Panasonic DMC-FZ20 or Nikon Coolpix 8800 [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

View Full Version : Panasonic DMC-FZ20 or Nikon Coolpix 8800

mz2890

11-30-2004, 08:43 PM

I've narrowed my choice down to the two subject cameras: (Nikon 10X optical, 8 megapixels vs' Panasonics 12X optical, 5 megapixel) but can't reconcile the additional 2X optical on the Panasonic vs's the additional 3 megapixels with the Nikon. Will not be printing more than 8X10 unless I get that one in a life time shot. I do plan on taking a number of shots at sporting events, ie., hockey and basketball so the zoom is attractive on the panasonic, but am I sacrificing megapixels if I want to crop and blow-up?

Any advice you can provide will be helpful.

freshlightphotographer

11-30-2004, 09:47 PM

The difference in zoom is less than you think. The Panasonic tops out at 432mm while the Nikon's max focal length is 350mm. 432 / 350 = 1.2343. This means that if you zoom both cameras to the max, the image captured by the Panasonic will only be about 1.2x bigger than the Nikon.

HOWEVER....

What is much more significant is the constant aperture of f/2.8 on the Panasonic. At full zoom the Nikon's aperture shrinks down to f/5.2. This is nearly two full stops, which means that only 1/4 of the light is hitting the CCD on the Nikon than is hitting the Panasonic's. If you are shooting sporting events, this will impair your ability to use high shutter speeds, resulting in blurry action shots. If your intent is to freeze the action, you will get much better results at 1/500 second shutter speed than 1/125 (two stops slower).

REGARDING MEGAPIXELS

8 Megapixels will allow you to print 8"x10"s at 250dpi, while 5 megapixels will print the same size at 300dpi. 250dpi is quite good, in fact you won't even notice a difference between the two even if you print on a very high end inkjet. So unless you are submitting this shot to a magazine for a full page spread, you won't miss the extra 3 MPs.

CONCLUSION

The Nikon is over $300 more than the Panasonic. If those are your only 2 criteria, I think your choice is clear.

Pete

mz2890

12-01-2004, 07:43 AM

Thanks Pete. Your comments were very helpful.

freshlightphotographer

12-01-2004, 07:57 AM

Glad I could help! Numbers can be very deceiving.

John_Reed

12-01-2004, 08:32 AM

Glad I could help! Numbers can be very deceiving.Yes they can, and just for the record, I think you got these numbers reversed:

8 Megapixels will allow you to print 8"x10"s at 250dpi, while 5 megapixels will print the same size at 300dpi. 250dpi is quite good, in fact you won't even notice a difference between the two even if you print on a very high end inkjet. So unless you are submitting this shot to a magazine for a full page spread, you won't miss the extra 3 MPs.In fact, 8 megapixels will let one print the same size print at a larger pixel density, not smaller.

Also, even though it has a smaller zoom range, because of its larger pixel array, the 8800 can actually outzoom the FZ20. In fact, a full-size (2560 pixel wide) full-zoom capture from the FZ20 would be captured by the 8800 at its full zoom to be 2644 pixels wide on the 8800's 3264 pixel wide imager. So, the 5MP image which would be captured by the FZ20 would actually spawn 5.24MP on the 8800's sensor array, when comparing the cameras at full zoom.

I do agree with your other points. Especially the slower lens would make the 8800 much less suitable for capturing sports action shots. I also understand that the FZ20 performs better at higher ISOs, letting its shutter snap even faster in those low-light situations.

freshlightphotographer

12-01-2004, 09:21 AM

John_Reed

12-01-2004, 02:30 PM

Thanks for catching my error, I did indeed reverse the max DPIs for 5 and 8 megapixels.

Also, very interesting point about using the larger pixel array to 'outzoom' the FZ20. You are in fact talking about a sort of digital zoom, which until now I saw as completely useless.

I suspect it would me more effective to crop out the 5MP area of the 8MP image in PhotoShop than use the Nikon's onboard digital zoom. Do you agree?I'm saying that if you took the same shot of a distant object with the 8800 and the FZ20, both at full zoom, the 2560 pixel-wide image from the FZ20 could be totally captured within the pixel field of the 8800's sensor, since its sensor is 3264 pixels wide, and in fact would actually map onto a rectangle of 2644 X 1983 pixels within the 8800's image. Doing as you suggested, you could thus crop the entire FZ20 image from within the 8800's capture, and the resulting crop would have slightly more pixels than the FZ20 image itself yielded on the FZ20. Whew! Is that clear as mud? :p

freshlightphotographer

12-01-2004, 06:30 PM

I'm saying that if you took the same shot of a distant object with the 8800 and the FZ20, both at full zoom, the 2560 pixel-wide image from the FZ20 could be totally captured within the pixel field of the 8800's sensor, since its sensor is 3264 pixels wide, and in fact would actually map onto a rectangle of 2644 X 1983 pixels within the 8800's image. Doing as you suggested, you could thus crop the entire FZ20 image from within the 8800's capture, and the resulting crop would have slightly more pixels than the FZ20 image itself yielded on the FZ20. Whew! Is that clear as mud? :p

Took me a while to digest but I got it! I have never been big on having a lot of megapixels but this is a great reason to have a few more than you need. Thanks for the insight!

John_Reed

12-01-2004, 06:40 PM

Took me a while to digest but I got it! I have never been big on having a lot of megapixels but this is a great reason to have a few more than you need. Thanks for the insight!Well, there also seem to be some drawbacks, if it's true that 8800 image noise levels start going ballistic above ISO 100. I haven't really seen any 8800 shots above ISO 50 or 100, I think. Could be wrong about that. I know I have seen acceptable FZ20 shots at ISO 400. I really think the 8800's "two-stop-slower" lens at full zoom, along with the lower maximum useable ISO, would be deal-killers for me, if I was worried about shooting sporting events. Even I, as a person who likes to shoot birds, sometimes in diminishing light, would be hamstrung by these restrictions. :(

elliowb

12-01-2004, 10:55 PM

John_Reed

12-01-2004, 11:21 PM

Thank you Pete and John for an informative discussion on the pros and cons of the FZ and the 8800. I too have been considering both cameras and you have confirmed some of my concerns with the 8800 (for that matter, many of the high end digitals). The lenses on these cameras seem to be so slow and coupled with the fact that you only get the best images at ISO 100 or less, seems like a recipe for very limited functioning.

With my 35 film camera, I've always thought of a f2.8 or higher as a relatively slow lens. Using a borrowed digital camera this weekend I shot some photos of dogs jumping hurdles. I found that even with ISO 200 and mid-day overcast, I couldn't get a high enough shutter speed to freeze the dogs.

A long zoom is not an absolutely crucial feature, so I'm even thinking about the Oly C8080. I really like the way both the FZ and the Oly operate. One of the concerns with the FZ is that they use the same 1/2.5 CCD that is used in their 4 MP camera. This seems like it should lead to more noise or more aggressive noise reduction (i.e. softer images). What are your thoughts on this issue?

I noticed on the DPReview.com site, that the new images they've posted shot with the 8800 seem to have very obvious chromatic abberation (especially in the shot of trees against the sky). I haven't noticed this much in the sample images from either the FZ or the Oly. The Oly images that I've seen on the various review sites seem to be superb for this type of camera. Very low chromatic abberation and good corner to corner sharpness.

John - there are some ISO 200 and 400 images from the 8800 on Imaging-resource.com's website. The noise seems fairly high.

-- BillBill, I think it's natural for long-zoom telephoto lenses to have a wee bit more chromatic aberration than shorter-zoom lenses like that of the 8080. But Panasonic seems to have done a good job at minimizing that, and even talk in their literature about CA-correcting firmware procedures. I've never known it to be a big problem with my FZ10, which has essentially the same lens as the FZ20. With respect to f2.8 being slow, I don't think you'll find many long-zoom 35mm lenses at f2.8; certainly shorter focal-length lenses are available in that speed range. And if you think that using the same size sensor for the FZ20 as for the FZ10/15 cameras leads to more noise, you may be right, but I haven't really seen much evidence that the FZ20's "noise signature" is objectionable, and it's certainly easily within correction range noise removal software should it become problematic. Size doesn't mean everything, when it comes to sensors.

But I do feel compelled to add that even if it's faster, the FZ20 will still have difficulty at totally freezing that dog jumping in subdued light. If you really want speed, you need to go with a dSLR capable of ISO 1600-3200, like the sports photographers use for that very purpose. For its price, I believe the FZ20 offers more performance than any other camera out there, but it does have its limits, and don't we all? :)

elliowb

12-03-2004, 05:53 PM

John, you make a good point about longer zooms being prone to more chromatic aberrations and not as fast as fixed lenses. I've never owned a zoom for my film camera, and was thus making an invalid comparison. I do however, want to get a camera that will give me the best picture possible. I don't think that a long lens is as important, I haven't got anything longer than a 135mm for my film camera and don't really miss not having greater magnification.

A dSLR would do all that I could ask for, however, I am having a hard time justifying the significantly higher expense. If I didn't already have a good film SLR, I might be more willing to spend more, but as it is, it provides the additional degrees of freedom that a prosumer camera might lack.

-- Bill

P.S. The photos that I mentioned in my previous post are actually on dcresource.com's site, not dpreview.com

vitiris

01-25-2005, 03:18 PM

This topic (like all other camera vs camera) has been beat to death. Those who own the FZ20 love the FZ20 and those who one the 8800 love the 8800. Very few have owned both. I have: This is a post from Steves Forums that I placed recently:

I am NOT a photographer by any means and have very little experience with digital cameras. I was waiting for the FZ20 to come out due to the image stabilization feature. I owned an Olympus 10x zoom (forgot the model off hand) and you had to use a tripod for the long zoom. Unlike Leeyx (user on stevesforums.com), I went from the FZ20 to the 8800. He, I'm sure, has much more experience than I do, so I don't want to discredit his statements at all. My experience with the FZ20 was very frustrating.

The indoor pictures I took right out of the box with the FZ20 did not seem sharp, had a ton of noise, etc. Not worth keeping 9 out of 10 photos I took. I'm sure some of the problem was probably me; however, I felt as though a camera should take decent pictures in program mode before tweaking with anything. I could not get it to do that, even after I tweaked.

The indoor pictures I took in auto mode with the Nikon 8800 were sharp, crisp, low noise (if any). I even took similar pictures (same aperture/zoom/shutter/etc.) that I did with the FZ20 and the Nikon ones look much better (almost luxurious if that makes sense). I don't know what to attribute it too since I don't know alot, but whatever it is...thanks Nikon.

Here are some things that I found different about each camera:

LCD: FZ20 was brighter/better. You could tell when something was in focus before taking the picture. Nikon: when you're trying to look at your subject, the LCD is really grainy. It isdifficult to see if you're subject was in focus. You pretty much have to take the camera's word for it that it was able to focus on the subject. Nikon one swivels though so that's cool. Panasonic: +1

Auto Focus: Both cameras seem to hunt in low-light. I finally noticed last night when I was testing my SB-600 flash that the Nikon one seemed to have trouble focusing at all. Prior to this, my experience was that both cameras seemed to take a couple of times to try to focus. I'm not positive that the FZ20 is better in this category or not. Maybe by a little bit since it's probably a microsecond faster if both cameras hit it on the first "half-press" so I'll give a small advantage to the FZ20. Please note though that the FZ20 still hunted, although it seemed to be a little faster in coming back saying that it couldn't focus. All in all, small advantage to the FZ20. Another note: both cameras have an AF assist lamp that will fire to help the camera focus. In my experience. This didn't seem to help enough. My subjects didn't like the AF lamp either. Why not just put a bright lamp on the camera (like camcorders have) to help with the focus? Any way, my point is this: With the FZ20, you can turn this off. On the Nikon, you cannot. The nikon will use this anytime it thinks it needs too. Bummer, but not huge. Panasonic +1/2.

Manual Focus: Again, I have to give an even bigger edge to the FZ20. The manual focus ring was great. I feel I'll hardly ever use the manual focus, but when I do, I wish it was like the FZ20. With the FZ20, all you have to do is flip a switch. That switch even has a thing that will assist you in manual focusing. It will use it's auto focus to try to help you get where you want to be. Huge help when manual focusing. The FZ20 also magnifies the center of the picture to help you out as well. Huge kudos to the FZ20 for this feature. With the Nikon, you have to hold a button down while turning the command dial to try and focus. With the bad quality LCD on the Nikon, you can't tell when your subject is in focus. I tried a few shots letting the Nikon autofocus, then trying to manually focus. I seemd to always be a couple of stops off from where I wanted to be. It was difficult indeed. Like I said earlier though, I won't use manual focus very much at all so it's not a huge deal for me, but definitely something you might want to keep in mind. Instead of having to hold a button in, I think nikon should have just had an extra stop on that AF button - That button goes through Auto, Macro, and Infinity. They should have just added a manual focus option. Panasonic should probably get a +2 on this, but I'll just give them 1. Panasonic +1.

Zoom: 10x (nikon) vs 12x (fz20). Well the difference between 2 more Xs isn't much of a big deal. Plus, with the extra megapixels that the Nikon gives you, this isn't a big deal at all. So I won't give the plus to Panasonic just yet. However, here is where I will give Panasonic the plus: With the FZ20, the zoom lever is where your pointer finger is (in front of the shutter release button). This was excellent thinking. The zoom on the FZ20 was also smooth and responsive and quiet. Nice job panasonic! The nikon: the zoom buttons (one for W, one for T) are on the back of the camera. Functional, but why? The zoom does seem to be a bit sluggish, but fine enough if you're just an amateur like me who just wants a digital camera for the convenience. The zoom on the Nikon was also noisy (not bad so don't think it is a bother). It seems to be just like an old SLR camera zooming in. That's the noise I'm talking about. One more thing: The aperture with the FZ20 sticks at 2.8 throughout the entire zoom level. The Nikon one ranges from 2.8 at wide to 5.2 at tele. I'm not sure how much of a difference this will be for me. I haven't taken outdoor photos with the 8800 yet (too cold/cloudy so far), so I don't know how much this will affect what I think a picture should look like. Still though, a supposed plus for Panasonic. Panasonic +1

Write times to card: Yes, there does seem to be a difference in the write times to the card. I have a Lexar 80x which I know that Nikon doesn't take advantage of the speed of this card. However, a side note for you memory card readers: writing from this card to the computer was way faster than my Sandisk ultra II card I had with the FZ20. Back to times: Sometimes, there does seem to be a lag when writing to the Nikon. I don't quite understand it. There is a delay to write to the card (hourglass). Sometimes I get a green icon that freezes the camera and you can't do anything at that time either. I don't understand it much. Either way, unless you are serious about photography, I don't think this is a huge deal at all. Yes, the FZ20 did seem to write faster (not noticeable at all), but I don't care. The nikon (to me) takes better pictures so I'll still stick with the Nikon. Plus, don't forget that the Nikon 8800 is an 8MP camera (sizes of ~8 MB in Best JPEG mode). The Panasonic FZ20 is a 5MP camera (sizes of ~2 MB in Best JPEG mode). So of course it's going to take a little longer to write a file that's 4x bigger than the other. However, I will say that technology in the nikon could be better to take advantage of faster cards. Bad Nikon...Bad! Panasonic: +1/2

Image quality: You're going to get differences of opinion on this all the time. It depends on the person, which camera they're using, etc. Heck, you know most people will say the image quality on their cameras is just fine - of course, most times, that's the only camera (or brand of camera) they've owned. This discussion is about the FZ20 vs 8800 and I've owned both so here is my opinion. The Nikon way outweighs the Panasonic. Many digital cameras take very nice outdoor pictures, so I'm not going to say anything about that. I also don't know much about color (I don't have an eye for that - to make sure blues are the exact blue you see with your eye, etc.): So outdoor pictures will vary on that part as well; however, for the most part, outdoor pictures will look pretty darn good with any camera. So to me, it comes down to indoor shots (you know, the ones you take during the holidays or birthday parties, etc.). The FZ20 shots I took were not sharp, not eye-pleasing, way too noisy, and a little blah looking. Yes, you can get rid of most of the noise with software, but why do I want to spend all of my time taking pictures just so I can run them into my computer through a noise reduction program, then save them again, then print them somewhere? I expect to take my CompactFlash card down to my local Walgreens, choose the pictures I want from it, and have them print it. Is that too much to ask? Maybe I expect too much from a $500 camera, but I don't think so. The Nikon 8800 takes sharp, eye-pleasing, almost luxurious indoor pictures. Very nice, and that's in auto mode! This is what I wanted from a camera. Yes, I'm learning more and more about aperture / shutter speed / etc.; however, if I want a good-looking shot. I don't want to spend 15 minutes and 10-20 shots just to get a decent one. I want a nice sharp picture in auto mode. Here, the Nikon delivers. The FZ20 was lacking in my opinion. Even on the pictures on Steve's reviews of these 2 cameras, if you download them to your computer and look at different places of each camera's photo, to me anyway, the Nikon did a better job of constructing the photo. This in my opinion is the bottom line factor when determining which camera to buy.

Side note: I know many serious photographers already have external flashes, but I want to say something to all others. Buy an external flash for your digital camera. This helps take some very nice pictures indoors. You don't get the nasty contrast that built-in flashes carry and you can bounce the flash off the ceiling to not get the harsh shadows from a direct flash. Bouncing the flash does produce a soft picture, which some people might find it bothersome. The softness doesn't bother me much. The quality of the photo makes all the difference.

Thanks for listening and any comments are welcome.

arbarath

01-25-2005, 06:58 PM

hi vitiris,

V nice article ..

i own pany fz 20. I have not seen the shots with Coolpix 8800 however i find the indoor shots with my camera (not with auto ISO, ISO level 80 or 100) is not v noisy, and quality is v good in 5MP picuture as well. As i said i did not compare with the nikkon ones..

But once i go into the market and see the price.. of fzee and nikkon 8800 i feel like paying few more and go for DSLRs instead of going for N8.8K. Thats y i feel Fzee is Better. If not a serious photographer, Price Vs performance is always the 1st choice (I believe). Thats y i inclined towards Fzee..

Thanks for a comprehensive comparison..

good luck hv a nice. time..

bye

Rex914

01-25-2005, 08:27 PM

Although I can see why these two cameras can be compared, I see them as being in two completely different sectors of the market. They may be ultrazooms, but the 8800 is a very high end camera while the Panasonic is still somewhere in the middle, relative to what we're talking about. If your're willing to shell out the $900 for the 8800, have you really knocked out all other choices in that range?

vitiris

01-26-2005, 07:35 AM

If your're willing to shell out the $900 for the 8800, have you really knocked out all other choices in that range?

Actually - I paid $732 for my 8800 (paid $549 for the FZ20), so I figured $200.00 more was worth it (I think I said $250 more in my previous post).

vitiris

01-26-2005, 07:44 AM

Hi, arbarath:

Thanks for the comments. Yes, price is a difference. That's why I went with the FZ20 at first, because I figured 5MP was enough (and I'm sure it is). However, I was frustrated with the FZ20 because it took awhile to get a shot that I wanted to keep. I'm really not trying to come down on the FZ20. Just in my limited experience with both cameras, the 8800 seemed to create better "eye-pleasing" pictures with no tweaking of settings. I still have not got a chance to take my 8800 outdoors, so I hope that it performs like I want it to. The FZ20 took wonderful looking pictures outdoors, and with the external flash I got for the FZ20, it did better indoors than the built-in flash, but I thought $200.00 would be worth it. The downside:
$200.00 for the extra price of the camera.
$50.00 more for a bigger memory card (Since FZ20 - 2MB, 8800 - up to 8MB, you'll need more memory)
$200.00 for the external flash (compared to $70.00 for the external flash for the FZ20)

So, I ended up paying about $1030.00 for the 8800 compared to about $775.00 for the FZ20 (after all accessories). Plus, I took a loss of $81.00 on the FZ20 since I returned it.
So: after all that, I ended up paying $336.00 more for the 8800. Not sure it's worth that much more, but much of that was the extra $ for the flash, so once I play with it for a month or so, I'll definitely know whether I made the right choice. So far, I'm happy (albeit not a HUGE amount, but still, not near as frustrated as I once was).

Happy photoing.

arbarath

01-26-2005, 08:41 PM

cool... :)

speaklightly

01-26-2005, 10:10 PM

Now please understand, won't you? I own, use, and like Nikon Coolpix digital cameras. I own both a CP-5400 and a CP-8700. So, please understand, I am not "anti-nikon."

That being said, please take a look at this selection of digital photos:

www.digicamlady.smugmug.com/gallery/369133

All of the digital photos in the gallery were (1) taken at long zoom settings (8X to 10X optical zoom) (2) no flash was used (3 high ISO numbers were used (4) all photos were taken hand held.

I have taken lots of concert and on stage digital photos like this with a variety of digital cameras, but, I have never been able to do it with my CP-8700. Can the CP-8800 do it?

Sarah Joyce