Canon G7, Panasonic FZ50, Nikon P5000 vs. low end DSLRs

I am still slowly considering for my next digital cameras. It was
still either the high end point and shot camera, or a low end DSLR
(which they are basically on the same price range). As some readers in
these newsgroup suggested, I went to the photo shop and try the
cameras in my hand. The following are my impressions. I welcome the
comments from others.
- Low end DSLR have a "cheap" plastic feeling. I know that this should
not be a factor for photo qualities. However, I feel uncomfortable
with the cheap plastic cameras. My old SLR cameras are all heavy and
made of metal... including the lens' casing.
- For P&S, I am still not comfortable for the fact that Nikon camera
was not made in Japan (as compared to Canon G7 and Panasonic FZ50).
Again, some readers already suggested that where the camera is
manufactured should not effect the camera's quality). I am also sure
that a lot of the components of the cameras were not made in Japan.
- FZ50 is much bulky than G7. I am still not 100% sure whether this
will affect my choice. I like to have the camera fit into my pocket.
The Ultra compact does not have extra features as the high end P&S.
- I tried couple of shots in the shop with the G7. If I am not
mistaken, the quality in FZ50 seems sharper than the G7.
- I do like the feel of the G7 - solid. Except for the protective
shutter. If I handled roughly into my pocket, the shutter may be
dislodged. I wish they have a sliding steel cover (like in smaller/
compact Sony or Olympus models). I recall that the Canon A series that
I used for work had the cover shutter damaged during rugged uses and
it does not close properly now - although the camera is still
functioning.
- I checked at DPReview for side by side comparison between G7 and
P5000. They seem to have similar features across. However, someone in
the newsgroup indicated that G7 has more manual features than P5000.
P5000 is smaller and lighter... but I can feel that G7 seems to be
built better and stronger. Picture quality that I tried in the shop
was not that great, but it could be the lighting too.
At the end of the day, I am still thinking either G7 or FZ50... and
now tend to weight more on the G7 for its compactness.... unless
Panasonic made one which comparable in features and price as G7. I am
a little turn-off my plastic quality of low end DSLR. If I am going to
that route (perhaps next time), I may think about higher end DSLR
instead.

 

Depends what you are looking at in the 'low-end' DSLR. There are many
good buys in that area at the moment. The Canon EOS350 is good and
comparable with a P&S. The EOS400 will be cheap soon as it will be
superseded by the EOS410. The Nikon D50 is really quite cheap and
almost as good as the D40 (avoid the D40X - lens compatibility
issues.)

I got the D70s - have been a Nikon user for years and still have an
F501 and an F75 so my choice was somewhat made for me. OK it is now 18
months old and two generations behind current models (D80/D200) but it
still takes damn good pictures and beats almost any compact.
I also got a Canon Ixus60 - which is very cheap at the moment - and
find that I use it more than the Nikon! Again the race for pixels
should be avoided: unless you <know> you will need to crop severely,
5Mp or 6Mp is more than enough - above that you start to run into
noise problems. The other current front runner in the compact area is
the Fuji F30 which gets good comments about low noise levels and
3200ASA! The lens and your post-taking software are more important
than the race for pixels. What is the point in having a 7Mp or 8Mp or
more camera when the lens cannot match it (which certainly the Canon
can?)

As for facilities, I have long since learnt that most of my picture
failures are when I override the camera - for exposure it usually
knows best, and where it doesn't (like silhouettes) it is easy to
achieve with a little movement of the focus/metering position. Much
more important is the shutter lag - which you can ignore with DSLRs.
Canon, Casio, and Fuji compacts are among the quickest, Nikon and
Olympus the slowest IME.

In the final analysis, it is the idiot behind the viewfinder that
makes the picture, not the camera.

 

I've got a G7 I carry in my pocket. It's on the heavy side, I've got
a big pocket, but still I've finally got a camera in my pocket with
better resolution my eyes. (The canon has 10MP and 6x optical zoom,
that's 10x6x6=360. My eyes seem to be around 250. My previous pocket
camera, a Fuji F10, weighed in at 6.3x3x3=57, really didn't cut it.
Though it was smaller and lighter.)

The G7, on macro and completely unzoomed, can focus close enough to
the lens that I can't avoid casting a shadow. Great for flowers and
ants and mushrooms, though I struggle with focusing on the right
thing. Picking up craters on the moon, the digital zoom actually
improves resolution, and the IS helps a lot. Images at 1/5 sec blur
but 1/20 sec are OK. Normally I keep the camera in program mode, with
digital zoom turned off, no flash, 10mpix images, lowest quality
("normal"). The G7 is interesting in that lowest quality results in
images between .5MB and 2.5MB, depending on how much detail it picked
up. Pictures with grass lawns tend to have high MB. Focus/motion is
always more of an issue than than image compression artifacts, so the
higher quality settings are pointless. I usually don't have a tripod
handy (doesn't fit in my pocket). I've tried taking pictures of
swallows flying by; even on manual focus it's pointless due to the
delay between pressing the button and taking the picture. I've been
reminding myself lately to take more story and cute-kid pictures --
even though they don't challenge the camera in any way, they're more
often what people want to see than closeups of moss spores.

 

Get Panasonic LX2. Or wait for Sigma DP1.

 

I have come to the same conclusions myself, having some seriously well built
film kit (Canon T-90) and unable to afford any sort of dSLR with event 20% of
the sturdiness. The EOS-350/400 are flimsy little toys that are too small for
comfort yet far too big to fit in a pocket.

I ended up choosing the G7 as it is a seriously well built camera with myriads
of manual options, good controls and, particularly good for me as I have a
Speedlight 420EX, a Canon system flash hotshoe.

The only 3 minus points are 1: the small compact-camera sensor is rather noisy
at high ISO settings, but it does offer a lower resolution ISO 3200 mode
that'll get a picture that most can't. Desaturate it and the noise becomes
grain...

2: It is a little bulky, especially when in a case. It will fit in a pocket
however, which is more than can be said for any dSLR I've seen.

3: It does not capture in RAW; you're stuck with JPEG. You may not care; for
what I use this camera for I don't.

An advantage is that if you need to bang any nails in it'll probably cope with
it. ;-)

 

I recently got an FZ50 after very satisfactory three years with the
smaller FZ3 & 5. (I'm keeping the FZ5 for its lower weight when
backpacking.)

The lens is gorgeous! I've just started playing with RAW, and the
quality blows me over. (I am reminded of the quality I used to get from
an Elmar 135mm f4 with my M3, which I used with bellows for infinity
down to 1:1).

But the noise problem is there, but with RAW one is free from the
pre-programmed in camera processing. I haven't explored that yet.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><