Suggestion for Sports Mom taking pics

[suzyqq]

:confused: Great site here but I'm still in a tizzy as to what I should get. Talk to salesmen and they'll get you to really dig down deep in the pockets. Would love to know your opinions.:)
Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
At first I didn’t want to spend more than $400 but for what I really want the camera for……I may have to spend a bit more I think????

Size
* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
I like the size and feel of the Sony H5 and the Panasonic FZ7; they both seem like cool cameras with a nice LCD.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
Surely somewhere around the 6-7 or more range.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
Would like to get with an Ultrazoom camera to take pics of my son when playing sports in school i.e., football, baseball, basketball.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
Maybe 8 (??)

Do you care for manual controls?
I would like the option of using either manual or automatic controls. I owned an old Minolta SRT101 ages ago and since then have only been a point-and shoot kinda girl.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Son playing sports

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
Probably no bigger than 5 x 7’s

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Indoor photos? Sure…..want an all-around kind.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
That’s it!

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
The Sony H5 (big LCD) and the Panasonic FZ7 (big too)…..has to be at least 2”

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Sony H5, Panasonic FZ7 or FZ50, Canon IS3 (?)

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)

[Riley]

larger screens are lovely, and the H5 is one of the biggest. On that basis I would discount the Canon and the FZ50. Even between the FZ50 and FZ7 Im not sure you would benefit from spending the extra money.

The prevailing feature of the FZ7 then would be the OIS, which really comes into its own when shooting long. In ballance the screen on H5 is really great.

Really the spec of FZ7 and H5 are quite similar so I can see your dilema. And both have a considerable following that love their cameras. But I guess given that I would go for the FZ7 being cheaper, and the use of the OIS image stabiliser. Also has better movie modes, and you can use 16x9 format like wide screen TV.

Final tip, cruise the Panasonic and Sony forums here to get extra insight into these cameras.

Riley

[suzyqq]

Thanks for the info and I'll definitely look into those forums you mentioned. I just hope that either of them will be a little better in taking some "action shots" than my CanonSD110. Plus, I miss playing with a camera's features somewhat. Sometimes (probably more than sometimes) you want to put more into a picture than just point and shoot.

Suzyqq

[Riley]

well luckily
The FZ has good manual functions

Riley

[aparmley]

Suzy I'll cut right to the chase. Right now, your budget has you looking at point and shoots - But there is nothing but disappoint for you down that road. Why? Point and shoots do not have the response time one needs to shoot sports. When you press the shutter button you want the photo to be taken, with point and shoots the photo is taken up to a second later. At first you'll have nothing but decent shots of what happened just after the moment you intended to capture. You'll learn to anticipate more, but the more you shoot the more you realize how unresponsive the camera is, from start up to image taking, image storage. . . etc - Its slow. Which is fine for the get together on the patio. But for sports, its far from fine. Frustration awaits you after spending $400 on a superzoom. Indoor sporting, basketball, indoor soccer, etc etc - you'll need a camera that has a much more usefull ISO range than a point and shoot and you'll need a lens with not only reach, but enough light collecting power to be usefull indoors. I'm afraid if you want pictures of your son in action, a DSLR is what you need. If you want photos of him standing still on the sidelines or before/after a game, then a point and shoot should be fine. . . I understand your limited budget and I've been there - I started with a Canon A95 when I knew I probably needed a DSLR - 3 months later the frustration fueled my Canon XT purchase and boy was the world completely different after upgrading to a DSLR. . . do some more reading before you decided . . . scroll down to the Canon DSLR forum and take a look, hit the Nikon SLR forum as well. . .

[suzyqq]

Well AParm....I so appreciate what you said about what I might want and how I might be disappointed in getting the camera I was looking at. I guess I really have to figure out if I could live without all the action or not. To tell you the truth I would really like to fiddle around and take the best pics I could with what I have. I'll take your advice and read up some more. BTW....when I went to one camera store a couple of weeks ago, the person there showed me an XTRebel model because he didn't have the S3 in stock. It looked very impressive and felt good and he was telling me things about it but I kinda turned away because of the cost. Will reconsider....maybe;)

[Riley]

just to clarify this lag thing
from Steves Reviews

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/fz7_pg5.html

"Shutter lag, the time between depressing the shutter release to actually capturing the image, was almost instantaneous when pre-focused and only 3/10 of a second including autofocus. "

Riley

[coldrain]

The FZ7 is the least of the UZ image stabilized cameras Canon S3 IS, Sony H2 and H5, and Panasonic FZ7.

It has the lesser sensor, resulting in more noisy results. It also uses more in camera processing, resulting in sharpeninga artifacts (and the sharpening ironically enhances the noise), and uses very agressive noise reduction which renders higher ISO photos useless.

If you do want an ultrazoom, the S3 IS with its really nice and very handy swivable display (you can make shots that are low to the ground without laying down, you can make shots over people's heads, around corners and even of yourself) make it unique in UZ land.

The Sony H5 has a nice big display, and it uses a bit more noise reduction than the S3 IS. The S3 IS would need software like noise ninja or neat image to cut down the noise at higher ISO settings, the H5 needs that a bit less. The FZ7 wil not benifit from that, because its in camera processing already has made the photo into an impressionist painting.

Riley's plus point of OIS for the FZ7 is a bit odd, because both the Canon S3 IS and the Sony H2/H5 have optical image stabilization too.

The H2 is a cheaper version of the H5 with very similar results. So either the Canon S3 IS or Sony H5/H2 will be a good choice.

But as aparmely points out, for indoor sports you will need a camera that can handle high ISO better, because you do not have a lot of light there.

So yes, a DSLR is yoru best choice, but it will drive up the price quite a bit, there you will need a lens that can handle low light well too. And the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, a candidate, as already about the same price as the Canon XTi.

The only ultrazoom that may be able to do well with indoor sports is the new Fuji S6000fd. It has the same sensor as the Fuji F20/30/31fd, and you can read in the review by Jeff Keller of the Fuji F30 how it performs in lower light with high ISO values.

So... if your budget is too small for a DSLR with lens(es), maybe you should check out the Fuji F6000fd.

[Riley]

The FZ7 is the least of the UZ image stabilized cameras Canon S3 IS, Sony H2 and H5, and Panasonic FZ7.

It has the lesser sensor, resulting in more noisy results. It also uses more in camera processing, resulting in sharpeninga artifacts (and the sharpening ironically enhances the noise), and uses very agressive noise reduction which renders higher ISO photos useless.

which is mostly nonesense of course, all small sensor cameras suffer noise, all identical sensor cameras share very similar iso issues

Sony H5, FZ7, S2is and S3is all share an identical sensor the 1/2.5": results very similar

as the sensors and sizes (Mp) are similar as is the noise: results very similar, tiny advantage to S2is

both the FZ7 and the Canons use internal noise reduction: results very similar

The S3 is more featured, but like H5 is about $100 more expensive than FZ7

[coldrain]

Spend some more time actually reading reviews and looking at image samples instead of being a pana-apologist. There are BIG differences.

[Riley]

i dont have shares in Canon coldrain :)
the exact same sensors
similar sizes (Mp) similar issues
logic

Riley

[coldrain]

i dont have shares in Canon coldrain :)
the exact same sensors
similar sizes (Mp) similar issues
logic

Riley

See, you just result to nonsense "arguements". I say, look at the reviews and samples. You do not do that, you just reply what now is becoming your standard rethoric.

But in case anyone else reading this still would put any value on what this Riley has to "orate":
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=146604&postcount=38

Just a simple comparison. If you don't see differences, then I might suggest a trip to your optician. And why did I not use FZ7 samples? Because Jeff Keller was unable to provide them for the FZ7. But since the noise issue of Panasonics (and their VERY bad in camera processing) is widely known and documented, this is a non-issue.

Fz7, FZ30, FZ50, TZ1, LX1, LX2, FX9, FX01, FX07, it is a stuck record of more than average noise issues and watercolour results.

[FLiPMaRC]

The Canon S2 & S3 has a big "community" of users on this forums. Just checkout the Canon Forums (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10) ;) An advantage to having that many users is great user support for newbies like me :D

Here's a huge thread of Canon S2 & S3 users showing their pictures. (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21728)

[Riley]

I too would suggest that people access reviews and results, and see for themselves. but to add



It has the lesser sensor


absolutely and totally false

Riley

[FLiPMaRC]

But since the noise issue of Panasonics (and their VERY bad in camera processing) is widely known and documented, this is a non-issue.

Fz7, FZ30, FZ50, TZ1, LX1, LX2, FX9, FX01, FX07, it is a stuck record of more than average noise issues and watercolour results.When I was shopping for my new camera 5 months ago, I was also advised agaisnt the Panasonic cameras because of this reason. I ended up with the Canon S3 because it went to sale on www.Dell.com for less than $400. Right now, the price is even lower.

[coldrain]

I too would suggest that people access reviews and results, and see for themselves. but to add



absolutely and totally false

Riley

Why exactly is that false? It is widely known and recognized.

[Riley]

When I was shopping for my new camera 5 months ago, I was also advised agaisnt the Panasonic cameras because of this reason. I ended up with the Canon S3 because it went to sale on www.Dell.com for less than $400. Right now, the price is even lower.

that was certainly true for the FZ50 Flip. which has the Venus 3 engine, but FZ7 and FZ30 have the older Venus 2 engine, which is quite like DIGIC II imaging processor onboard the S3is Canon.

Riley

[Riley]

It has a lessor sensor


the sensors are the same, the identical 1/2.5", saying that its somehow less is false, different Mp thats all

Riley

[coldrain]

So everyone, including Foto Magazin, ColorFoto, dpreview, and Jeff Keller, everyone is wrong?

I see.

Just to show what Jeff Keller had to say about the FZ7:

Overall, the image quality on the DMC-FZ7 is very good. Photos were well-exposed, with accurate color, low purple fringing levels, and pleasing sharpness. My one complaint is about noise: there's a bit too much of it, even at ISO 80. At ISO 200, details started to look more like watercolor paintings, and the effect becomes quite pronounced at higher sensitivities.


Photo quality was very good for the most part, with noise being the FZ7's weak spot. The camera took well-exposed pictures, with accurate color and good sharpness. Panasonic has been good at minimizing purple fringing in their recent cameras, and the FZ7 is no exception. The otherwise nice photo quality is marred by above average noise levels, especially at higher ISO sensitivities. Even at ISO 200, images look more like watercolor paintings than photographs, and the high sensitivity mode doesn't produce anything usable (at ISO 800-1600). Redeye was a bit of a problem, as well.

Jeff about the H5:

Photo quality was very good for the most part. The H5 took well-exposed photos with nice color, pleasing sharpness, and low noise levels through ISO 400. At the ISO 800 and 1000 settings noise levels go up and color saturation goes down, so I'd avoid those two settings altogether.

Jeff about the S3 IS:

Photo quality was also very good. The PowerShot took well-exposed photos with Canon's signature smoothness. Purple fringing levels were low for an ultra zoom camera, and noise was well-controlled, even at ISO 200. The ISO 400 setting is still very usable, though at ISO 800 you'll probably want to clean things up a bit using noise reduction software.

So, even after seeing the side by side comparison, and reading the reviews and/or quotes, you still say panasonic's sensors are not a lot noisier than teh sensors Sony makes? You have a nerve, and you now totally discreditted your believability.

[Riley]

and it seems, while not adverse to bending light in what he does say, coldrain avoids the truth in what he doesnt say. From the same FZ7 review



Despite a few flaws (most notably noise in images), the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 is a very likable ultra zoom camera, and one that I can recommend. It combines high quality optics, image stabilization, manual features, and performance, without breaking the bank. The noise issue might only be a problem for those who will be shooting at high ISOs or making very large prints. For everyone else, this is a very capable ultra zoom that should be on your shopping list.


maybe you missed that bit coldrain, hmmm nothing wrong there eh?
oh then theres Steve's review



Image quality was very good for a 6-megapixel consumer model. Outdoors it captures beautiful images that are sharp, show good overall exposure and pleasing color saturation. Noise levels are below normal at lower ISO speeds, becoming more noticeable as the ISO is raised above 100. When you zoom in 100% on an ISO 200 or 400 image, you can see plenty of imager noise. However, even our ISO 400 available light M&M man sample looks good when viewed on the screen (my 19" LCD monitor is set at 1024x768), and I was able to create a nice 8x10-inch uncropped print. Only the professionally trained eye would "see" the image noise. I feel that the usefulness of the higher ISO overweighs the noise issue, especially when most people only print 4x6" size prints.

Bottom line - I was very happy with the FZ7. It is a robust performer that captures beautiful 6-megapixel images, possesses a generous 12x zoom range, and let's not forget it can be easily used by every person in your household. With 6-megapixels, you can create stunning prints up to 13x19-inches. We feel the FZ7 will make an excellent choice for any consumer in the market for an affordable "super-zoom" model. With an MSRP of under $400 dollars, it offers a great "bang for your buck" and is sure to be a very popular model this year.


hmmm, anyone thinking it wasnt so much of an issue after all ?
and at least FZ7 has a sharp lens to work with, with good edge performance

Riley

[coldrain]

We were talking about noise and image quality, sillyhead. And YOU refuted that Panasonics sensors are performing less, guess why I quoted the parts I quoted? OH YES! It was about how noisy panasonic sensors are.

And instead of giving an actual reply to what I posted and to what the discussion was about, you do one of your ever re-occuring evasive moves.
You really like to ridicule me rather than keeping the discussions clean, when someone (me in this instance) gives evidence that is hard to refute you just try to discredit the person.

And why don't you, like I did, also quote what else Jeff Keller had to say about the other cameras? Maybe because he liked those a lot too, but noted that their image quality is better. And EVERYONE can see that the panasonic performs quite a bit less, when you do a side by side comparison.

Your posts become more and more a trademark Panasonic (and therefore Leica and Olympus) fan kind of posts. And you dare accuse me of being a Canon salesman. One more question to you: how old are you, are you by chance approaching 60, and do you by chance have a beard? Just asking because it seems to be a trend.

[Riley]

thing is coldrain

what you realised today is, they are identical sensors, sans the mp differences and that discussion you usually run no longer holds water. pretty much all small sensor cameras carry noise. and mostly at the end of the day it doesnt matter worth a dam. for what people want out of a digicam theyre fine

and i dont ridicule you, you do that fine all by yourself. you see i dont have to lie to make my own reality. i quote facts, i leave sources. and i leave the personal bs out of it. and im happy for people to make their own minds up.

Riley

[FLiPMaRC]

Coldrain / Riley .... I like pizza :p

You two hijacked this thread pretty good ... LMAO!!!:D

[swgod98]

Coldrain / Riley .... I like pizza :p

You two hijacked this thread pretty good ... LMAO!!!:D

Ya, I like pizza too.

[Riley]

then pizza it is !

Riley

[Riley]

Your posts become more and more a trademark Panasonic (and therefore Leica and Olympus) fan kind of posts.

you left out Nikon, I like Nikons, Nikon need to be in there
oh and I would probably like a Sigma DP1
and those Ziess Ikon cameras, I like them too

http://www.photokina-show.com/0219/zeiss/digitalslrcamera/zeissikonsw/

Riley

[suzyqq]

:)
Boy.....you all sure did do something else with this thread....lol. I think I learned something from it. To me it seems like if I want to spend under $500 then I'd better consider the Canon S3 IS as it seems like the better of the other ones mentioned. Of course I realize that I won't be getting all those indoor "action shots" like I wanted, but I'll have pretty good group shots and after the fact exciting shots;) .

I certainly am amazed at all the knowledge around these threads. I'm going to keep looking up and learning what I can. Who knows? Maybe one of these days I can post pics along with my great camera w/lenses like the pros do here.

[Riley]

Suzy, Im sure whatever you choose you will do just fine

Riley

[FLiPMaRC]

Suzy .... don't discount the Sony H5 ;) If you get a chance to handle a display model, you will also be impressed like I was :D But I have no regrets with my Canon S3 ;)

[BonjiB]

Riley. I'm sorry. Coldrain has you beat in this argument and you just dont' realize it. The sensors in these different cameras are NOT identical. THey're made by differerent manufacturers and combined with differend processors to bring out the traits in that sensor that the specific manufacturere wants. Take the fuji f30. It has a very smooth iso 800 and that is NOT the same sensor as the fz7. It's just not the case. Every manufacturere makes/employs their own different type of sensor. Yeah they're all the same size but they aren't the same design. Panasonic unfortunately uses NOISER sensors. It's very well known like coldrain says. Sure if you want to print 4x6's at iso 400 from an fz7 you prolly won't notice it. But some of us like to crop into our pictures a little or maybe make enlargements (say 16x24) and for those purposes i'm sorry, but panasonic will fail when compared to some other brands (especially canon.) So no, not all sensors are created equal and you're making yourself sound really silly be arguing that they're the same sensors. Sure you make valid points about how most people might not be affected by the noise but at the end of the day 100% crops don't lie. Panasonic is noiser than other brands. For the most part their advanced feature set and price outweigh this for most people. Shoot, i have an fz30 and i love it... but it's a noisy camera. I can't use iso 400 for anything practical without noise just destroying the shot. Not all point and shoots are like this, many have usable iso 400 and a rare few like the fuji f30 have smooth iso 800. I'm trying to be nice beacuse i don't want to get caught up in a flame war about this but i'm just saying, coldrain was stating documented fact: panasonics are noisy. Always have been and all of these cameras do NOT use the same sensor.

[Riley]

BonjiB
thanks for an eventual cordial reply
Im aware of all that, but then there was this



A sensor's photodiodes need a certain amount of light to get a realible measurement on the colour and light intensity that falls on it.

If the light is too low (because of the exposure duration and light conditions) the values are less accurate. This can mean that the less accurate readout of a photo diode is too red, too green, too blue. And this causes pixels to give odd colours, resulting in colour noise or chroma noise. If after the interpolation of colours the colour values are correct but the intensity is wrong, this gives a more grainy kind of noise, also referred to as luminance noise.

The way to combat/avoid noise is to have a long enough exposure, and to use bigger sensors that have bigger photodiodes.

those are his words not mine
since the sensors are the same size, I guess he should have said something different instead of looking for people to berate. On the basis of his claims, and while conversing to him, my end of it was correct

In any event, what a stop iso difference between S3is and FZ7 isnt a great deal. I say this becuase the iso 800 images from S3is is equally unuseable as iso400 on the FZ7. Given that the lenses on the pana zooms have far better resolving power in the firstplace.
That in effect is the crux of the matter.

Riley

[BonjiB]

What coldrain said is true and that pricipal does hold true to smaller sensors HOWEVER, how all the sensors handle this boost in sensativity is completely different. Higher quality sensors handle this bump better. The fz7 just doesn't have one of these higher quality sensors and it doesn't handle "gaining up" very well (not as well as the competition.) Sure it's lens is better at resolving detail but if that sensor isn't accurately capturing that detail at the higher iso's then it's of no use. I mean just get up onto dpreview and check out the sample galleries shot with each camera. Look at iso 200 and 400 of each of the cameras mentioned here in the thread today at 100% and tell me if you still think the fz7's higher iso output is just as good as anyone elses. Like i said... the advantages are not seen on a 4x7 print but in a cropped or enlarged photograph.

[Riley]

then at iso 80/100 the difference is what?
answer: the lens

if opticly the lens wont pick up the detail, noise isnt going to matter
not saying S3 lens is junk, it just isnt near as good

Riley

[BonjiB]

answer: the lens


Your argument with coldrain wasn't about the lens. Coldy said that the fz7 has a lesser quality sensor and you flew off the handle.

[Riley]

Your argument with coldrain wasn't about the lens. Coldy said that the fz7 has a lesser quality sensor and you flew off the handle.

im not flyin off the handle
but you appear to be argueing with me
over the conditions of the discussion with your pal coldrain

to wit
as I said



In any event, what a stop iso difference between S3is and FZ7 isnt a great deal. I say this becuase the iso 800 images from S3is is equally unuseable as iso400 on the FZ7. Given that the lenses on the pana zooms have far better resolving power in the firstplace.
That in effect is the crux of the matter



which is the explanation you seek
like it or not
move on

Riley

[JTL]

thing is coldrain

what you realised today is, they are identical sensors,
What? Is that the crack talking? They may be the same size...but they are not "identical" sensors! Your augments are just plain nonsense. Why do you keep posting? You don't really know anything except that you like to shill for Panasonic. Why waste all the words? Just reply to every post "Panasonic is great" and save us all of the melodrama...

What...does Panasonic recruit you guys from the retirement home or something? Seriously.

[John_Reed]

I'm not going to get into the pi$$ing contest about whether or not sensors are identical, I don't even care. Maybe you younger folks (I'm 67, though NOT retired; should I move to a "home" soon?:mad: ) think such arguments are truly crucial to whether or not that lady gets the right sensor in her camera; to me it's a non-issue.

The fact is, when you dismiss for the benefit of the "newbies" who ask about cameras, all Panasonic cameras "because they're noisy," you are also dismissing the large body of users who are plenty happy with their cameras, maybe because they also like parameters like "lens sharpness," long zoom that can focus anywhere in its range reliably, stuff like that. You call Riley and probably me "Pana-apologists," but I duly note that most dissing of the Panasonic cameras comes from people who are WAY heavily "Canon-centric."

When I look at the many thousands of photos I've taken with these cameras, maybe I AM an oddball: probably 90% of them are shot at ISO 80! (I get the impression a lot of high-ISO people hang out in bars a lot?) I leave Auto ISO on with my cameras (currently a TZ1 and an FZ30), and really the only time I ever have to fool with NR is when I'm doing image enhancement with things like the "Shadow/Highlighting" tool. Noise just isn't a big deal, and I LOVE the image sharpness I'm getting.

[jmwinterfield]

My brother and I owned the same size car at one point, both having 3.5L v-6's. My car had 350 horsepower and my brother's, a different make and model, had 300. But they were the same size and shape. But both cars also got us to Grandma's house the same way, just as comfortably because there are a lot more factors involved, like speed limits. But if we were on a race track, there would have been a difference. But if someone walked out onto the race track while we were racing, his car could stop faster than mine did.

I don't know what camera to recommend to the nice lady, as I am primarily a film shooter who actually comes to this forum for advice myself. The only recommendation I can make is that the forum needs to calm the flame wars. So, thank you to the forum for all of the advice and experience that has been shared.

The one note that I will offer though, is that with film, higher ISO speeds are better for action. I would expect the same would be true with digital.

[JTL]

The only recommendation I can make is that the forum needs to calm the flame wars.When people post false information and continue to post it even after it's been pointed out that it's false...they will get challenged. If they continue to promote what is essentailly a lie (in this case that the sensors are identical) and insult those trying to state the facts, then they will get challenged in an unfriendly way. That is the way it is. Instead of commenting on "flame wars" how about taking issue with the untruths? But I suppose lying is O.K. as long as you do it politely and reponding to a lie is not O.K. if you get angry about it. Is that about the size of it?

[jmwinterfield]

I thought my reference to the car engines was a pretty pointed reference to the sensor issue and then some. Ok, let me not be as subtle. Of course the sensor is not the same, just like the car engines were not the same. However, for a great many people looking for a point and shoot, they will essencially function very similarly. Except, of course, when there is something specific that they are looking for, such as action, zoom, low-light performance, etc. So no, the sensors are most definitily not the same, and my own common sense and minimal knowledge of patent law helps me know that. Part of curbing flame wars is to not continuously post incorrect information, agreed. Part is also to respond in a way that will not push it further. There is obviously room to debate in this forum - my position is the debate should be more like high school/college debate class and less like american political system debating.

[JTL]

I thought my reference to the car engines was a pretty pointed reference to the sensor issue and then some. Ok, let me not be as subtle. Of course the sensor is not the same, just like the car engines were not the same. However, for a great many people looking for a point and shoot, they will essencially function very similarly. Except, of course, when there is something specific that they are looking for, such as action, zoom, low-light performance, etc. So no, the sensors are most definitily not the same, and my own common sense and minimal knowledge of patent law helps me know that. Part of curbing flame wars is to not continuously post incorrect information, agreed. Part is also to respond in a way that will not push it further. There is obviously room to debate in this forum - my position is the debate should be more like high school/college debate class and less like american political system debating.I and others weren't commenting on some theoretical debate about sensors. A statement was made that the sensors in question are the same. And that lie was repeated with the full knowledge that it was a lie. There is no debate. It’s a lie. The person in question is notorious for starting this kind of thing and some of us lose patience with it. Misinformation and lies are simply not tolerated by some of us. Period.

The ones who challenge the B.S. have been actively contributing to this forum for years and have done just fine, thank you. It’s easy to come in after a few posts and to be critical, but there is history here. So, you respond to posts as you will and I'll respond as I will. How's that then? :)

[pas49ras]

BTW....when I went to one camera store a couple of weeks ago, the person there showed me an XTRebel model because he didn't have the S3 in stock. It looked very impressive and felt good and he was telling me things about it but I kinda turned away because of the cost. Will reconsider....maybe


I would recommend that you look at getting a DSLR..even if you have to stretch your budget slightly. I've been down the sports/action photo road and you just won't get good results with a P/S camera..the ultra zooms are slow(ie..slow shutter speeds and blurred pictures) when fully zoomed. The Canon Rebel is a good place to start..the new Pentax K100 is also a good choice.

[Riley]

ok let the last word from me on this thread come from an independent source sans for this,

the FZ7 is not deficient to the S3is untill you get to iso 800, at iso800 the venus II engine obliterates the detail totally
the venus II engine is not part of the sensor
at the same point any fair analysis says the Canon is pretty dam useless at iso800 too.
the difference is the software aboard the Canon leaves much of the noise there, you can se the noise remaining and it looks too me too much to clear up with software without trashing the image.

Outside of that the differences are the water colour effects of VenusII Engine on the FZ7 showing in places were you wouldnt expect noise to be apparent (eg. the yellow of the Baileys label), and distinct bleeding of red colours, and very unwhite whites on the Canon S3is. Not good in either case as both indicate that small sensor cameras have yet some way to go. Choose what you want to live with, niether is so superior to the other.

RESULTS: sensor noise is the same, software results are widely different

this review that compares S3is and the FZ7 says the same thing, sensors and lens, and the results are irrefutable
the only other comment, the FZ7 has superior optics where the S3is is soft in definition

so we come to my comments on the sensors
on the basis of the review and field experience with these cameras
the sensors are the same not only in size, but in performance
the same
how much more the same does something have to be?
to say different is false


first the low iso

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page10.asp

Next to the FZ7's output the S3 IS results look a little on the soft side (and there's no doubt that in the center half or so of the frame the Panasonic lens outclasses the Canon), but the S3 image is considerably cleaner and has Canon's trademark smooth quality. To be honest the difference between these two shots is so small that which you prefer is going to come down to personal taste. The Panasonic appears to have a marginally better lens - certainly in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness - but Canon's image processing is more subtle (and noise is visibly and measurably lower).

[Riley]

now iso 400
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page11.asp

Pretty much the same story at ISO 400; Canon's noise reduction is less aggressive, and less 'real' detail is lost, but the results look soft next to the FZ7. That said, the Panasonic sensor obviously suffers from far higher noise, which combined with 'watercolor' style noise reduction produces an image you wouldn't want to print on anything bigger than a postcard. Again it's a matter of taste, but I'd say that - by a whisker - the Canon result is more usable, but once again it's worth noting that the FZ7's ISO 400 is measurably more sensitive than the S3 IS.

[Riley]

for FZ7 800 iso and beyond is completely useless trash
there is no way you would ever recover ANY detail.

for S3is however, I think if you really had to, and you did a LOT of work on the image it might, I say might, get you out of trouble. But from this office S3is is also useless at 800iso, we just couldnt publish it at all.

that said, if you didnt see the crops and looked at the full size image at 2816 x 2112 which you can do by downloading from the site, both of them look ok in passing, and would print the postcard size, or maybe a tad larger.

have a nice weekend

Riley

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page12.asp

Unlike Panasonic, Canon's ISO 800 is at full resolution (the FZ7 uses a process called pixel binning to produce an almost noise free image, but one so void of detail it is unusable), and even in the bright light of our studio it looks pretty noisy. Any thoughts that Canon (or its sensor manufacturer) had made some kind of quantum leap in sensitivity were soon banished when we looked at the ISO 800 output, which in low light looks very noisy indeed (the studio lighting is fairly bright). On the upside the noise reduction is applied with a fairly light touch, so there is actually plenty of detail (and color) in there, and the noise is 'grainy', rather than 'blotchy', which looks a lot less offensive, and the image is perfectly usable. Ultimately though, you're not going to want to use ISO 800 unless you really have to.

[FLiPMaRC]

:cool: Nice posts Riley :cool:

At least with the S3 iso800, it's still somewhat salvageable with NR software.