer. Both give you two stops advantage when preventing camera shake, but the one with the higher sensitivity also reduces subject motion blur and allows you to take quicker shots........

&

I tend to disagree with you and go with this Cnet reviewer: http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_Lu...5171&tag=uolst stay with ISO100 and learn use your flash, it's far far far more effective than higher ISO for dealing with motion blur and sometimes, when properly tuned, can even make colors seem more realistic than they would otherwise.

You’re both right.

But, what puts you on good or bad side of motion blur is one simple fact of life………

On a hangover day, can you finish taking a leak without relieving yourself first?

It all depends on what are you shooting, this defines your needs.
50% of my shots are so close or spread wide open (3 kids, try to keep them up in one spot ), wide angle is a must. The other 30% are taken in semi-dark, wide open areas with the object on the move (that would be kids again), there isn’t enough flash coverage no matter how strong the flash is. Or using the flash wouldn’t be appropriate.

Anyway, I do prefer higher ISO over Image Stabilization.
Back in the years when Chicago Bulls were collecting the Championships year after year, I was seating waaaaaaaaaay up there (tickets were expensive as hell) with my 200~400MM zoom and 800 ISO film in my SLR, it turned out better then I expected. I can’t say that about 1 roll of ISO 400 film I used the same night……. .

.

[ND66]

This article should put some more light on IS for some.


DCI Comparison Feature: Point-and-Shoot Image Stabilization Tested

Video

All five cameras record video at standard quality – 640x480 pixels and 30 frames per second. As we examined stills from video clips, we didn't notice a worthwhile difference in resolution between the stabilized and unstabilized shots. On the other hand, stabilization smoothed out our unsteady hold on the camera.

The big performance difference between the cameras was how they handle panning. Two cameras, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX50 and the Nikon Coolpix P3, yielded relatively smooth pans, while the other cameras introduced a jerking motion as the camera moved.

The Pentax Optio A10 had a more subtle effect than the Sony DSC-T30 or the Canon PowerShot SD700 IS. Apparently, the Pentax, Sony and Canon attempted to treat the pan motion as if it were unsteadiness, holding the frame steady as long as they could, and then jumping forward to the new position.

For static shots, all of the cameras shoot better video with stabilization turned on. For pans, only the Panasonic and Nikon shots are more pleasing with stabilization.

Conclusion


Consistently, stabilization improved each camera's performance in still shooting, so our confident recommendation is to look for stabilization when shopping for a compact camera.

Casual snapshooters should get it, and leave it turned on.

Stabilization contributes to image quality, but it's only one element in a complex system that includes the lens, sensor and image processor. Good stabilization isn't enough to make a good camera.

For example, the Nikon Coolpix P3 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX50 have effective stabilization, but their images still aren't as sharp as the shots from the Sony DSC-T30 or the Pentax Optio A10.

The Pentax Optio A10 is the unusual camera in the bunch – it moves the CCD imaging device, instead of a lens element. We have assumed that moving a lens element is the more logical way to go, because the lens element is lighter than a CCD, and doesn't need any electronic contacts to the rest of the camera. Based on the A10's performance, we'd say that the moving CCD system can equal the best moving-lens systems.