Some noob advice please... Canon EOS 400 or Panasonic FZ18...

From the sounds of it you will be better of with the bridge camera (Panasonic).

With the SLRs you have to be prepared to at invest money in lens' often far, far more than you have spent on the camera itself.

The "super-zoom" on the panasonic is nothing compared to what the SLR can do and some of the glass for that can do.

Rich
 
Having read through the thread, I would also recommend you look at a bridge camera. if you don't want to lug around lods of stuff and worry about kids at the same time, then I wouldn't really go for a dslr.

most people are very happy with the results of hybrids, and you will get excellent results out of the box. dslr pictures sometimes need a little help in processing to get the same impact.

I would hesitate to recommend a particular model, as I know next to nothing about them. one thing I would suggest though is that you get one with an external flash socket. my dad has an canon G5 (or something) and when he needs flash uses a 430EX unit. the difference to the onboard thing is stunning.

last bit of advice...
no matter what advice you get on here, get into a shop and see which you (and the other half) like using. no point have either type if you wish you had the other and leave it at home.
 
NeilFawcett said:
Just spoke to my 'other half' and showed her some shots from a Panasonic FZ18 and a Fuji 9600... I think she still wants to go Canon 400 (which she played with over the weekend)...

So, anythin to look out for? Get it with the standard lense? Or a different one for example?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Have you been comparing bridge-camera photos with ones from the 400D? If you're looking at those online i think it's likely that you're doing a disservice to the bridge cameras. The reason i say this is because probably a lot of people posting up shots from a 400D would ahve been taken by enthusiasts. Much like a lot of us on here. That means they've taken time to learn photographic techniques, they play around in Photoshop and generally see it as a hobby they like to spend time on. Whereas shots taken by bridge-camera owners might not be so, not to the same extent anyway. I guess what i'm saying is that your wife is going to be very dissapointed when she gets a 400D and is not getting the results she has come to expect, with it on auto mode.

The problem with getting the 400D is that it's not going to set her up for being able to take 'snaps' on whatever comes up. The kit lens is only 18-55, which at the wide-end is (granted) wide enough for landscapes, but 55mm at the long end is really constrictive. Put it this way, if you're walking in the park and want to take a picture of a squirrel, good luck. You'll have to be standing pretty damn close to it to fill the frame at 55mm. This is why people who want to shoot wildlife go out and spend hundreds on a telephoto lens.

If you were to go to a party and the lighting isnt great (i.e. its dark inside), a 'stock' SLR with kit lens and onboard flash really isnt going to be much better than a bridge camera (maybe it'd be even worse..?). Again, people who want to shoot concerts and this sort of stuff go out and spend hundreds of pounds on fast lenses that work well in low light, and hundreds of pounds on flashguns.

Is your wife adept with Photoshop? Shots straight out of an SLR (in my mind) arent really suitable for putting on the web straight away. They require at least a bit of processing in Photoshop (or similar), whereas on a bridge-camera a lot of this is done by the camera itself. Is your wife willing to spend hours of her day processing photos before she can show her friends? Or does she want to take them, upload them on Facebook and be done with it?

I dont mean to go on. Heck maybe your wife really does want to get into photography and would really like to learn about it and gain a new hobby. But it really doesnt sound like it and i'm afraid you will simply be wasting money.
 
I have a Panasonic FZ8 and the results i get from it are very pleasing, the difference, as been said already, they work straight out of the box, you carry on camera, one bag, with only a spear battery and a few cards.

I do want a DSLR in the future, but want to improve my skills first and save money too. i will try and get a few good pics i have taken recently for you to see.
 
ScarySquirrel said:
Definitely, a good camera doesn't mean all your photos will suddenly be good.

Any comments on the Sigma 17-70mm people? It is a great price and I have heard nothing but good things about it. I am looking at it to replace my 400Ds kit lens.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I did after a few months of ownership of the 400D. It's a cracking lens, takes pin sharp pictures and is built very well. The only caveat I'd throw in that it's probably not great for low light conditions (it's F2.8 on wide but goes down to F4.5 as you zoom in).

I'd suggest this as a good replacement for the kit lens for the original poster if he is prepared to buy the 400D body only. The only thing to watch out for is that the lens is so large, it obscures the flash a bit and means you'll get shadows if you are trying to take close-up using the built in flash. I haven't bought a separate flash gun yet as I'm not really into flash photography.
 
pduk said:
That's exactly what I did after a few months of ownership of the 400D. It's a cracking lens, takes pin sharp pictures and is built very well. The only caveat I'd throw in that it's probably not great for low light conditions (it's F2.8 on wide but goes down to F4.5 as you zoom in).

I'd suggest this as a good replacement for the kit lens for the original poster if he is prepared to buy the 400D body only. The only thing to watch out for is that the lens is so large, it obscures the flash a bit and means you'll get shadows if you are trying to take close-up using the built in flash. I haven't bought a separate flash gun yet as I'm not really into flash photography.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments, and sorry to hijack the thread a little, but it was kind of relevant for the OP if he goes for a DSLR.

I am going to get an external flash (430EX) as I want to do a bit more portrait work and I am doing a wedding reception for a friend next year so need a flash for that.
 
You'd notice next to no difference in image quality between the FZ and EOS until you start printing over A3 size prints really.

Where an SLR excels, and the reason people buy them, are the massive flexibility and manual controls. You can do just about anything with one. If you know how and are prepared to dish out the £££ for the kit.

Get the bridge camera, it'll be far more useful to you and your other half than the EOS will, unless you spent a good £700 on the EOS and other kit.
 
My mate has the 9600 and he really likes it.

He got this camera so that he does not have to spend money lenses for every occasion.
Its an all in one camera, that has pretty decent quality output :)
 
Ry@n said:
My mate has the 9600 and he really likes it.

He got this camera so that he does not have to spend money lenses for every occasion.
Its an all in one camera, that has pretty decent quality output :)
Click to expand...

Given, you have a 400 with the twin pack lenses, how would you compare the image quality of the 400 to his 9600?
 
divine` said:
You'd notice next to no difference in image quality between the FZ and EOS until you start printing over A3 size prints really.
Click to expand...

Amen to that! I've got A3 prints from my s9500 that look every bit as good as the prints from my 30D. The main difference for me is DOF control and speed (shutter lag, write time, etc). EDIT: Oh yeah and ISO noise at over 800 ASA!
 
Last edited:
Mohain said:
Amen to that! I've got A3 prints from my s9500 that look every bit as good as the prints from my 30D. The main difference for me is DOF control and speed (shutter lag, write time, etc). EDIT: Oh yeah and ISO noise at over 800 ASA!
Click to expand...

Why when comparing images from say an EOS 400 or Nikon D40x, do they look so much more 'alive' than the Fuji 9600?

I must say, the Nikon D40x seems to produce the most 'vivid' pictures...
 
ive got the panasonic FZ8, the 18's smaller brother.

the camera is good for every day stuff. Its super zoom is really handy. but its biggest problem is low light. The panasonic isnt great in low conditions. You either need to use the flash or put it on a tripod or the photos come out blury. Only other option is to shoot in higher ISO

and this is where the SLR comes into its own. SLRs can shoot at ISO 800 without noise (well hardly any). the bridge cameras cant and pictures look terrible at ISO 800

so ask yourself how important is the quality of your shots. And are you willing to deal with the baggage that comes with SLRs ?. If your willing to pay £100s of pounds for lenses and learn photography, you can ultimately take better quality photos

but whether you can stomach the learning curve, and crucially the cost is up to you.
 
MrLOL said:
ive got the panasonic FZ8, the 18's smaller brother.

the camera is good for every day stuff. Its super zoom is really handy. but its biggest problem is low light. The panasonic isnt great in low conditions. You either need to use the flash or put it on a tripod or the photos come out blury. Only other option is to shoot in higher ISO

and this is where the SLR comes into its own. SLRs can shoot at ISO 800 without noise (well hardly any). the bridge cameras cant and pictures look terrible at ISO 800

so ask yourself how important is the quality of your shots. And are you willing to deal with the baggage that comes with SLRs ?. If your willing to pay £100s of pounds for lenses and learn photography, you can ultimately take better quality photos

but whether you can stomach the learning curve, and crucially the cost is up to you.
Click to expand...

The Fuji 9600 goes upto ISO 1600, but yes 800 will still give some 'noise' - http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2007/01/31/Fujifilm-FinePix-S9600/p5
 
thats the problem

ISO 800 on bridge cameras are much much noiser than ISO 800 on SLRs

and further to that, you can buy lenses for exactly this sort of light condition, and produce much higher quality low light photos without having to resort to upping the ISO

dont get me wrong, the Panasonic Zoom feature is great, the daylight photos are great, and using phtoshop etc.. can tweak the RAW shots nicely. the burst functionality is handy too, and its quite speedy

but there no substitute for an SLR. Dont fool yourself into thinking theres not much of a difference.
 
MrLOL said:
but there no substitute for an SLR. Dont fool yourself into thinking theres not much of a difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a DLSR in the hands of someone who [a] isnt willing to part with much more cash on lenses/accessories and isnt willing to learn about photography, in an artistic or technical sense.. is next to useless. You're banging on about noise, would the OP even see the difference in noise from 800 to 1600iso? Who knows, at least he is aware of the issue i suppose.
NeilFawcett said:
Why when comparing images from say an EOS 400 or Nikon D40x, do they look so much more 'alive' than the Fuji 9600?

I must say, the Nikon D40x seems to produce the most 'vivid' pictures...
Click to expand...
This is a silly thing to say. Unless you're looking at side-by-side shots (of the same scene) from different camera, without any processing/Photoshop work, how can you tell? Answer; you cant. Shots you're looking at online could have any manner of work done to them.

Did you read my earlier (long) post? Even with all it's benefits, an SLR can be simply a hindrance in some scenarios unless you have the correct accesories (i.e. a lot more money spent).
 
Scam said:
Unless you're looking at side-by-side shots (of the same scene) from different camera, without any processing/Photoshop work, how can you tell? Answer; you cant. Shots you're looking at online could have any manner of work done to them.

Did you read my earlier (long) post? Even with all it's benefits, an SLR can be simply a hindrance in some scenarios unless you have the correct accesories (i.e. a lot more money spent).
Click to expand...

I completely agree... But I found it surprising that after looking at page after page of examples, there seemed to be a trend :confused:
 
NeilFawcett said:
I completely agree... But I found it surprising that after looking at page after page of examples, there seemed to be a trend :confused:
Click to expand...
Because people who use a D40x are much more likely to spend time processing their photos in Photoshop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom