«

I spent my past times visiting camera shops and electronic stores, and
look, feel and try various cameras. When I tried to shoot any
pictures, and check the LCD screen... I found that Panasonic cameras
appear to have the colour and sharpness that I like. am I biased
toward this particular brand? I am not just talking about the high end
Panasonic cameras... but also the cheapest models. They seems to
produce sharp, colour contrasting images. Tried the FZ8, the LZ2 and
I usually said to myself... WOW!. However, when I checked the image
quality rating from camera reviews, Panasonic is not superior from the
other famous brand names. So, what's happening here? Is it just a
perception here?

I also asked previously if any of the readers of these forums know a
website where they do "torture test" or "long term use test". Do they
ever show whether one brand camera has better long term consistency in
its image quality than the others? I think they should have such a
test to see how good the camera is built. Show a photo taken by the
camera when it is new, and show it again when it has already taken
over 10,000 images... or 20,000 images,. etc. But in my previous query
about this subject... no one ever commented on this question.
I believe that more expensive and professional cameras, the parts are
designed better and designed to last, and therefore it will keep on
working perfectly for longer period or higher shots.

The way digital has changed the marketplace for camera choices we are now
faced with electronics companies whom previously were not part of the camera
market.
However since many of them have gone it alone or purchased or merged with
the conventional names in the photographic field.

The Lumix is a very interesting choice with it offering one of the few
companies sporting a 28mm wide angle and Leica lenses.

The field now is very wide and makes the choice of camera even more
difficult. So by the time you've made the choice the new version has arrived
and the process starts all over again with it being a fraction of the price
of the one before with better/more features!

Duncan


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>I spent my past times visiting camera shops and electronic stores, and
> look, feel and try various cameras. When I tried to shoot any
> pictures, and check the LCD screen... I found that Panasonic cameras
> appear to have the colour and sharpness that I like. am I biased
> toward this particular brand? I am not just talking about the high end
> Panasonic cameras... but also the cheapest models. They seems to
> produce sharp, colour contrasting images. Tried the FZ8, the LZ2 and
> I usually said to myself... WOW!. However, when I checked the image
> quality rating from camera reviews, Panasonic is not superior from the
> other famous brand names. So, what's happening here? Is it just a
> perception here?
>
> I also asked previously if any of the readers of these forums know a
> website where they do "torture test" or "long term use test". Do they
> ever show whether one brand camera has better long term consistency in
> its image quality than the others? I think they should have such a
> test to see how good the camera is built. Show a photo taken by the
> camera when it is new, and show it again when it has already taken
> over 10,000 images... or 20,000 images,. etc. But in my previous query
> about this subject... no one ever commented on this question.
> I believe that more expensive and professional cameras, the parts are
> designed better and designed to last, and therefore it will keep on
> working perfectly for longer period or higher shots.
>

"Duncan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The way digital has changed the marketplace for camera choices we are now
> faced with electronics companies whom previously were not part of the
> camera market.
> However since many of them have gone it alone or purchased or merged with
> the conventional names in the photographic field.
>
> The Lumix is a very interesting choice with it offering one of the few
> companies sporting a 28mm wide angle and Leica lenses.

But what is in a name. Leica was the name of a camera body that used Lietz
lens just like Ziess on Sony and Shnieder There only names.

> The field now is very wide and makes the choice of camera even more
> difficult. So by the time you've made the choice the new version has
> arrived and the process starts all over again with it being a fraction of
> the price of the one before with better/more features!
>
> Duncan
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>I spent my past times visiting camera shops and electronic stores, and
>> look, feel and try various cameras. When I tried to shoot any
>> pictures, and check the LCD screen... I found that Panasonic cameras
>> appear to have the colour and sharpness that I like. am I biased
>> toward this particular brand? I am not just talking about the high end
>> Panasonic cameras... but also the cheapest models. They seems to
>> produce sharp, colour contrasting images. Tried the FZ8, the LZ2 and
>> I usually said to myself... WOW!. However, when I checked the image
>> quality rating from camera reviews, Panasonic is not superior from the
>> other famous brand names. So, what's happening here? Is it just a
>> perception here?
>>
>> I also asked previously if any of the readers of these forums know a
>> website where they do "torture test" or "long term use test". Do they
>> ever show whether one brand camera has better long term consistency in
>> its image quality than the others? I think they should have such a
>> test to see how good the camera is built. Show a photo taken by the
>> camera when it is new, and show it again when it has already taken
>> over 10,000 images... or 20,000 images,. etc. But in my previous query
>> about this subject... no one ever commented on this question.
>> I believe that more expensive and professional cameras, the parts are
>> designed better and designed to last, and therefore it will keep on
>> working perfectly for longer period or higher shots.
>>
>
>

Duncan wrote:
> The way digital has changed the marketplace for camera choices we are now
> faced with electronics companies whom previously were not part of the camera
> market.

Panasonic sold film cameras, though I don't think that they ever
marketed them in the U.S.. They've always been very big in camcorders,
both consumer and professional, so the progression to digital cameras
was a logical step. Same for Sony, but I don't think they had any film
cameras, though they did have an instant camera at one time that
appeared to be just a relabeled Polaroid.

> The Lumix is a very interesting choice with it offering one of the few
> companies sporting a 28mm wide angle and Leica lenses.

Yes, this is true. If you want a smaller P&S with a 28mm lens your
choices are very limited. If you want a small P&S with 28mm at the wide
end of a zoom lens, image stabilization, and an optical viewfinder, your
choices are only one Canon model. Fortunately for the camera
manufacturers, apparently very few P&S camera buyers understand the
value of a wider angle lens, and instead get carried away with the
telephoto side of the zoom (after all, big numbers are better than small
numbers!).

> The field now is very wide and makes the choice of camera even more
> difficult.

It's not so difficult, especially if you want that 28mm. Applying just
some very basic requirements you can eliminate most cameras from
consideration:

1. Low-noise
2. Optical Viewfinder (or at least an EVF)
3. Zoom of at least 28mm at the wide end

Here's what you end up with (let me know if I've missed any):

Pocket
------
Canon SD800 IS


Compact
-------
None


ZLR
---
Fuji FinePix S8000fd (probably...too new to know about the noise)


If you're willing to use conversion lenses, then the list grows, as
there are several compacts and ZLRs that can achieve 28mm at the wide
end with the use of a conversion lens. But if you're going to muck with
conversion lenses, which are relatively low quality, you may as well get
a D-SLR, and get low shutter/auto-focus lag in the bargain.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:37:20 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If you're willing to use conversion lenses, then the list grows, as
>there are several compacts and ZLRs that can achieve 28mm at the wide
>end with the use of a conversion lens.

Who started this bizarre and totally wrong "ZLR" acronym? It makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever. People who keep using it are just parroting others that
invented this misnomer without realizing the error.

ZLR, Zoom-Lens-Reflex for a long-zoom P&S camera? The R needs to be thrown out.
"Reflex" in SLR (single lens reflex) and d-SLR (digital single lens reflex)
stands for the ancient mirror and reflected light path required in that camera
design. If R is thrown out to be more accurate, then you have a ZL (zoom lens)
camera? Great, so every P&S camera with 1.1x to 18x qualifies as a ZL camera.
You can be more accurate with UZPS (ultra-zoom P&S), since everyone keeps
calling non-DSLR cameras as P&S cameras, even though DSLRs are revered for being
even more of a P&S camera than P&S cameras. Again, just more nonsense on the
net.

Don't you just hate it when erroneous information and nonsense catch-phrases
start spreading like wildfire on the net, everyone repeating it without even
understanding why they are saying it, then everyone starts looking like idiots.
They think it means something because someone else said it, looking just as
foolish as the first person that used it.

Get your acts together people. Find words and acronyms that accurately describe
these different cameras or don't talk about them at all until you figure it out.


I propose, for accuracy, that:

* P&S should be done away with completely, since ALL cameras today are P&S
cameras, especially DSLRs. Instead use "SLDC" for "Single Lens Digital Camera".

* An "SLDC" with ultra-zoom (10x optical-zoom or more) as "UZDC", "Ultra-Zoom
Digital Camera", since they are generally in a class of their own the last few
years and everyone knows what design you are referring to. The UZDC being just a
subset of all SLDCs

* DSLR can remain DSLR. Or if being praised for how fast they perform
automatically then a "DSLR-P&S" if you want to be accurate.

Of course this is never going to happen because the DSLR crowd loves throwing
around the P&S acronym as a handy (but totally inaccurate) and childish insult
to anyone that doesn't buy a DSLR. Even though their DSLR is a high-priced P&S
but they won't admit it. (This is no different than christians that run around
calling people Pagans and Heathens never knowing what Pagan really means, or
that Heathen just means one who lives on the Heath. Or the wealthy who run
around calling everyone who has less as "hicks" just so they can feel better
about being greedy.) Calling an SLDC as a P&S is one of the few ways they can
pretend to be superior, they'll never give up that. Sometimes it's all they have
left in light of the new advances in SLDC and UZDC designs.

So there you have it, "SLDC" and "UZDC" to describe these cameras. Start using
them or something just as accurate. Or appear to look the fool forever more --
just as you have been appearing since the use of "P&S" became commonplace.

Henry Hank wrote:

> Who started this bizarre and totally wrong "ZLR" acronym? It makes absolutely no
> sense whatsoever. People who keep using it are just parroting others that
> invented this misnomer without realizing the error.
>
> ZLR, Zoom-Lens-Reflex for a long-zoom P&S camera? The R needs to be thrown out.
> "Reflex" in SLR (single lens reflex) and d-SLR (digital single lens reflex)
> stands for the ancient mirror and reflected light path required in that camera
> design. If R is thrown out to be more accurate, then you have a ZL (zoom lens)
> camera? Great, so every P&S camera with 1.1x to 18x qualifies as a ZL camera.
> You can be more accurate with UZPS (ultra-zoom P&S), since everyone keeps
> calling non-DSLR cameras as P&S cameras, even though DSLRs are revered for being
> even more of a P&S camera than P&S cameras. Again, just more nonsense on the
> net.
>
> Don't you just hate it when erroneous information and nonsense catch-phrases
> start spreading like wildfire on the net, everyone repeating it without even
> understanding why they are saying it, then everyone starts looking like idiots.
> They think it means something because someone else said it, looking just as
> foolish as the first person that used it.
>
> Get your acts together people. Find words and acronyms that accurately describe
> these different cameras or don't talk about them at all until you figure it out.
>
>
> I propose, for accuracy, that:
>
> * P&S should be done away with completely, since ALL cameras today are P&S
> cameras, especially DSLRs. Instead use "SLDC" for "Single Lens Digital Camera".
>
> * An "SLDC" with ultra-zoom (10x optical-zoom or more) as "UZDC", "Ultra-Zoom
> Digital Camera", since they are generally in a class of their own the last few
> years and everyone knows what design you are referring to. The UZDC being just a
> subset of all SLDCs
>
> * DSLR can remain DSLR. Or if being praised for how fast they perform
> automatically then a "DSLR-P&S" if you want to be accurate.
>
> Of course this is never going to happen because the DSLR crowd loves throwing
> around the P&S acronym as a handy (but totally inaccurate) and childish insult
> to anyone that doesn't buy a DSLR. Even though their DSLR is a high-priced P&S
> but they won't admit it. (This is no different than christians that run around
> calling people Pagans and Heathens never knowing what Pagan really means, or
> that Heathen just means one who lives on the Heath. Or the wealthy who run
> around calling everyone who has less as "hicks" just so they can feel better
> about being greedy.) Calling an SLDC as a P&S is one of the few ways they can
> pretend to be superior, they'll never give up that. Sometimes it's all they have
> left in light of the new advances in SLDC and UZDC designs.
>
> So there you have it, "SLDC" and "UZDC" to describe these cameras. Start using
> them or something just as accurate. Or appear to look the fool forever more --
> just as you have been appearing since the use of "P&S" became commonplace.
>

Phew Henry. I can't disagree with anything you say. Unfortunately the world
isn't ruled by accuracy and information, but marketing and numbers - usually
masquerading as accuracy and information.

I just wish that people would stop thinking that all photography should be
referred to in 35mm terms. And that they'd stop inexplicably typing a trailing
'e' on the word lens. Just because it isn't common to end a word -ns, people,
doesn't mean it is wrong.

Trev wrote:
> "Duncan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> But what is in a name. Leica was the name of a camera body that used
> Lietz lens just like Ziess on Sony and Shnieder There only names.
>
The Leica lens on my Panasonic FZ30 is far better than the 3 Nikon lenses on
my D70s, so if it is only a name, it must be a very good name!

Dennis

Henry Hank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:37:20 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>If you're willing to use conversion lenses, then the list grows, as
>>there are several compacts and ZLRs that can achieve 28mm at the wide
>>end with the use of a conversion lens.
>
>Who started this bizarre and totally wrong "ZLR" acronym? It makes absolutely no
>sense whatsoever. People who keep using it are just parroting others that
>invented this misnomer without realizing the error.


ZLR is a perfectly valid term. It was applied to Olympus 35mm film
SLRs with a reflex mirror and a non-interchangeable zoom lens, such as
the IS1, IS2 and IS3 (IS 1000, IS 2000 and IS 3000 outside the USA).

When Olympus started producing DSLRs with a non-interchangeable zoom
lens, the term was also used. The E-10 and E-20 were both ZLRs.

"Zoom lens reflex" perfectly describes these cameras. The problem is
when ignorant and ill-informed people apply a perfectly valid term to
cameras that don't fit the description.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:26:20 +0100, Tony Polson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Henry Hank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:37:20 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>If you're willing to use conversion lenses, then the list grows, as
>>>there are several compacts and ZLRs that can achieve 28mm at the wide
>>>end with the use of a conversion lens.
>>
>>Who started this bizarre and totally wrong "ZLR" acronym? It makes absolutely no
>>sense whatsoever. People who keep using it are just parroting others that
>>invented this misnomer without realizing the error.
>
>
>ZLR is a perfectly valid term. It was applied to Olympus 35mm film
>SLRs with a reflex mirror and a non-interchangeable zoom lens, such as
>the IS1, IS2 and IS3 (IS 1000, IS 2000 and IS 3000 outside the USA).
>
>When Olympus started producing DSLRs with a non-interchangeable zoom
>lens, the term was also used. The E-10 and E-20 were both ZLRs.
>
>"Zoom lens reflex" perfectly describes these cameras. The problem is
>when ignorant and ill-informed people apply a perfectly valid term to
>cameras that don't fit the description.

Just because a manufacturer uses some board-meeting-agreed-on marketing term
doesn't mean they are totally accurate either. Just like Canon starting that
silly Tv and Av mode on their cameras. Time-value? Aperture-value? Wha? OH, you
*meant* to say shutter-speed priority and aperture priority. Now I get it,
you're just a dumbshit CEO-pawn marketing idiot out to make everyone appear to
be as much of an idiot as you are. Okay, I get it now.

If Olympus really wanted to be accurate it should have been SZLR, for Single
Zoom-Lens Reflex. It's a shame that this acronym has crept into common use for
digital cameras. It's hard to take anyone seriously in this area of interest if
they keep throwing around terms with such arcane origins and now wrongly
applying them to unrelated devices.

Just how hard would it be to turn the tide of ignorance and bad habit online? If
everyone started using SLDC and UZDC today it could also spread by wildfire just
as fast as the wrong terms had spread. When asked what you meant, tell them. Or
just include it in parens until they get the drift of it. I.e. "The latest SLDC
(single lens digital camera) from So-And-So company is ..." Try to turn it now,
or people will be looking like fools for the whole next century. You have as
much power to use and promote more correct terms as did the idiots who started
using and promoting the wrong ones.

I for one never give into the stupidity and ignorance of others just to make it
easy for them. That would make me just as idiotic and stupid as they are.



QWERTY made a lot of sense in the beginning, it stopped the typewriter hammers
from locking up on fast typers. Today, putting a QWERTY keyboard on a small
handheld device is just absurd. Yet they do it, and the manufacturers end up
looking like fools to me, while making the average non-typer hunt all over
trying to find the letters.

I don't know how much of this stupidity of humanity I can take anymore. It seems
to be growing exponentially.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:20:41 GMT, Henry Hank wrote:

> Wha? OH, you *meant* to say shutter-speed priority and aperture priority.
> Now I get it, you're just a dumbshit CEO-pawn marketing idiot out to make
> everyone appear to be as much of an idiot as you are. Okay, I get it now.
> . . .
>
> I for one never give into the stupidity and ignorance of others just to make it
> easy for them. That would make me just as idiotic and stupid as they are.

Greetings, sock puppet. The name has once again changed, but the
message sure hasn't. Why don't you sit yourself down and think calm
thoughts over a nice, warm glass of milk.


> I don't know how much of this stupidity of humanity I can take anymore.
> It seems to be growing exponentially.

Oh, I see. Then perhaps some Kool-Aid would be more appropriate.

Time to roll out the all new . . .

> **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
>
> Baumbadier, Brad M, Bucky, CharleiD, CoolGuy, DOCJohnson,
> D-Rexter, EdBancroft, (E-Mail Removed), Fed-Up-With-Corel,
> FrankLM, GilfordBrimly, GoKiting, Henry Hank, HokusPokus,
> JoeBS, Lurk, NameHere, NameThere, New2_S3,
> (E-Mail Removed), RockyZ, SayWhat, SelfImporantName,
> SelfImportantName, Soujourner, spamless, TryinToHelp,
> WillyWonka and X-Man.