Canon Rebel XT and Panasonic FZ20

[gdt]

I really like my Canon XT, but until I get a lens that approximates the range of my FZ20 with F/2.8 I am finding it pretty limiting since I take action shots , sometimes in low light, and wildlife.

The lens on the fz20 is , in my humble opinion, the most versitile, dependable, affordable I've yet seen. I realize that the ISO on the FZ20 is limited and some noise issues are apparent, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of an advantage my Rebel XT is going to have until I get a lens that costs AT LEAST $2000.00.

What was I thinking?:confused: :cool:

Input appreciated.

[coldrain]

It is pretty silly to compare an f2.8 rated lens on a camera with a tiny sensor like the fz20 with an f2.8 lens on a DSLR. They are not comparable, not in what you can do with it in low light, not in depth of field, in nothing.

If you are serious with your question (it just seems to be another start of a flame from the panny FZ crowd, if I am wrong i appologize), you should not want to have a DSLR with just one lens.

A DSLR has a much bigger sensor, which allows for much better photo quality due to the fact that the photo diodes ara lot bigger. A lot less noise, means you can use higher ISO settings.

the higher ISO settings with a lot less noise, the better colour and contrast rendition, the lenses I recommend below and the range of depth of field you gain with a DSLR make it s superior package, and looking just at that silly 2.8 number and the leica namebadge does not make up for it.

If you get a Canon Ef 70-300 IS USM for under 600$, you have a lens sharper, with better contrast, than the small lens of your FZ20, which will also offer 3 to 4 stops IS, and has a bigger tele reach than you are used to (480mm).
Of course you will also want a lens to cover a wider range, so add to that the 18-55 kitlens, or for instance a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Tokina 16-50 f2.8 lens, and you have a lens combo that also goes wider.

The 70-300 IS USM with kit lens should total under 700$, when you go for one of the others it should total around 1000$, depending where you buy and which you choose.

Of course all this is more expensive and a bit more bulky... that is your choice. If you want small compact and convenient, an ultrazoom like you have is a good solution, with its share of limitations of course. If you want more possibilities and better image quality, a DLSR is the way to go. But it adds weight, size, cost.

[gdt]

I am not intending to start a big controversary, just am frustrated.

In reading your reply to my original post, you seem to recommend a 70-300 mm lens that would meet my "fast" lens requirements. But a 70-300 mm with F/2.8 costs $4,000.00 + if I am finding the correct information.

I am simply trying to figure out how to fully appreciate my XT til I can get a faster lens than my Canon 70-200mm EF F/4.0.

Since I shoot so much wildlife , birds, and zoo pics plus low light dance events, I'm really going to have to start saving my $$$$.

Believe me, I realize the limitations of a P&S, even a quite good one. As long as I have good light, the XT is wonderful.

[ktixx]

I really like my Canon XT, but until I get a lens that approximates the range of my FZ20 with F/2.8 I am finding it pretty limiting since I take action shots , sometimes in low light, and wildlife.

The lens on the fz20 is , in my humble opinion, the most versitile, dependable, affordable I've yet seen. I realize that the ISO on the FZ20 is limited and some noise issues are apparent, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of an advantage my Rebel XT is going to have until I get a lens that costs AT LEAST $2000.00.

What was I thinking?:confused: :cool:

Input appreciated.
In addition to what coldrain said - Think about the highest USABLE ISO on the Panasonic compared to the highest usable ISO on the XT? What I am getting at is you don't even need an f/2.8 lens because you can bump up the ISO and still have a usable shot with a comparable shutter speed to an f/2.8 lens...

FZ20 @ 400 ISO
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-review/nightshot400-crop.jpg

Rebel XT @1600 ISO
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/nightshot-tele-1600-crop.jpg

[coldrain]

There IS no 70-300 with f2.8. And no need for that either, when you have IS and ISO 800/1600 to help you a bit. So, I still think the EF 70-300 IS USM is a good idea to look at. It is a very sharp lens, and its IS will help you with the long tele wildlife shots.

[Riley]

certainly stepping much beyond 200iso with FZ20 will progressively add noise
in ballance the OIS will give you 2 or 3 stops you wont get with a canon
Ive seen some probably fluke images with OIS with ridiculously slow exposure times of around 1/15th 1/30th that look sharp at 420mm, even 1 handed. Its the one part of FZ series cameras that Pana truly seem to have an edge.

a canon dslr will inevitably provide cleaner sharper images but
at the cost of convenience ie the stuff you have to carry around and the complexity of the camera
and a bucket of rubles $

Riley

[RebelRat]

I could be wrong, but, I'm kinda doubting the Panasonic is rated at F2.8 at the 70mm length

[ReF]

the pany's f2.8 compared to a 70-300 IS is two stops better at tele but a dslr's much cleaner high ISO easily makes up for those stops (pany's ISO 200-400 vs xt's 800-1600). the 70-300 is about $550 so you won't have to spend $2000. and if you sell your 70-200 f4 it should pay for most of the other lens (i sold mine for $530 including shipping).

[JTL]

The pany fans sure are a scrappy lot...

[Riley]

I could be wrong, but, I'm kinda doubting the Panasonic is rated at F2.8 at the 70mm length

FZ20 was F:2.8 right across the zoom from 35mm to 420mm
the newer versions FZ30 & FZ50 now has manual zoom and focus on the barrel but is no longer F:2.8 all the way to 420mm where its now F:3.4


the pany's f2.8 compared to a 70-300 IS is two stops better at tele but a dslr's much cleaner high ISO easily makes up for those stops (pany's ISO 200-400 vs xt's 800-1600). the 70-300 is about $550 so you won't have to spend $2000. and if you sell your 70-200 f4 it should pay for most of the other lens (i sold mine for $530 including shipping).

and in more extreme circumstances OIS will give you back a couple of stops

[ReF]

and in more extreme circumstances OIS will give you back a couple of stops

umm, did you totally miss that the 70-300 IS has IS?

[Riley]

no ReF
you are quite right both have IS/OIS, but the panasonic version is the market leader, and with good reason.

dont get me wrong, the canon produces finer results, but you dam well pay for it. The problem when looking at the FZ cameras is, they are above average P&S, more an intermediate step. They arent really cameras close enough to compare really, thats my view.

Riley