• Last Updated:
  • Dec 18th, 2014 3:13 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Member
Apr 24, 2012
407 posts
414 upvotes
Vancouver
thericyip wrote:
Dec 17th, 2014 12:48 am
Most people can't tell the difference.]
I second that. B is full frame. We'd have a better chance guessing if you posted at least wallpaper sized image (1080p)

Edit: a better showcase of abilities would be if you posted low light with moving objects. Any camera can take good pics of static objects (image A) with good optics.
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
thericyip wrote:
Dec 17th, 2014 12:48 am
Most people can't tell the difference.

Here's an example. One image is taken with a Full Frame DSLR with a f/50mm 1.2 lens. The other is with a micro 4/3rds camera with a 25mm f/1.4 (50mm f/1.4 equiv.) They were both taken at relatively low light conditions with a high ISO setting.
You can definitely tell if you know what to look for.. even at this low of a magnification you can tell A has a lot more noise, and B has a lot shallower DOF even though it's shot from much further away. They're both at the same field of view, but the difference between F1.2 and F2.8 (equivalent DOF) is pretty big.
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
daIslander wrote:
Dec 17th, 2014 12:22 am
I have been trying to wrap my head around the conversion and aperture and sensor as well. This thread has all the answers I need, if I could just wrap my head around it. There seems to be some very knowledgable people on here and I'm looking at a similar (but cheaper) camera and issue and don't mean to high jack the thread but its been dead for over a week so.... Can anyone give there opinion on the Panny FZ200. I was going to go with the sony 5000 but I really can't afford the extra lens I would need for zoom. I really need to keep everything under 500. Im not good with manual shooting and the sales guy kinda talked me into the fz200 as it seems to have a couple features that work for me. I have always loved taking the up close insect and nature shots. Now about to have twins in the next 2 weeks. I want something that is good in low light. Something with good stabilizers (my old camera had terrible noise and blur in low light) Good macro. Zoom and fast shutter speed for kids in a couple years. I compared with the Nikonp530 and the CanonSX50. Both reviews have the Nikon and and Canon coming out as the favoured but when I read the specs the FZ200 seems to do better. Now reading about how f2.8 might not really be equal to a 600mm the Leica lens isn't as popular in canada as other places and not so loved? It looks like it takes great low light and fast moving and long distance shots but once you get those up on a comp how clean are they going to look? Seems low on pixels but not sure that matters? and dosnt have wifi which would be nice. Thoughts!? Would be nice from someone other then the sales guy. Thank you
The sensor on the FZ200 is way too small, and the low light performance is going to be pretty garbage to be honest. It may seem to have all the "features" that you need, but in the end the main compromise is the really small sensor to give you that kind of zoom range. Indoor shots are going to be pretty awful and I really think you should go with something like the A5000 or even A3000 if you're on a tighter budget. There's also some deals on the slightly older NEX cameras here and there that might work out. Alternately if you're really budget constrained you could check out some of the Panasonic mirrorless (GF/GH series) cameras that might be a bit cheaper but not as good as the sony A3000/5000, but are still miles ahead of the FZ200.
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3316 posts
758 upvotes
Let's not scare any potential users who may benefit from any of the models we are discussing here. Low light is also relative. Some people call kitchen (under normal lighting conditions) in the evening low light; some call night clubs low light.
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
bowmah wrote:
Dec 17th, 2014 5:20 pm
Let's not scare any potential users who may benefit from any of the models we are discussing here. Low light is also relative. Some people call kitchen (under normal lighting conditions) in the evening low light; some call night clubs low light.
I speak from experience and from having a mother using a bridge camera before, who constantly complained about how pictures look very bad indoors. To me, indoors in the evening is low light, and frankly most point and shoots take horrible pictures even in those basic every day lighting conditions without using flash (which then look terrible still). Paying $500-900 for something that barely takes better pictures than your iPhone is NOT worth the money.
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3316 posts
758 upvotes
antaholics wrote:
Dec 18th, 2014 3:54 am
I speak from experience and from having a mother using a bridge camera before, who constantly complained about how pictures look very bad indoors. To me, indoors in the evening is low light, and frankly most point and shoots take horrible pictures even in those basic every day lighting conditions without using flash (which then look terrible still). Paying $500-900 for something that barely takes better pictures than your iPhone is NOT worth the money.
I also consider indoor after dark low light. There are a few great cameras from $700 and up that are point and shoot that has a fast lens that would perform very well even without flash. Just a heads up.
[OP]
Member
Apr 24, 2012
407 posts
414 upvotes
Vancouver
antaholics wrote:
Dec 18th, 2014 3:54 am
Paying $500-900 for something that barely takes better pictures than your iPhone is NOT worth the money.
Yeap, 100% agree with that. Considering that many P&S camperas have 1/2.3 sensor, let's see how it compares to phone sensor sizes:
iPhone 6 - 1/3
Xperia Z line - 1/2.3
Lumia 1020 - 2/3
So the only thing P&S has other these phones is zoom. But then you can get one of these for around $30.
[IMG]http://www.casesinthebox.com/images/v/2 ... 038882.jpg[/IMG]

Top