Confused by reviews. Which camera?

[ernieb]

Hi, I've been researching digicams, and found 2 that seem to meet my needs. I fell in love with the Minolta Z3 after handling it in a store and reading the specs on it, but then I read a lot of reviews saying the Panasonic FZ3 has much better picture quality, especially in low light. However, it has several drawbacks: EVF doesn't gain up (how can it be good in low light?), zoom can't be used in movie mode, doesn't use AA batteries, noticeable red-eye, more vignetting & barrel distortion than Minolta. I want good pic quality (indoor & outdoor), as little shutter lag as possible, lots of zoom, manual & auto settings, good movie mode, price around $400 US. Also, I don't know a lot about photography, so what does it mean that the FZ3 has f2.8 throughout the zoom range? The Minolta seems to fit my needs better, but I'm really worried about pic quality. Has anyone had experience with these two cameras?
I've also considered Canon S1 IS. Am open to other suggestions. Thanks a lot! :)

[propwash]

Having f2.8 throughout the zoom range means that you can use this wide (f2.8) aperture at all zoom ranges. Most cameras have the maximum aperture (largest opening, smallest f-number) decrease as you zoom out. This means that you may have to go to a longer shutter speed to get enough light for a proper exposure when you are zoomed way out. The big problem here, is that the higher the zoom, the more the camera is subject to shake. this is where the image stabilization really helps. The Canon S1 IS also has image stabilization, but I liked the pictures and feel of the FZ3 better. The Canon has a better video mode, if that is important to you. I hope this helps, and good luck with your decision.

[Thon]

Tell you what...

Ask if the store allow you to try out the Z3 and FZ3 on the spot with some test photos (probably you'll need to buy a SD card or something) and print them (larger sizes helps) out to compare them. Try a few of shots with each camera, especially indoors with and without flash at both end of the zoom range.

This way you can have a proper feel of the camera and decide better. Reviews are very subjective and depends on the preference of the reviewer, so the best acid test is your own. I'd say that photo quality would be fairly close and the main differences would be in terms of camera feel and usability. The spec differences like aperture, etc, wouldn't be a major issue/problem for the average photographer.

Before you continue, do look at some other cameras too such as the Canon S1 IS, Olympus C770UZ, Nikon 4800, etc. A proper hands on feel will give you a better idea on what you like better.

[speaklightly]

I had the opportunity to try the Z-3 for about 3 week. The Z-3 has an excellent "feel" to it and it is well designed. With normal daytime lighting and at less than 10X zoom it does quite well.

However, the FZ-20 which I purchased after using the Z-3 for 3 weeks does a better overall job under almost every lighting condition. Comparing the two made me a real believer that having the F 2.8 available to me throughout the entire zoom range was very, very important. At least for me, it has made the difference of getting that needed shot quite a few times.

Sarah Joyce

[ernieb]

Thanks, it helps to hear from others with more experience. I'm still trying to decide, so any additional comments are welcome. I really like all three of these cameras-the DiMAGE Z3, Lumix FZ3, and Powershot S1 IS. (Olympus sounds good too, but I don't think any of them are stabilized; am I wrong?) I'm favoring the Lumix, due to its AF assist lamp and f2.8 aperture throughout the zoom. I think it will be better for low-light shots, which is quite important to me. However, I wasn't able to test it in the store. (the batt. was dead and store rep. told me there wasn't anything he could do about it) One big concern I still have is being able to see subjects in the dark, since there's no opt. viewfinder & EVF doesn't gain up. Has anyone had trouble with this on the Lumix or Powershot? Also I understand the Lumix isn't as good in movie mode. (This isn't crucial though, since I really want it for stills.)

[speaklightly]

Ernie-

I own and use the Panasonic FZ-20 and am very pleased with it's performance. The FZ-3, like the FZ-20 is indeed a stabilized digital camera.

You mention taking a lot of existing light digital photos. I take a lot of on stage and concert type photos and I have no problems at all with the FZ-20.

Sarah Joyce

[ernieb]

Hi, I bought the Minolta Z3, mainly because Circuit City-the only retailer of Panasonic FZ3-charges a restocking fee on returns so I decided to try the z3 from Wal-Mart first.

Well, I'm disappointed with picture quality. Photos are very noisy in low light, colors are not true & vivid, AF has trouble indoors, and Auto mode is simply horrible under any circumstances! I like having the manual settings, but sometimes I'm just lazy, or I don't have time, and I need a good auto mode.

Anyway, I tried out the S1 IS in the store and loved it. I've also seen some stunning pictures taken with it in online reviews; they seemed even better than the F-Z3 (is that possible?!) However, they were all daylight pics and I'm worried about how it'll do at night, especially without an AF-assist LED. I like the high quality Movie mode, which is considerably better than Panasonic's. However, I mostly take stills, so they're most important.

Any suggestions/experience with these two cameras, or any similar ones? I like Fuji and Olympus, but I need Image Stabilization, and the S1 IS & FZ3 are the only ones that fit my needs and budget.

Thanks again,
Ernie

[Thon]

At the end of the day, you'll need to decide.

If you really need IS, and a compact size is important, got for the Panasonic FZ3. The S1 is a bit bigger and in some sense not as capable as the FZ3, but the better movie mode and swivel LCD compensates for this.

If IS is not too much of a problem, then also consider the Fuji and Olympus too. There is no harm in trying them out, if there is a good refund policy.

[jeisner]

"EVF doesn't gain up (how can it be good in low light?)"

This is one of the reasons (but not main) I sold my FZ20, the viewfinder was useless to me in low light!

[ernieb]

Yes, this would seem to be a problem with the Panasonic FZ series (and Canon too, for that matter) however, the z3, although it gains up, isn't really very effective either, because the EVF does so only in Auto mode I believe, and even then not a whole lot. I would much prefer an optical viewfinder like my old P&S digital, but it seems the better(?) quality cams only have EVF. Guess I'll have to learn to compose low light pics without being able to see them.

[speaklightly]

Perhaps because I have owned the Panasonic FZ-3, the Canon S-1 and the K-M Z-3 I can give you some real life experiences that most people don't really experience.

Please understand you are NOT attempting to take a digital photo in complete darkness. Ususally, there is a good deal of stage lighting in the concert situation. All three of the digital cameras listed respond to the lighting and their LCD images are indeed quite workable. You seem to be forgeting this!

By increasing the ISO value to 400, good digital photos are possible without flash on all three of these digital cameras.

Yes, the shutter speed will never exceed 1/100 of a second, so you have to be very careful indeed with action on the stage. but good digital photos can be recorded with all three digital cameras.

Using all three of the listed digital cameras, I have recorded excellent digital photos. No the LCD's don't "gain up" but that do9es not mean anything. There is sufficient light to take great digital photos and I have lots of examples of doing just that.

Please stop telling yourself false stories when you have not attempted it.

Sarah Joyce

[Thon]

Perhaps because I have owned the Panasonic FZ-3, the Canon S-1 and the K-M Z-3 I can give you some real life experiences that most people don't really experience.

Please understand you are NOT attempting to take a digital photo in complete darkness. Ususally, there is a good deal of stage lighting in the concert situation. All three of the digital cameras listed respond to the lighting and their LCD images are indeed quite workable. You seem to be forgeting this!

By increasing the ISO value to 400, good digital photos are possible without flash on all three of these digital cameras.

Yes, the shutter speed will never exceed 1/100 of a second, so you have to be very careful indeed with action on the stage. but good digital photos can be recorded with all three digital cameras.

Using all three of the listed digital cameras, I have recorded excellent digital photos. No the LCD's don't "gain up" but that do9es not mean anything. There is sufficient light to take great digital photos and I have lots of examples of doing just that.

Please stop telling yourself false stories when you have not attempted it.

Sarah Joyce

What speaklightly wrote here is true. Minor things like IS, low-light gain EVF, etc are actually tools to help us take better photographs, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to take better ones unless you learn the basics, properly. Just like having/driving a Ferrari Enzo won't make you a Michael Schumacher.

You'll never know the full capabilities of your digicam unless you try it. For instance, my C770UZ has no IS but it still can take great pics. And I believe Sarah will confirm this too with her C765UZ.

[speaklightly]

Ernie-

Am I really missing something here? I take well over 1,600 concert digital photos each year in very low level lighting conditions with my FZ-10 and FZ-20 cameras. I never have a problem and I get digital photo that not only look good, they sell well too!

I guess I am just a rather mature, professional photographer who doesn't really realize the terrible shooting conditions I shoot in quite often. Please clue me into what I don't seem to understand.

Sarah Joyce