A very good read.... Camera Clash: Digital SLR (20D) vs All-in-One (FZ30)

[meillana]

very interesting read...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumix_dmc-fz30_canon_eos-20d_camera_shootout/default.asp

[astro]

Pretty interesting test.
However I was a bit disappointed how they only tested landscape shots. There were not too many scenes to show the dynamic range. There was no portraiture done, and the only shot that had a main was the bird, which was poorly done since the bird was much farther away on the FZ30.

Anyways, I'd be interested seeing them compare the FZ30 to a budget DSLR and a cheap tamron/sigma 28-300mm zoom lens, which is equivalent to 45-480mm on a 35mm.

The DSLR with the superzoom would cost about $750.

[John_Reed]

very interesting read...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumix_dmc-fz30_canon_eos-20d_camera_shootout/default.asp
It's all about the light. Here's a JPG photo (pretty much "straight out of the camera") I took of the Waimea Valley when I was in Kauai in 2004 with my FZ10. (Used Manual exposure, no filters, to get desired color contrasts) I invite comparisons to any of the similar scenery shots posted in the "shootout" to either the FZ30 or 20D, Adobe Camera RAW or JPG:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/9376497-L.jpg

That's a very interesting article to read, and thanks for the post. I think it was a high honor for the FZ30 to be used in such a comparison, pretty well vindicating it for those of us who value the camera as the "best of the bunch."

[genece]

Thats a nice photo John and shows what the cameras are capable of, and while I get some like that, its pretty much a hit and / or miss thing with me.
I need to study more.
But it may have to do with trying to teach old dogs new tricks.

[John_Reed]

Thats a nice photo John and shows what the cameras are capable of, and while I get some like that, its pretty much a hit and / or miss thing with me.
I need to study more.
But it may have to do with trying to teach old dogs new tricks....But I wasn't really trying to show how great the FZ10 is, just that if you catch the light in a good mood, you can grab a shot that's comparable if not preferable to the same scene shot with that $5400 worth of Canon gear, or the FZ30 either. I printed that shot at 11X17 on a nice sheet of Ilford Pearl paper, framed it and gave it as a gift. It was WELL received! But if I'd been standing alongside that guy with his 20D/FZ30 stuff in the same light HE had, I don't think I'd have come away with as much.

[TheObiJuan]

I'm a huge fan of the FZ line, especially the FZ20, but that article was a joke. I will save it for future laughs.

The photographer needs to learn about exposure and how to process a RAW image.
The FZ30 has a great lens on it but doesn't compare as much as they explain.
In bright light shooting, the two cameras will be at the closests that they ever will be. Reduce the lighting to dusk and that's where the dslr shines. Fast focusing like sports the dslr will also excell.

The photog used different apertures and exposures, so of coarse the cameras will have different looks. He made little attempts to get the same field of view, this would help with getting an equal exposure.

The comment about not being able to go over f/8 becuase of diffraction, which will cause blurriness is pure rubbish. A dslr can shoot at f/16 with no notable image degradation.

He complains about not having enough depth of field when shooting a macro shot of a lizard but uses f/2.8!!??
It's like a soldier complaining that his enemies aren't dying because he's using rubber bullets.
I wouldn't dare go below f/8 for a macro shot. F/10 is what I usually use, and I never see any 'artifacts from image degradation', or whatever he said.

He also keeps mentioning the 5400 dollar package. The 20D is 1300, and the 350D could have been used to give the same results. He should use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for 1500, making a 2300, then throw in a 1.4TC for a hundred dollars to get the 448mm field of view. Using the 400 f/5.6 was unecessary, as it's a slow lens with ugly bokeh. I have used it on my 20D and it's basically a bird photographer's cheapest option.

Throw in some extension tubes to use with the 70-200 f/2.8IS L and 1.4TC and you get a nice macro option that will give 1:2 or so.

He used a wide angle 20mm, I assume it's sigma' 20mm lens.
This package should have been at most, 2800 dollars with filters, a cf card that could be used on both cameras, a 1.4TC, 70-200, 50 f/1.8, and a wide angle lens.

I have been looking for a good deal on a used fz20, once I get the camera I will be happy to do a controlled test. The fz20 will always shine because of the portability, super zoom lens, and small weight. The 350D with a 18-200 is not a bad combo either, though. With the 1.6x crop it puts the 350D at the 28-320 fov.

[astro]

A 400mm F/5.6 will destroy a 70-200mm F2.8L with a 1.4xTC

Zooms don't come anywhere near prime telephotos, that's why they cost so much more - especially when you use a telecoverter, that really just kills the quality.

That said, the FZ30 may seem impressive with F/2.8, but at ISO50, you're about as much light as a DSLR at F/6.7 at ISO200. Not to mention the DSLR will still have lower noise at ISO200 than the FZ30 at ISO50.
Don't get me wrong, I love my FZ15, but it just doesn't come anywhere close to a DSLR in most cases.

[frumious]

very interesting read...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumix_dmc-fz30_canon_eos-20d_camera_shootout/default.asp

Meillana -

Thanks for posting the link to that article. It was indeed a very interesting and informative article. I posted a question to the author about using the FZ30 at ISO 400 in full daylight. I copy it here for you, John and others who may, from your experiences, have an answer:


"Can you tell me/us if you took any shots of the F/A-18's with the
FZ30 set at ISO 400? If so,what were the results?

The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0. I wonder what increase in clarity one
might get if you shot at f/8.0, 1/2000 and ISO 400.

A similar question crossed my mind of your comparative shots of the
Red Crested Cardinal on Monday. Could the FZ30's sharpness have
been increased by shooting at ISO 400, at higher shutter speed and
with a tighter aperture?

What did you find?"

[John_Reed]

Meillana -

Thanks for posting the link to that article. It was indeed a very interesting and informative article. I posted a question to the author about using the FZ30 at ISO 400 in full daylight. I copy it here for you, John and others who may, from your experiences, have an answer:


"Can you tell me/us if you took any shots of the F/A-18's with the
FZ30 set at ISO 400? If so,what were the results?

The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0. I wonder what increase in clarity one
might get if you shot at f/8.0, 1/2000 and ISO 400.

A similar question crossed my mind of your comparative shots of the
Red Crested Cardinal on Monday. Could the FZ30's sharpness have
been increased by shooting at ISO 400, at higher shutter speed and
with a tighter aperture?

What did you find?"I think the reviewer was indeed limiting the FZ30's capabilities in those instances. But on the other hand, a friend of mine took her FZ30 to the Blue Angels show, in P mode, with everything on auto, and got this stunning shot, and a whole lot more, at ISO 80:

http://SharonO.smugmug.com/photos/39134480-L.jpg

About the Cardinal, the lighting conditions weren't really great for that shot, though it struck me that he could've selected ISO 100 or 200 and done better. (He had made the executive decision to stick to ISO 80 to limit noise) The shutterspeed was so slow, the bird's head moved during the shot, so no sharpness. in better light, those Cardinals come out very nicely:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/9376381-L.jpg

Like I said earlier, it's all about the light! ;)

[eastbluffs]

I think the reviewer was indeed limiting the FZ30's capabilities in those instances. But on the other hand, a friend of mine took her FZ30 to the Blue Angels show, in P mode, with everything on auto, and got this stunning shot, and a whole lot more, at ISO 80:

About the Cardinal, the lighting conditions weren't really great for that shot, though it struck me that he could've selected ISO 100 or 200 and done better. (He had made the executive decision to stick to ISO 80 to limit noise) The shutterspeed was so slow, the bird's head moved during the shot, so no sharpness. in better light, those Cardinals come out very nicely:

Like I said earlier, it's all about the light! ;)
While very nice John, I wouldn't put those 2 photos up against the 20D for noise or actual sharpness. If you look closely at the sky, scrolling it up and down, you'll plainly see some dust and telltale ISO noise. I'm not sure why at ISO 80, but it's there. Did you post-process and push up the exposure or sharpening? Also; the tail and edges are just slightly soft. Granted, a dSLR can have the same softness at that magnification and hand held like that, but I don't think that photo would survive an 11x17 blow-up too well.

The cardinal shot you see the same "dust" in the background. Just a teeny tiny bit, nothing bad. Is the in-camera sharpening boosted? I looks a little similar to overdoing the USM in Photoshop - the computer glops pixels together everywhere making it look a little noisy.

I bring this up with the friendliest of intentions - its just that I don't see what you see.

Your earlier post however was pretty stunning.

Its just that owning a 20D gets one spoiled to the noise factor (or absense). I'm happy to see some great P&S's around, and those with IS will probably have a high % of keepers than my non-IS 20D, but with the larger sensor, better glass, etc. it will offer an inherently better capture. Given proper care and technique, as ObiJuan was pointing out, there is just no way to seriously argue an equivilant result.

My opinion and response to the opinion that the FZ20 or FZ30 offers nearly equal results to the 20D is this. Of course, the camera is only half the equation, but given a budget of $2000 for lenses, well, even in the most ideal of lighting, there is just some sterling quality that a lense like the 85L, 135L, 35L, etc contain. Even a zoom like 70-200 f2.8L just offer that extra 10% that maybe an amature just can't see. You could use the 20D poorly (wrong f-stop, wrong lighting, poor technique, etc) to produce poorer results, but the max potential will always surpass the FZ's.


The two best shots you show from the FZ30 are shot at ISO 80 and 100
and at shutter speeds of only 1/800 and 1/640 respectively. Was it
possible to increase the shutter speed to 1/2000 and shrink the aperture
even to f/8.0 by taking the ISO to the FZ30's max of 400? In low
light this would never work - not enough light which will result in
too much noise. But in bright daylight one can shoot the FZ30 at
ISO 400 without producing noise. You mentioned that the shutter
speed was limited below f/8.0.

What did you find?"

Also; "frumious" mentioned that high ISO wouldn't show noise in high light, but its more evident at low light. Can anyone concur? I had presumed that ISO simply establishes the pixel gain (amplification). True, a base ISO of say 200 is a match to the shutter/apeture settings for ISO 200 film, but as you increase and decrease from there ON THE SAME CAMERA doesnn't the noise decrease/increase respectively? After all, by definition, the shutter speed and apeture width will shed the exact light needed to expose that "film" correctly.

Am I sounding confusing? For example:
ISO 100 shutter 500 apeture 5.6.
ISO 200 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6 - exactly doublethe light
ISO 400 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6 - exactly half the light
now in double the source light
ISO 100 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6
ISO 200 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6
ISO 400 shutter 4000 apeture 5.6

So, the sensor always get (by definition) the same light at ISO 400 and therefore the same noise.

I have not experimented and honestly don't know the correct answer to this. I'm using reasoning and logic, but am I misinformed?

[John_Reed]

While very nice John, I wouldn't put those 2 photos up against the 20D for noise or actual sharpness. If you look closely at the sky, scrolling it up and down, you'll plainly see some dust and telltale ISO noise. I'm not sure why at ISO 80, but it's there. Did you post-process and push up the exposure or sharpening? Also; the tail and edges are just slightly soft. Granted, a dSLR can have the same softness at that magnification and hand held like that, but I don't think that photo would survive an 11x17 blow-up too well.
I didn't shoot the shot, nor did I post-process it. My friend might've done so, can't ask her right now, as she's off to Australia. You may see "noise" in the sky, but I bet a printer wouldn't show it. Pixel-peeping will always find some defects. Despite your findings, I think her shot was better than the one that Alan Vang took with the FZ30 in his "shootout," which was the main reason I posted it. He said he couldn't get hardly any good shots of the Angels, but she got several, and I saw some stunning ones taken by an FZ20 owner with a "red dot" sight attached.
The cardinal shot you see the same "dust" in the background. Just a teeny tiny bit, nothing bad. Is the in-camera sharpening boosted? I looks a little similar to overdoing the USM in Photoshop - the computer glops pixels together everywhere making it look a little noisy.
I took that shot with my FZ10 over a year ago, frankly don't remember what I did, but it's not my habit to do much pping on photos, in general.

I bring this up with the friendliest of intentions - its just that I don't see what you see.Thank God for that! It would be a boring world otherwise, wouldn't it?
Your earlier post however was pretty stunning.
Compliment thankfully accepted.
Its just that owning a 20D gets one spoiled to the noise factor (or absense). I'm happy to see some great P&S's around, and those with IS will probably have a high % of keepers than my non-IS 20D, but with the larger sensor, better glass, etc. it will offer an inherently better capture. Given proper care and technique, as ObiJuan was pointing out, there is just no way to seriously argue an equivilant result.

My opinion and response to the opinion that the FZ20 or FZ30 offers nearly equal results to the 20D is this. Of course, the camera is only half the equation, but given a budget of $2000 for lenses, well, even in the most ideal of lighting, there is just some sterling quality that a lense like the 85L, 135L, 35L, etc contain. Even a zoom like 70-200 f2.8L just offer that extra 10% that maybe an amature just can't see. You could use the 20D poorly (wrong f-stop, wrong lighting, poor technique, etc) to produce poorer results, but the max potential will always surpass the FZ's.
I don't think the author was trying to show equality of the two cameras, just showing that the P&S was in fact capable of a good percentage of the shooting that the 20D does, in a much lighter, cheaper package.
Also; "frumious" mentioned that high ISO wouldn't show noise in high light, but its more evident at low light. Can anyone concur? I had presumed that ISO simply establishes the pixel gain (amplification). True, a base ISO of say 200 is a match to the shutter/apeture settings for ISO 200 film, but as you increase and decrease from there ON THE SAME CAMERA doesnn't the noise decrease/increase respectively? After all, by definition, the shutter speed and apeture width will shed the exact light needed to expose that "film" correctly.

Am I sounding confusing? For example:
ISO 100 shutter 500 apeture 5.6.
ISO 200 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6 - exactly doublethe light
I think you're wrong here. Up ISO one f-stop, Up shutter speed one f-stop, they cancel. Same light
ISO 400 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6 - exactly half the light
Uh uh. Same light again, same reason
now in double the source light
ISO 100 shutter 1000 apeture 5.6
ISO 200 shutter 2000 apeture 5.6
ISO 400 shutter 4000 apeture 5.6

So, the sensor always get (by definition) the same light at ISO 400 and therefore the same noise.

I have not experimented and honestly don't know the correct answer to this. I'm using reasoning and logic, but am I misinformed?
Well, I pointed out some misgivings of yours above. Another is that "Aperture" is spelled like that. ;)

As for high-ISO noise, I think the problem is, in highly-lit parts of the picture, the noise isn't apparent, but only shows up in the shadowy darker parts of the photo.

No one would argue with you that the well-equipped 20D or even a 350XT wouldn't ultimately yield better results in almost any situation, though he did give the nod to the FZ30 on having the longer DOF he needed for sunsets. And even though the FZ30 does indeed have a smaller sensor by far, Panasonic/Leica at least have taken advantage of the smaller sensor size to craft a very fine lens whose sharpness and speed ranks right up there amongst the dSLRs in the resolution category. So if you're out trekking with the 20D and paraphernalia, and get tired of all the weight, you may come to appreciate the benefits of a lightweight alternative, which, although in the limit falls short by comparison, particularly on the noise front, can still provide some great results, for a fraction of the price. Thanks for the discussion!

[eastbluffs]

Thank God for that! It would be a boring world otherwise, wouldn't it?
Wellllll, keep your shirt on John.... I only wish I could see poor color, composition, etc. the way that noisy sky jumped out at me. It wasn't pixel peeping, it was a glance at full screen. Anyway, you've posted some really nice stuff here - I suppose you'de know what shows on your printer. It seems one can't say anything negative about a photo no matter how true. But I hadn't seen your point which you have now explained. Thank you.

I mistook the post as implying the FZ series was even in quality with the 20D and the photos posted proved the point. So, it naturally invited scrutiny. My mistake for misunderstanding the point.

So if you're out trekking with the 20D and paraphernalia, and get tired of all the weight, you may come to appreciate the benefits of a lightweight alternative, which, although in the limit falls short by comparison, particularly on the noise front, can still provide some great results, for a fraction of the price. Thanks for the discussion!
Yes, it is nice to know about a lighter alternative. And one that doesn't risk $1500 on say, a river raft trip or skiing the diamond runs. Or, even carrying around in a third-world region where a 20D could invite trouble - yet good captures are desired. Been there - and even then the anything above a yellow disposable is chancy.

[John_Reed]

Yes, it is nice to know about a lighter alternative. And one that doesn't risk $1500 on say, a river raft trip or skiing the diamond runs. Or, even carrying around in a third-world region where a 20D could invite trouble - yet good captures are desired. Been there - and even then the anything above a yellow disposable is chancy.
I've got my shirt on, thank you! :)

Your comments on camera travel remind me of nearly getting killed one time when I happened to point my camera at a "Lady of the street" down in New Zealand. She was about to swing her purse at me before I backed down! Chancy is right! Believe me, she would've noticed that big Canon L glass pointed in her direction, unlike this girl I photographed yesterday in San Francisco:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/40171648-L.jpg

She had no idea that 473mm of glass was pointing at her (shot in 3MP EZ mode, 1/160 shutter speed, fully "extended" at 668mm); one of the un-heralded benefits of long stabilized zoom lenses that don't extend when zoomed.

[boswell]

Well, I own and operate both these cameras.
Used the 20D since it came out, replacing a D30 and it is a very good camera, used mainly for high quality wildlife photography. I replaced the old D30 however with the FZ30 as it managed an approximate telephoto length of my 75-300IS (460mm)Canon Zoom on the 20D at 430mm on the FZ.

In use basically the Panasonic works very well, with images as good as the Canon, certainly in good light, landscape daylight pictures and they can blow up to large print size almost as well.
In dull days, low light, the FZ30 is not in the same league however with increased noise and at higher ISO values.

In telephoto mode in perfect light at full zoom 430mm or 460mm depending on camera, the IS of the Canon is perfect, the IS of the FZ, very iffy indeed and mostly switches off.

But for trudging round Tiger reserves in tents for 2 months at a time, the FZ comes into it's own just for sheer light weight, no fiddling with lenses on and off etc. and with a little image processing, there's not too much difference at the end of the day practically.

Which is best?- The Canon by a mile technically, but practically closer than I should think Canon would like.:rolleyes:

[John_Reed]

In telephoto mode in perfect light at full zoom 430mm or 460mm depending on camera, the IS of the Canon is perfect, the IS of the FZ, very iffy indeed and mostly switches off.I don't get it. How could your IS switch off unless you switch it off yourself? I've never experienced "iffy" with the FZ IS system. Clue me in, please? :confused:

[TheObiJuan]

I don't get it. How could your IS switch off unless you switch it off yourself? I've never experienced "iffy" with the FZ IS system. Clue me in, please? :confused:

Have you tried using a canon telephoto IS L lens?
The lens focuses perfectly and stabilizes the same.
I used an FZ20 and noticed the IS was slower, and not as good.
But that's expected, its A LOT cheaper and smaller. Convenience is a compromise.

[John_Reed]

Have you tried using a canon telephoto IS L lens?
The lens focuses perfectly and stabilizes the same.
I used an FZ20 and noticed the IS was slower, and not as good.
But that's expected, its A LOT cheaper and smaller. Convenience is a compromise. So what's the longest shutter speed you can handhold with that lens? I've never seen any really slow handheld shots from one of those rigs - are they common? Can you show me something comparable to this Egret shot with FZ30 at 1/5 of a second, handheld, full zoom (420mm)?
http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/39690793-L.jpg
Of course, the Egret didn't freeze during the shot, so there's a little motion blur. I guess in all fairness, since the 20D can shoot at ISO 3200, you could comp. this shot with a 400 mm shot, handheld at 1/160th, since mine was shot at ISO 100. But are there any really slow examples around? I'd like to see some.

[boswell]

I don't get it. How could your IS switch off unless you switch it off yourself? I've never experienced "iffy" with the FZ IS system. Clue me in, please? :confused:

I'm sorry if I misled you regarding the IS, what I mean is that on the higher telephoto settings (above 3X and dependent on the available light) the IS is effectively negated by the "jitter" alert icon displaying. The IS is obviously still selected on, but an effective stabilised image is not guaranteed
This is whilst being hand held. I rarely have time to tripod anything.
Technically possibly due to the 8Mp sensor and smaller pixel pitch and the fact that the pixels are close ,it does mean that you can have a less than sharp image.

On the Canon however, there is simply no "jitter" of pixel movement as the IS locks the picture pretty much rock solid, if it can focus at all.

In other words, in my opinion, as a practical camera in the field with sometimes little time to set up wildlife pictures for example and often in less than ideal lghting conditions, the Canon is definitely the camera of choice.

I carry both, but when the lighting is not great, and the subjects are a distance away, I will always use the Canon first. It may be the only chance I have of a good shot (or any shot come to think of it) of a particular animal and I obviouslyy want the best one I can get.

I am evaluating both cameras for a month soon in Indian Tiger reserves, so it will be interesting to see how they really compare. I am optimistic that the Canon will do 90% of what I want, which is the reason for buying it in the first place - lighter, no lenses to fiddle around with, ostensibly good zoom plus IS for the most part, OK in good light (not so good in low light accepted) and so on, so I am very open minded as to how it will do.
I hope it does really well - this would then allow me not to look so much like a Japanese camera and lens festooned tourist! :D

boswell

[boswell]

So what's the longest shutter speed you can handhold with that lens? I've never seen any really slow handheld shots from one of those rigs - are they common? Can you show me something comparable to this Egret shot with FZ30 at 1/5 of a second, handheld, full zoom (420mm)?
http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/39690793-L.jpg
Of course, the Egret didn't freeze during the shot, so there's a little motion blur. I guess in all fairness, since the 20D can shoot at ISO 3200, you could comp. this shot with a 400 mm shot, handheld at 1/160th, since mine was shot at ISO 100. But are there any really slow examples around? I'd like to see some.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a164/johnart/CJay1814Coweb.jpg

I took this shot earlier this year using my old (now sold) D30 Canon which is a relatively low 3.2Mp, with a zoom of 460mm hand held. Dull poor light morning, Eighth of a second, ISO200 and through a window no less.
This was using a relatively "soft" 75-300mm Canon IS Zoom (x 1.6 for the digital focal multiplication of the digital camera).
The bird was pretty still - just me out of breath after rushing to get the camera and with big pulsing blood pressure - so not too bad.

boswell

[John_Reed]

No one's ever demo-ed a really slow handheld shot with a Canon IS lens to me before. I appreciate it, and it's a fine capture, good point.

But you're under a misconception about "jitter alert" signals on the Panasonic cameras. They serve only as an "advisory" alert, to warn the user that a tripod may be necessary, whether or not one is really needed, and the alert does not impair the OIS system in any way. The "jitter alert" was certainly flashing when I shot the above Egret, but as usual, I ignored it. The alert is fashioned on the tried-and-true "1/FL" adage for telephoto shooting. That is, (I'm sure you know this) if you're shooting handheld with a telephoto of (35mm equivalent) focal length of FL, you'd better not shoot at a shutterspeed any slower than 1/FL. Panasonic conservatively gives its OIS system a 2 f-stop advantage before triggering the "jitter alert," thus:

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/15304330-L.jpg

The above is a table I made to calibrate my (now sold) FZ15's jitter alert, and I'm sure the one on the FZ30 works about the same way. I was sandbagging a little with the Egret story. Actually, in addition to "Full Zoom" of 420mm, I was using a 1.7X TCON-17, for a total focal length of 714mm. So, despite the ubiquitous "jitter alert" warning, that shot was taken at 7 f-stops below the "1/FL" limit, and the OIS system was working fine, as it was for this shot, taken with my FZ15 at Yosemite at "only" 5 f-stops down from the 120mm zoom setting, at 1/4 second (no ND filter):

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/32338673-L.jpg

I won't say that every slow shot I take is sharp, but the odds are pretty good that they will be, enough to make it worth shooting for, so to speak. In the case of the Egret, I took a total of 3 shots, and discarded one for blurriness. The stream over the rocks? Again about 1/3 (of maybe 10 shots) were thrown away, I kind of went wild on the Merced River! :o

[boswell]

Very interesting table you've posted.
It actually replicates some pencil notes scribbled into my jotter, but rather hastily underlined here and there - your table is much better and I certainly take on board your comments - appreciated.

Today I was taking some heron shots, long distance I'm afraid and in horrendous poor light conditions and I only had the FZ30 with me.
Using hand held of course, I took 6 shots from wide angle to full optical zoom and only up to 3X was any use at all - the rest were badly shaken/blurred, whatever (the heron needless to say stood like a dammed statue!).
3X, f3.6 at 1/4sec, 117mm(35mm equiv)zoom factor, ISO200 was the best of the bunch and anything closer/bigger was deleted as no good.
It's asking any camera a lot and perhaps not the best settings for the shots, but I'm going to the same spot tomorrow to see if I can do better. Hope the heron is there.
I will be taking the 20D + zoom lens and the FZ30, so it will be interesting to see how they compare - oh! for some sun - it's like a torch would be useful ALL day here at the moment (Scotland, winter approaching, up in the hills of highland Perthshire, by the way).
I do feel however that if the Canon can focus on this grey heron on a grey day!, then it will IS lock and I should? get a good picture - we'll see.

boswell

[John_Reed]

Very interesting table you've posted.
It actually replicates some pencil notes scribbled into my jotter, but rather hastily underlined here and there - your table is much better and I certainly take on board your comments - appreciated.

Today I was taking some heron shots, long distance I'm afraid and in horrendous poor light conditions and I only had the FZ30 with me.
Using hand held of course, I took 6 shots from wide angle to full optical zoom and only up to 3X was any use at all - the rest were badly shaken/blurred, whatever (the heron needless to say stood like a dammed statue!).
3X, f3.6 at 1/4sec, 117mm(35mm equiv)zoom factor, ISO200 was the best of the bunch and anything closer/bigger was deleted as no good.
It's asking any camera a lot and perhaps not the best settings for the shots, but I'm going to the same spot tomorrow to see if I can do better. Hope the heron is there.
I will be taking the 20D + zoom lens and the FZ30, so it will be interesting to see how they compare - oh! for some sun - it's like a torch would be useful ALL day here at the moment (Scotland, winter approaching, up in the hills of highland Perthshire, by the way).
I do feel however that if the Canon can focus on this grey heron on a grey day!, then it will IS lock and I should? get a good picture - we'll see.

boswellYou're describing lighting conditions that would be a challenge for any fixed-lens camera, 1/4 second is damn slow! I don't use one, but might I suggest using a monopod to aid and abet you in your quest for sharpness in those conditions? A useful adjunct for the monopod would be one of those Panasonic remote shutter cables, that would allow you to shoot without jarring the camera. Just some thoughts, good luck, I'd love to see your results!

[Mike63]

I have read somewhere in this forum that using the EVF and the 2 second timer helps with the low light shots. I can say that it works, I put the EVF right against my glasses to shoot in low light. Using the timer works as well, although it would not help if you have to shoot something that may be gone in a hurry.:o

[John_Reed]

I have read somewhere in this forum that using the EVF and the 2 second timer helps with the low light shots. I can say that it works, I put the EVF right against my glasses to shoot in low light. Using the timer works as well, although it would not help if you have to shoot something that may be gone in a hurry.:oI find that using the EVF really helps to stabilize the camera, otherwise I'd be stuck with my shaky left hand, too much even for the image stabilizer to cope with!

[bryanbendo]

this was a awsome comparision.....thanks for the great link

[bobby]

I used a Minolta film SLR for many years. I bought a 3.2 mp Sony digital camera that works fine for indoor shots but in the sunlight I get so much glare the picture is very white. I want to buy a good DSLR and don't know if I will have this same problem. Will I? I really don't want to lug around my old film SLR for outdoors and my little digital for indoors. If the problem goes away with a digital SLR, what would be a good one to buy?