Canon SD800IS or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3?

I currently own a Canon SD700 IS, but I would like to replace it with another camera here within the next couple of weeks.

I did some research and narrowed the cameras down to the Canon Powershot SD800 IS or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3. I found the 10X optical zoom appealing on the TZ3, but I like the excellent photo quality of the SD800.

In addition, I like the fact that the SD800 IS has capabilities of adding an external flash (HF-DC1).

I basically will be using this camera to take pictures with my girlfriend and friends, nothing more intricate than that. I would like a camera that is better in lower light, but overall, quality is the issue. I also find redeye extremely annoying.

What are your thoughts on which one I should get?

jsuh-

The very same type of slave flash can be used on the TZ-3 as the one that you are considering from Canon, for HALF the cost!

To me, the TZ-3 has so many more features it wins in a comparison. I recently went through this same kind of decision, and I finally chose the TZ-3 after a lot of research. I have attached two photos for you. #1 was taken with the TZ-3, hand held, without flash at my doctor's office with the ISO set to ISO 800. #2 shows the TZ-3 set-up to use a slave flash. That is the same type of flash that Canon is offering you. Canon cost=$(US) around 100.00. The slave flash mounted on the TZ-3 costs half the price.

Sarah Joyce

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...0062007TZ3.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...62107S-700.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speaklightly

jsuh-

The very same type of slave flash can be used on the TZ-3 as the one that you are considering from Canon, for HALF the cost!

To me this is a no brainer. The TZ-3 has so many more features it wins quite clearly. I apologize for being so emphatic, however, I recently went through this same kind of decision, and I chose the TZ-3. I have attached two photos for you. #1 was taken with the TZ-3, hand held, without flash at my doctor's office with the ISO set to ISO 800. #2 shows the TZ-3 set-up to use a slave flash. That is the same type of flash that Canon is offering you. Canon cost=$(US) around 100.00. The slave flash mounted on the TZ-3 cost me $(US) 24.00 on E-Bay delivered to my home.

---

What scares me the most about the TZ-3 is the photo quality and the built-in noise reduction feature that kicks in heavily at ISO400+.

Secondly, I've read that the Bower SFDS flash range is at a max of 75ft (ISO400) and 39ft (ISO100) compared to the HF-DC1's 30ft, but is it as effective? I don't know, I guess I'm just being picky, but I just want to know what I'm getting.

Is that the best slave flash I can get for a compact camera or are there others you'd recommend?

Sorry for all the nitpicky questions, but I do appreciate your time answering them. Thanks.

Having owned several Panasonic cameras before, I was also concerned about the TZ-3's capabilities in a low light/high ISO environment. The TZ-3 seems to deal somewhat more effectively with the noise problem.

However, I have a Fuji F-30 camera that I carry with me as well, so the F-30 can handle the lowlight level/high ISO environment, if needed.

The Bower Slave Flash does not tilt nor swivel, but it is pleasantly samll and easy to carry with me. The greatest range at which I have used the Bower Slave Flash is about 35 feet and then I had the ISO pushed up to ISO 800. The photo was NOT over exposed. So I have some real doubts about the claimed range for the Bower Slave Flash. Vivitar does make a DF-200 model that both tilts and swivels, however, it is much larger, and I have not found it to be substantially more powerful than the Bower.

Sarah Joyce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speaklightly

Having owned several Panasonic cameras before, I was also concerned about the TZ-3's capabilities in a low light/high ISO environment. The TZ-3 seems to deal somewhat more effectively with the noise problem.

However, I have a Fuji F-30 camera that I carry with me as well, so the F-30 can handle the lowlight level/high ISO environment, if needed.

The Bower Slave Flash does not tilt nor swivel, but it is pleasantly samll and easy to carry with me. The greatest range at which I have used the Bower Slave Flash is about 35 feet and then I had the ISO pushed up to ISO 800. The photo was NOT over exposed. So I have some real doubts about the claimed range for the Bower Slave Flash. Vivitar does make a DF-200 model that both tilts and swivels, however, it is much larger, and I have not found it to be substantially more powerful than the Bower.

Sarah Joyce

---

Kinda veering off the original topic, but how would you rate the Fuji F30/F31fd or even the F41fd compared to the SD800 and the TZ3? Oh, I hate you. Now I've added the Fuji F30/31fd/41fd to my list, lol. I read their reviews, and I'm overwhelmed and impressed by the lowlight level they handle.

Fuji is the undisputed king of the lowlight/high ISO environment. The only exception to that designation is the recently introduced S-700 camera which uses a very conventional Sony CCD.

Here are two F-40fd samples:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...nISO060807.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...1600060807.jpg

I have not had the TZ-3 long enough to get many high ISO samples

Sarah Joyce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsuh

What scares me the most about the TZ-3 is the photo quality and the built-in noise reduction feature that kicks in heavily at ISO400+.

Secondly, I've read that the Bower SFDS flash range is at a max of 75ft (ISO400) and 39ft (ISO100) compared to the HF-DC1's 30ft, but is it as effective? I don't know, I guess I'm just being picky, but I just want to know what I'm getting.

Is that the best slave flash I can get for a compact camera or are there others you'd recommend?

Sorry for all the nitpicky questions, but I do appreciate your time answering them. Thanks.

---

Here are a couple of examples, taken with internal flash and Auto ISO. First one is at ISO 500:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/160769769-L.jpg

I printed an 80% crop (that is, 80% of full size image) of that at 8X10, without a whiff of post-processing or noise reduction. There's no smudging, no visible noise on the print, which is beautiful. Here's another example at ISO 640:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/157278857-L.jpg

I'd have no problem printing that one at whatever size. For the record, in Auto ISO with flash, ISO is limited to 640 (200 without), so ISO is pretty well controlled by the camera to no more than is needed for the particular conditions.

I keep hearing how bad the TZ3 is at high ISO, read about it in reviews, but darn, my results seem to come out to the contrary. :confused:

As always, John-

You are so very correct. For those who might have some objection to using just the LCD screen for framing your photos, I have a solution. The Delkin.com 3 inch LCD protector and shaded viewing screen.

Sarah Joyce

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...elkinShade.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...2207FE-180.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Reed

I keep hearing how bad the TZ3 is at high ISO, read about it in reviews, but darn, my results seem to come out to the contrary. :confused:

---

No, they do not contradict ther reviews, your results. Why not show a 100% crop to show just how much detail you do lose to the severe noise reduction of the TZ3?

Scaling it down to 0.288 megapixels of course does not show just how much detail you have lost, since the resolution you post at is very low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coldrain

No, they do not contradict ther reviews, your results. Why not show a 100% crop to show just how much detail you do lose to the severe noise reduction of the TZ3?

Scaling it down to 0.288 megapixels of course does not show just how much detail you have lost, since the resolution you post at is very low.

---

Why I have you on my "ignore" list, Coldrain. Calling posters liars is one helluva good reason, don't you think? If I had posted those photos at full size, it would take most viewers a LONG time to view the images. So like most of those who post images to back up their assertions (unlike YOU, who doesn't), I normally post at a smaller size. But I don't do that to mask my photos' flaws, rather I do it to protect dialup viewers. Here's a 100% crop from one of those images I just posted:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/160759560-L-2.jpg

As I had already said, there was no post-processing done on that image other than cropping, and the subjects loved the beautiful 8X10 print I gave them of that image.

So just crawl back into your hole. February 2 is next year, isn't it?