Best travel-friendly ultrazoom for wildlife-photo.

[Luscinia]

There’s a lot of good reading at this forum about ultrazoom-cameras. After going through all discussions about Image Stabilisation, ISO’s, Noise, Purple Fringing and so on I know quite well which cameras are good or bad at this or that.

But I don’t know so well which combination of characteristics that are the best for my special needs. What would be most useful when one wants to take a picture of a bird in the canopy of a high tree or a hawk gliding above in the air or a deer standing on the opposite side of a field in dusk or dawn.

In getting to these special places I’ve probably walked or travelled a long way and wouldn’t have taken any big or heavy equipment with me. I believe there must be one (or few) of the ultrazooms on the market that could be more useful then the others.

Thankful to anyone who can help me find the right mix of (or compromise between) characteristics, or perhaps the “right” camera!

Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
About 400$.

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
Not too big and heavy. I’m also carrying a binocular and a light spotting scope with tripod when nature-walking.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
5-6.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
Ultrazoom.
Extra plus if the camera also could be used for digiscoping.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
7-8.

Do you care for manual controls?
Maybe.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Nature/wildlife-photo, especially birds and also family photo.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
Not bigger than A4.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Yes.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Sometimes flying birds.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
Like Panasonic and Canon and perhaps Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and Sony.
Don’t like Olympus and Kodak so much.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Canon Powershot S3
Panasonic Lumix FZ7 and TZ1
Fuji Finepix S6000fd
Sony Cybershot DSC-H2o
open for other suggestions…

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
Quite wide angle – focal range starting at max 36 mm.
Image Stabilization would be nice.

[bascom]

"But I don’t know so well which combination of characteristics that are the best for my special needs. What would be most useful when one wants to take a picture of a bird in the canopy of a high tree or a hawk gliding above in the air or a deer standing on the opposite side of a field in dusk or dawn."

I don't see those as special needs. Sounds like typical wildlife photography. Your list has what I would call the best group of ultrazooms:

Canon Powershot S3
Panasonic Lumix FZ7 and TZ1
Fuji Finepix S6000fd
Sony Cybershot DSC-H2 (not H2o)

Unfortunately, you face the typical dilemna: the better ones are big and heavy (Canon, Fuji, Sony). The Pan's are lighter but would need a card reader, have more noise at higher ISO's, and have shorter batt life. The TZ1 has no VF and few manual controls.

The S6000 has the highest ISO but has no IS and is the biggest.

[Luscinia]

Thanks bascom!
Unfortunately, you face the typical dilemna: the better ones are big and heavy (Canon, Fuji, Sony). The Pan's are lighter but would need a card reader, have more noise at higher ISO's, and have shorter batt life. The TZ1 has no VF and few manual controls.

The S6000 has the highest ISO but has no IS and is the biggest.
Here, more questions: Why does the Pan's need a card reader? Is they less good then the bigger ones because of the lens size? In reviews i've read they've got the best auto focus speed among the ultrazooms. Wouldn't that help to take sharp pictures of flying birds?

I think only the S6000fd is too big and heavy for me. The choice is now between:
1. Canon S3, seems to be quite good in everything. Still a bit too expensive.
2. Sony H2, also good and cheaper then S3. Memorysticks not so cheap.
3. Pana FZ7, easy to carry and use. How can one deal with the noise?
4. Pana TZ1, could this one also be used with spotting scope (digiscoping)?
5. Canon A710, becomes an ultrazoom together with tele conversion lens?

Thankful for more inputs!

[bascom]

Pan's have slow download speed so you need to use a card reader for higher speed. The other brands listed have high speed download, which is 40 times faster than the pans. What would take a minute with Canon/Fuji/Sony would take 40mins with Pan unless you use a high speed reader.

A tele on the A710 would increase the zoom. But it would increase the price, size, and weight also. I don't know the answers to your other questions. If nobody answers here you could ask your Pan questions in the Pan forum.

[John_Reed]

Thanks bascom!

Here, more questions: Why does the Pan's need a card reader? Is they less good then the bigger ones because of the lens size? In reviews i've read they've got the best auto focus speed among the ultrazooms. Wouldn't that help to take sharp pictures of flying birds?

I think only the S6000fd is too big and heavy for me. The choice is now between:
1. Canon S3, seems to be quite good in everything. Still a bit too expensive.
2. Sony H2, also good and cheaper then S3. Memorysticks not so cheap.
3. Pana FZ7, easy to carry and use. How can one deal with the noise?
4. Pana TZ1, could this one also be used with spotting scope (digiscoping)?
5. Canon A710, becomes an ultrazoom together with tele conversion lens?

Thankful for more inputs!Hey, this is a "one-stop shopping" forum; posting the same question on the "Pan Forum" would amount to double posting, which is against the forum rules! Tsk Tsk!

Re: FZ7 noise, if you leave your ISO set at "Auto" and most of your photos are in daylight, nearly all of your photos will be shot at the lowest ISO anyway. If they go higher in some instances, up to ISO 200 is allowed by the camera without flash, still very little noise that would show up in a print, and if it's objectionable, a little pass of Neat Image will totally cure it.

Re: TZ1 and digiscoping? I've never done this, but a spotting scope and digiscoping adapter would be quite an appendage for someone who's looking for something "small and light?" I'm pretty sure it could be done, though. I use my TZ1 with a 1.5X teleconverter on occasion, and also with a wideangle (.68X) adapter as well.

Re: A710 with adapter becoming "ultra-zoom?" Well, according to the review, you can get a 1.75X adapter for the A710, which, when added to the conversion adapter you'd also need, would run your total zoom up to 368mm equivalent. (for about $125 total?) That's cool, though it's sometimes awkward to have to install and take off an adapter in tight situations. Just an example: Years ago, my wife and I were in Africa. I had a film camera with a zoom range from 35mm to 180mm (wooie!;) ) We watched this large herd of elephants marching along, and it was great to use the WA to get the whole herd. Then, when I wanted a closeup of a baby with mama, I just flicked the zoom to get there, didn't have to stop the action, add/change lenses, etc.

Regarding download speed, while it's true that the Panny cameras haven't upgraded to USB 2.0 high-speed as yet, and there is a big speed difference between the old and new USB protocols, I have yet to "crack the plastic" on the cable that came with my TZ1, because for ~$8, I bought a USB 2.0 high-speed SD card reader, that's all I use for downloading. Downloading outside the camera offers one important advantage of not using any precious battery juice to transfer photos, for one thing. And it's hassle-free; frankly I'm tired of hearing that listed as a huge drawback to these cameras that lack the intrinsic high-speed download interface. But I'm sure it's not the last time. :(

Pictures of flying birds? I can't show you any from an FZ7, since I don't have one, (I have an FZ30, that wouldn't be fair!) but here are a couple from the TZ1:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/64362467-L.jpg

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/106408337-L.jpg

The first Egret was shot directly with the TZ1; the second one was shot using a "Red Dot Sight," and my 1.5X TC, appended to the TZ1. If you want to shoot birds in flight, the TZ1 would represent about the minimum "ultra-zoom" level you'd need, it's my experience. In fact, most often I'm shooting BIF shots with my FZ30/TC combination at ~900mm equivalent, which is more than double the TZ1's 350mm "reach" at 10X. Frankly, I haven't seen any BIF shots from Canon cameras (other than dSLRs, of course), though I'm sure there must be some available. The Panny cameras are what made me become interested in shooting birds, and later birds in flight, in the first place. Once you get the ultra-zoom power as a tool, along with the very sharp Leica lenses at the full zoom, there's no looking back!

Good luck, whatever you choose. I just wanted you to be able to make an informed choice.

[Luscinia]

The decision process to find a good portable ultrazoom for wildlife photo is slowly going on. Today there are four candidates left: (ordered alfabetically)

Canon Powershot S3 IS
Panasonic Lumix FZ7
Panasonic Lumix TZ1
Sony Cybershot DSC H2

I've found out that the FZ7 has not as many supporters as the other three on this eminent website. It's a bit confusing for me because FZ7 was first on my list before I started to read user reviews. Is there anyone who can really speak up for this camera? If not, it may be the next to be picked out of the list.

[Kenen]

Can't help you with the FZ7, but about the S3, have you tried looking at buying online? It is much cheaper than at "real" stores, and should definately fall below your price range. From what I have seen of the S3 it is a good camera (I have an S2), a bit bulky so it will not fit in your pocket, but it is certainly not to heavy for hiking as far as I'm concerned.

[Telecorder]

I've found out that the FZ7 has not as many supporters as the other three on this eminent website. It's a bit confusing for me because FZ7 was first on my list before I started to read user reviews. Is there anyone who can really speak up for this camera? If not, it may be the next to be picked out of the list.

Actually, when it comes to wildlife subjects at long zoom, the Pany FZ-series is probably recognized as the best all around. Peruse most all of the forums and note how many postings/current readers on any of the various branded forums -- most always, the Pany forum leads... And, the Pany owners are probably the most loyal users of the FZ-zooms taking and posting the most images of distant wildlife.

The forerunner to the FZ7 -- the FZ5, was touted and commonly considered to be the best super zoom for wildlife when it first came out. I know as I did a LOT of due diligence reading comparing before I purchased my FZ5. The FZ7 improves on the FZ5 in a lot of areas. For me, the step up to the FZ30 was a better purchase than going to the FZ7 for its improved capabilities.

I can heartily recommend the FZ-30, and from what I've seen, the FZ5/7, as probably the best long zoom digis for wildlife. Keep in mind, though, the FZ-series (Z=Zoom) digis are great in good light but w-low light/indoors without flash is not their designed optimal circumstances. Outdoors, in good light and at the long end of the zoom, few, if any, can consistently match their capabilities...

While the FZ30 is a bit larger than the FZ5/7 units, its current price point is within your indicated budget. The following comparison might be of interest:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumix_dmc-fz30_canon_eos-20d_camera_shootout/

FZ-30 Handheld
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/FZ30%20Morro%20Bay%2006-2006/Peregrin364.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/FZ30%20Morro%20Bay%2006-2006/Pelican897.jpg

FZ5-handheld
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/May%205%202006%20Bald%20Eagles-Herons/Homecoming-746_filtered.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/BIF-Red%20Tail%20Hawk/442_filtered.jpg

FZ5 Digiscoped Moon
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/FZ5%20Digiscoping/4-6-06_MoonMedium.jpg

[bascom]

Actually, when it comes to wildlife subjects at long zoom, the Pany FZ-series is probably recognized as the best all around. Peruse most all of the forums and note how many postings/current readers on any of the various branded forums -- most always, the Pany forum leads..
On what basis do you claim the FZ are best for wildlife? Because there are a lot of posts in the Pan forum? The Canon forum has more posts. That doesn't seem like a good measure anyway.

The S3 and H2 have less noise than the FZ7, plus features like high speed download, zoom with video, long batt life, etc.

[SpecialK]

I'm partial to Canon, but the Leica on the Pany is supposed to be great, at least on a previous model.

I'd still choose the S3 as I like the flip out screen (though it's more useful with people shots perhaps) and it runs on cheap AA's.

[Phill D]

I would say you've got to the point where a trip to a local shop is required to test out the feel of the cameras. I'm sure all the ones you have selected plus the others suggested here will do a pretty good job of birds in flight. The differentiator is probably likely to be how well the photographer interfaces with the camera & the individual way each one operates. Plus actually playing with the cams is good fun. Good luck with your final decision.

[John_Reed]

Where's the beef? I posted a query to get any bird shots with the S3, and got about two responders, none of them birds in flight. The post has been active for several weeks. I also looked in the Canon forum at dpreview, and really couldn't find any BIF postings. So where's the beef? Meanwhile, such shots are commonplace with almost every Panny zoom, since the FZ1. You may tout the "superiority" of these cameras, but when it comes to birds in flight, you just don't have the evidence to back it up, that I've seen anyway. Produce me some good stuff, and I'll alter my view. Here's some BIFs from my FZ30:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/92599061-L.jpg

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/92601815-L.jpg

TZ1 with 1.5X teleconverter:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/106408337-L.jpg

TZ1 at full zoom:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/75791446-L.jpg

So go ahead, post some comparable shots of yours taken with the S3 or the Sony H5. I'd really like to see them, if you have them, or know where they can be found?

[bascom]

The new Casio V7 is a small one with 7-10x zoom.

[John_Reed]

The new Casio V7 is a small one with 7-10x zoom.It has a lens range (38-266mm equiv) smaller than the TZ1 (35-350mm equiv), a slower lens (f3.4-f5.3 vs. f2.8-f4.1), and if it's any smaller than the TZ1, it's by a whisker. But it DOES support USB 2.0 High-speed, so it WILL support faster downloads, for those who don't prefer card readers.

[bascom]

Yes the V7 lens is slower and it only has 7x zoom normally. But it can extend to 10x in 3mp mode so that would equal the TZ1. And it sounds quite a bit smaller and lighter than the TZ1.

Dimensions (W x H x D):
Casio V7 - 3.76” x 2.35” x 1.0” (excluding projections, .82” at thinnest part)
Kodak V610 - 4.4 x 2.2 x 0.9 in.
Pan TZ1 - 4.4 x 2.3 x 1.6 in.

Weight (empty):
Casio V7 - 149g
Kodak V610 - 160g
Pan TZ1 - 234g

[John_Reed]

Yes the V7 lens is slower and it only has 7x zoom normally. But it can extend to 10x in 3mp mode so that would equal the TZ1. And it sounds quite a bit smaller and lighter than the TZ1.

Dimensions (W x H x D):
Casio V7 - 3.76” x 2.35” x 1.0” (excluding projections, .82” at thinnest part)
Kodak V610 - 4.4 x 2.2 x 0.9 in.
Pan TZ1 - 4.4 x 2.3 x 1.6 in.

Weight (empty):
Casio V7 - 149g
Kodak V610 - 160g
Pan TZ1 - 234g
A couple of points. That "1.6 in." dimension is for the camera with lens fully zoomed; with it retracted, the basic thickness of the camera is about an inch, plus maybe a .25 inch adder for the lens bezel. There's no way I could carry a 1.6" thick camera in my Levis pocket! And as "heavy" as that extra 85g of weight carried by the TZ1, it's still light enough to be carried in hand without discomfort on a 5-mile run, as I did Sunday. And that was with a battery installed!

Secondly, the "10X" zoom figure for the V7 is in its 3MP mode; in the same mode, the TZ1 will actually deliver 12.5X zoom. Moreover, the TZ1 lens is about one f-stop faster, both at the wideangle end and the telephoto end.

I guess if you continue to be the "Pana Rambo" and bend over backwards trying to one-up Panasonic's products at every opportunity, I'll keep countering your arguments; it would be nice if you could just relax once in awhile, and admit that maybe those Pannies are good for something? :p

[Elisha82]

here's an FZ7 thread filled with awesome pics from a French forum:
http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Photonumerique/Appareils-Objectifs/topic-unique-panasonic-sujet_10043_1.htm

[bascom]

A couple of points. That "1.6 in." dimension is for the camera with lens fully zoomed; with it retracted, the basic thickness of the camera is about an inch, plus maybe a .25 inch adder for the lens bezel. There's no way I could carry a 1.6" thick camera in my Levis pocket! And as "heavy" as that extra 85g of weight carried by the TZ1, it's still light enough to be carried in hand without discomfort on a 5-mile run, as I did Sunday. And that was with a battery installed!

I think the 1.6" comes from the TZ1 grip not the extended lens. I doubt dcresource would measure depth with the lens extended. The Casio looks thinner, smaller, and more pocketable.

I didn't know the TZ1 zoom could extend to 12.5x. Interesting.

Pana Rambo? No need for name calling. I don't bend over backwards trying to one-up Panasonic's products at every opportunity,

[bascom]

it would be nice if you could just relax once in awhile, and admit that maybe those Pannies are good for something? :p
I'm relaxed. I'll admit the TZ1 and FZ7 have a good Leica lens, and are smaller and cheaper than most other ultrazooms. Will you admit they have more noise, low batt life, slow download, and the TZ1 lacks a VF and full manual controls?

[John_Reed]

I think the 1.6" comes from the TZ1 grip not the extended lens. I doubt dcresource would measure depth with the lens extended. The Casio looks thinner, smaller, and more pocketable.

I didn't know the TZ1 zoom could extend to 12.5x. Interesting.

Pana Rambo? No need for name calling. I don't bend over backwards trying to one-up Panasonic's products at every opportunity,And it's NOT 1.6" thick at the grip. That dimension actually IS the dimension with the lens extended, at the lens itself. If you'd ever seen or held one, not to mention carried it in your pocket, as I have, you might be able to speak with a little more authority?

I'm not name calling, I'm only citing experience. You give very little consideration to the Panasonic cameras. But speaking of experience, I've never seen any photos from you? Where are your galleries for showing what kinds of things you like to shoot? I'm willing to put my neck out there by photo examples, let's see yours, please?

[mattdm]

Where's the beef? I posted a query to get any bird shots with the S3, and got about two responders, none of them birds in flight. The post has been active for several weeks. I also looked in the Canon forum at dpreview, and really couldn't find any BIF postings. So where's the beef? Meanwhile, such shots are commonplace with almost every Panny [...]

I don't particularly care either way about this particular argument, but take a look here: http://flickr.com/search/?q=bird+flight&cm=canon%2Fpowershot_s3_is&s=int

[John_Reed]

I don't particularly care either way about this particular argument, but take a look here: http://flickr.com/search/?q=bird+flight&cm=canon%2Fpowershot_s3_is&s=int
Can you point to the "bird" section of the gallery, and is it obvious what camera(s) were used to take the photos? I had that S3 query going up here from about 3 months back; you may be the third responder?

[mattdm]

Can you point to the "bird" section of the gallery, and is it obvious what camera(s) were used to take the photos?

Well, it doesn't quite work like that. What I did was go to http://flickr.com/cameras/ , find the Canon S3, and then search for "bird flight". That gets some noise (inevitable in flickr) but is generally pretty good. It'd also be worth trying "birds flight" -- I'm not sure if there's a way to combine the two searches. So all of the photos in the link were taken by the S3 according to the EXIF data.

Anyway, it's a really great resource for camera investigation.

[bascom]

And it's NOT 1.6" thick at the grip. That dimension actually IS the dimension with the lens extended, at the lens itself. If you'd ever seen or held one, not to mention carried it in your pocket, as I have, you might be able to speak with a little more authority?

I'm not name calling, I'm only citing experience. You give very little consideration to the Panasonic cameras. But speaking of experience, I've never seen any photos from you? Where are your galleries for showing what kinds of things you like to shoot? I'm willing to put my neck out there by photo examples, let's see yours, please?

I'm not going to bother responding to posts like this anymore because it sounds like you are just trolling and looking for arguments. I hope you stop.

[greggh]

A couple of points. That "1.6 in." dimension is for the camera with lens fully zoomed; with it retracted, the basic thickness of the camera is about an inch, plus maybe a .25 inch adder for the lens bezel. There's no way I could carry a 1.6" thick camera in my Levis pocket!

Just wanted to correct you on this point John. The TZ1 is 1.6" deep unextended, and 2.2" deep extended...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/page2.asp

I actually just bought one from Radioshack for $199.97 last week and with my ruler out I can tell you that with the lens cap on it's actually 1.75" deep, so you must have some pretty loose Levis pockets.

[greggh]

And it's NOT 1.6" thick at the grip. That dimension actually IS the dimension with the lens extended, at the lens itself. If you'd ever seen or held one, not to mention carried it in your pocket, as I have, you might be able to speak with a little more authority?

I have a TZ1 and a ruler in front of me and it's 1.5" deep at the grip, 1.6" deep at the lens (unextended), 1.75" deep at the lens with the lens cap on. It's a little odd that you a re so adamant about the TZ1 dimensions when you never even took the time to measure it. I'll admit that it does give the impression that it is thinner than it really is. I really like your pics though. :p

[John_Reed]

It's just a little over an inch thick where your fingers come together. Loose Levis? I hardly think "standard fit" 501 Jeans are known for their loose pockets? Try it sometime with yours?

[greggh]

It's just a little over an inch thick where your fingers come together.

True, it's 1 1/8" deep at the narrowest part. But you were way off on the lens and grip dimensions. The point is that in your pocket with the lens cap on the the bulge will be no less than 1.75" deep.

[SpecialK]

Where's the beef? I posted a query to get any bird shots with the S3, and got about two responders, none of them birds in flight. The post has been active for several weeks. I also looked in the Canon forum at dpreview, and really couldn't find any BIF postings. So where's the beef?

I don't have an S3 IS, so I can not help with images. But is the question not where's the "fowl"?

[Riley]

On what basis do you claim the FZ are best for wildlife? Because there are a lot of posts in the Pan forum? The Canon forum has more posts. That doesn't seem like a good measure anyway.

The S3 and H2 have less noise than the FZ7, plus features like high speed download, zoom with video, long batt life, etc.

bascom
weve been here before i think
the noise/resolution equation is pretty equal up to and at iso 400, slight advantage to FZ7

when you get to iso800, at which point they all turn into crap, there is a slight advantage to S3.

[Rhys]

Canon Powershot S3
Panasonic Lumix FZ7 and TZ1
Fuji Finepix S6000fd
Sony Cybershot DSC-H2o
open for other suggestions…

There is your problem. All the superzooms you have listed are excellent cameras but can't do what you want. They're not wide enough at the wide end to do really good landscapes. They're fine at the long end for bird shots. Having said that, the focussing and shutter lag is such that you'll be hard pressed to get any recognisable photos of birds in flight. Most likely they'll be very blurred. That was my experience. It's only with a dSLR that my keeper ratio has improved.

You'll find that the cheaper dSLRs will suit you more. Might I suggest a Pentax K100D with a 70-300 lens or maybe something longer?

[Luscinia]

Thanks for this (Rhys) and all other advices. It's interesting how this thread now is the most replied on this forum, and the fifth most read. Appearently it's hitting a hot subject. For me the choice is between portability and possibility.

I wish I could afford both an ultrazoom and a DLSR but I don't. So when I have to choose then portability comes first. I think the best camera is always the one I have with me. No camera, no pictures. The choice will probably be one of the ultrazooms that's left on the list (H2,S3,TZ1,FZ7) hoping it will be a useful tool in documenting nature-experiences.

I'm a little bit afraid that they all will disappoint me when I try them out but I don't think so after reading most of your replies. But If you're right, Rhys, I'd better wait for new even lighter DLSR-models or even better ultrazooms.

[John_Reed]

Here's a few Egrets shot with the Panasonic TZ1. Look blurred?

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/66834997-L.jpg

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/68032591-L.jpg

Oops! Black-Crowned Night Heron:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/69002498-L.jpg

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/69693450-L.jpg

The key to shooting birds in flight is being able to track them as they fly. DSLRs can do it because of their optical viewfinders. Digicams have a little more difficulty because of their LCDs/EVFs, and the inherent lag in the display. The above photos (except for the 1st one) were all taken with my TZ1 at full zoom, but with a "Red Dot Sight" attached, which is a side-mounted pistol sight that gives me the same tracking capability as would an optical viewfinder, with faster acquisition. It's a cheap little device (basic Daisy sight costs $8.84 at Walmart). Here's a photo of the camera with one of these attached:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/69003475-L.jpg

[JTF]

I use a panasonic dmx fz4. Theyn don't make this one anymore but the FZ20/30/50 from panasonic are very good for wildlife. See included pics that I took last weekend.

[greggh]

John, I'm looking at the photo of your Tizzy with the sight attached and I see that your lenscap looks greyish. Is that the original cap that came with it? I just bought the silver TZ1 a week and a half ago and it came with a solid black lenscap.

[John_Reed]

John, I'm looking at the photo of your Tizzy with the sight attached and I see that your lenscap looks greyish. Is that the original cap that came with it? I just bought the silver TZ1 a week and a half ago and it came with a solid black lenscap.I didn't check the white balance too closely on that one? It was a closeup flash photo taken with my FZ30. But it is indeed black. Sorry for the confusion!

[John_Reed]

I use a panasonic dmx fz4. Theyn don't make this one anymore but the FZ20/30/50 from panasonic are very good for wildlife. See included pics that I took last weekend.Nice ones of that Owl. The eyes have it!

[Threecurl]

This has been a very informative thread for me. Like the original poster, I am looking for something shy of a dSLR for shooting wildlife, and I need something with decent low light capability. I take a lot of photos while hunting and fishing, so a great deal of my shots are at first and last light.

I had a Panasonic FX01 that did fairly well for just shooting around the blind and out on the flats while saltwater fishing, but it died a horrible death a couple of weeks ago when my blind bag filled with water. It turns out Panasonic cameras cannot swim. Who knew?

I tried a Sony W70 for a few days, but its ability to shoot at first light was laughable. I returned it, and now I figure I will probably have to go with something with more manual control in order to get the photos I want in grey, pre-dawn light. I think some of the suggestions in this thread will work.

The Panasonic vs. Canon fistfight has been entertaining to watch.

[Luscinia]

There's still four UZ-cams left on my list but one has been put out and one has been put in though it's an UUZ one. Canon Powershot S3 is surely a very good camera and probably the best one for many of You. But I think it don't will make as much value for the money for me as the two Panasonics FZ7 & TZ1 and Sony H2. There's also something about the design that doesn't appeal to me. So the quartet became a trio. But now then Olympus has released the SP-550UZ...

I'm now leaning more and more over to Panasonic and the best alternatives for today seems to be: TZ2 and FZ7. TZ2 has got a wider angle then TZ1 and FZ7's price is going down to prepare the arrival of FZ8. While waiting for reviwes on 2007 models of ultrazoom I've also begun to consider entrylevel DLSR's. http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=195164#post195164