Questions about LUMIX FZ200

[Sylvie_h]

Hi,

At the moment, I work with a 300mm f/4 which I combine with a TC 1.4. It's a great tool for dragonflies, reptiles and fairly large butterflies. Personally I love it because it really detaches the subject from the background (I can use f/16 and still get a very blurred background). However, it is heavy gear to carry around all day and in order to lighten my bag, I am thinking of buying a Fz200.
I have seen some pictures on the internet taken with this bridge camera and I am not very impressed so far. I am not sure how these pictures were taken but even at the full end of the zoom (~600mm f/2. the background seems to be too much of a distraction.
There is a lot of contradictory comments on the use of bridge vs DLSR on the internet and I can not make up my mind. Also I am concerned that a lot of software work is needed for processing pictures with a bridge to enhance sharpness and contrast and I would like to minimize as much as possible the use of a computer.
I hope somebody can give me a straight forward answer. I would also like to see some pictures (if possible) with details of exposure + software work, this will help me. Thanks,
Sylvie

[MikeOxon]

I was in exactly the same situation as you! i have a Nikon D300s with various lenses, including the Nikon 300mm f/4 AFS, which I use with a X1.4 converter. It's a superb set-up, especially for birds in flight, but is rather heavy. I was finding it too much to carry around all my Nikon kit, unless I knew I really needed it, so I bought a Lumix FZ200 to try. You can read about my experiences in my blog at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7459&start=40

The Lumix can do a good job in good light, with appropriate support when using the long end of the zoom but, if you look closely at the results, the quality is nowhere near SLR standard, simply because the small sensor does not allow it. The Lumix is also very slow, in comparison, making fast action shooting virtually impossible.

My current way of working is to carry the Nikon with macro lens attached, plus the Lumix for habitat and initial shots, taken before deciding whether it is feasible to move in with the macro.

I notice that there is now a Lumix FZ1000, with a larger sensor, but it seems as heavy and pricey as a DSLR, so I'm not sure where it fits into things!

Have a look at my blog and feel free to PM me, if you want more detailed information.

Mike

[Jack Harrison]

Why do they still use that ridiculous method of defining the size of the sensor? The FZ1000 is quoted as having a 1" sensor. What on earth does that mean to the average customer?

Well this apparently is an old fashioned method based on early TV (or something like that). Convert 1" sensor and it is 13.2 x 8.8 mm. That is a 3:2 aspect ratio, ie the same as a DSLR (and earlier 35mm film cameras) and not the usual 4:3 used by compacts and bridge digital cameras. I could find that a 3:2 a disadvantage compared to 4:3 as with many shots, the "edges" are wasted and will have to be cropped rendering some of the advantages of lots of megapixels superfluous. What IS relevant is the size of the actual pixels, the bigger they are, the more information (less noise, etc) they are able to record; hence DSLRs with large sensors are bound in the ultimate test to produce better images. Pixel SIZE is NEVER quoted buy easy enough to work out.

Technical question about small sensor cameras versus large (eg DSLRs). One of the oft-vaunted advantages of the DSLR is the reduced depth of field, even at say f/16, giving that much appreciated blurred background but retaining adequate dept of field in the foreground subject. Theory would suggest that the same effect would be obtained with a small sensor at a larger aperture, eg f/4. But it doesn't seem to work like that. The depth of field with a large sensor seems to fall off abruptly but with a small sensor falls off slowly. This question is perhaps aimed at you Mike. Any ideas?

And as you Mike use both a DSLR and a Lumix, why does the DSLR grab the focus so much more quickly? I can't understand why small-sensor cameras are slow. But undoubtedly they are.

I'm away at the weekend so look forward Mike to your PhD thesis when I get back

Jack

[MikeOxon]

Why do they still use that ridiculous method of defining the size of the sensor?

I suspect the marketing men have a lot to do with it! It implies a much bigger sensor than is actually the case.

Mike

[Gruditch]

Not every DSLR has great auto focus, my 5D MK II, in comparison to my 7D is pants. The same also applies to the lenses you attach. Some lenses like macros, are nothing special when it comes to fast accurate auto focusing. But lenses like the aforementioned 300 F4 should have cracking auto focus.

Obviously a wide angle lens doesn't have a narrow depth of field, and for doing landscape work, I suppose it would be pretty useless if it did. A macro can throw the background on close subjects. But if you want to do the same with a large subject at a distance, you need big glass like a 600mm. I remember a while back Jack, you asked, probably in jest, why don't DSLRs have a lens that does it all. Could that be the problem/compromise with the bridge cameras, that they are trying to do it all. The latest Canon Powershot bridge camera can cover 24-1200mm, can it really be quality right across that range.

Regards Gruditch

[dilettante]

What IS relevant is the size of the actual pixels, the bigger they are, the more information (less noise, etc) they are able to record; hence DSLRs with large sensors are bound in the ultimate test to produce better images.

You're conflating two things there. Pixel density is indeed a good measure, but it's not necessarily the case the DSLRs have 'better' pixel density than bridge cameras just because of their larger sensors. Some DSLRs have large sensors, but then pack in huge numbers of pixels so the pixel-level noise might be no better. Pixel-level noise is probably not relevant if you're resizing your image for screen viewing at much lower resolution though.

I think '1" sensor' is a meaningful measure, in the same way that '35mm film' is. OK, so it's not clear whether it refers to width, height or diagonal, but it gives an indication of a moderately large sensor compared to the tiny ones in compact cameras and phones.

And as you Mike use both a DSLR and a Lumix, why does the DSLR grab the focus so much more quickly? I can't understand why small-sensor cameras are slow. But undoubtedly they are.

DSLRs focus quickly because they use a different focusing mechanism. The mirror allows them to deflect parts of the image to dedicated phase-detect auto focus sensors. Bridge cameras generally rely on contrast-detect autofocus, analysing the image on the sensor to obtain sharp focus. Contrast detect is getting much better as technology improves, but historically it's been a lot slower than phase-detect.

[MikeOxon]

can it really be quality right across that range

Bridge cameras have another trick up their sleeve.

Because the characteristics of the lens are known, the camera includes software to correct lens distortions. This was very obvious on my Lumix, when I used a generic RAW converter. There was massive barrel distortion at the wide end but you don't see it in the JPEG's from the camera, or in RAW images processed through a converter that 'knows' the camera (e.g. 'Silkypix' supplied with the camera or the latest version of Adobe RAW converter). Relaxing the criteria for lens distortions makes life a lot easier for the lens designers. It also means that RAW is no longer RAW but includes a lot of image manipulation!

DSLRs focus quickly because they use a different focusing mechanism.

Apparently, some manufacturers (Fuji, I think) are experimenting with phase detection sensors on the main image-forming chip, so we may see faster non-SLRs soon. The main limitation with phase detection is that it needs a large-aperture lens, which is why most SLRs won't autofocus with lenses smaller than f/5.6. In addition, the phase measurement is made from light rays passing through the edges of the lens (effectively, the rangefinder base-line) and the focus point may not be exactly the same when the lens is stopped down. Some manufacturers allow fine tweaking, to allow for this effect.

I find little meaningful about the 1" - it was the outside diameter of the glass tube that held a videcon sensor in a TV camera - nothing at all to do with dimensions of the sensor itself!

[Sylvie_h]

Thank you very much for all the answers. Some highly knowledgeable people on this website!
Mike, I will have a look at your blog and will contact you in case I have questions.
Thank you again.
Sylvie

[Gruditch]

Bridge cameras have another trick up their sleeve

I remain unconvinced that the Canon will be any sort of quality 1200mm. I don't see how anyone can hand hold at 1200mm, surely you need a tripod, which kind of negates point of a bridge. A few years back, all that DSLR owners wanted was better auto focus, but the manufacturers were locked in a pixel war. Lets hope bridge cameras don't get locked into a mm war, shifting more important things to the back burner.



Going back to Sylvie original point, could a bridge duplicate the shots taken with your 300mm plus TC. If I were challenged to produce good landscapes with a bridge, using a tripod (negating the point of a bridge) and filters, I think I could produce some work close to the quality I get with my DSLR. I know with a close up lens I could produce macro work to compete with my DSLR. Mind I couldn't live with the working distance. But the huge depth of field you get with a bridge, means you will never get nice blurred backgrounds on a subject taken at some distance, like you get with your 300mm.

Regards Gruditch

[Neil Freeman]

Hi,

I suppose it all depends on what results you are looking for

I have been using a FZ150 (model before the FZ200) for the past couple of years and am very happy with the results I get. I like to take my photos of butterflies with a variety of background styles, sometimes to reflect the character or habitat the butterfly is found in, sometimes with a nice blurry background. My working distance, without any close up lens fitted, is usually 3 or 4 feet away and is always hand held with varying degrees of zoom.
Examples of my photos are in my diary (link below), All are taken in jpeg and most shots are cropped and resized using PhotoScape(a free download) with very little tweaking, maybe a little lightening or darkening.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5424&start=1100

For me the camera produces photos of good enough quality for viewing on a 24" pc monitor or maybe printing off no bigger than A4.

Cheers,

Neil.

[Gruditch]

I suppose it all depends on what results you are looking for

The best



If Sylvie is using a Canon 300 F4, the minimum focusing distance is getting on for 5ft. I sometimes use a 100-400mm in combination with a extension tube, it produces macro like butterfly shots at 10ft. A bridge camera can't really be expected to give nice uncluttered backgrounds at these sort of working distances.


Regards Gruditch

[Neil Hulme]

Hi Sylvie/all,

I seldom comment in the technical photography threads, mainly because I don't have a clue about even the basics. Digital cameras are so clever these days that a combination of 60% fieldcraft, 20% 'artistic eye' and 15% steady hands means that I can get away without even knowing the 5% technical stuff that I really should know! I do know that image quality is a big issue when people start discussing the shortfalls of bridge cameras, but I always think it's difficult to really appreciate how significant the differences are (or not) when looking at the small images we're restricted to on a website such as this.

It does appear to me that in terms of producing high quality images, the bridge camera is largely a 'one trick pony'. Assuming good light conditions, cameras such as my old Lumix FZ38 can take more-than-adequate images of subjects such as butterflies and flowers, particularly if fitted with a close-up lens, allowing for out-of-focus backgrounds if there is reasonable clearance behind the subject. However, your working distance with this set-up is pretty tightly confined and I'm probably 40 - 50 cm from the insect most of the time, so fieldcraft does need to be up-to-scratch. If I get everything right I can print off hard copy at A3 and the image quality still looks excellent to my eye.

Only very recently have I uploaded an image to the internet which is any larger than 1MB, and I was pleasantly surprised at its appearance when I did so. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/125367544 ... /lightbox/

This gives a much better idea of what modern bridge cameras can produce, and the FZ200 is considerably more advanced than my model. An A3 print, once mounted and framed, gives you a very sizeable wall-hanging. However, if you want to produce larger exhibition panels etc. then I suspect the results from a bridge will very rapidly fall away beyond A3.

BWs, Neil

[False Apollo]

Hi All,
After reading about the Lumix FZ200 on the forums, especially Mike Oxon's comments, I went out and bought one which cost me around £200.00 with the cashback promotion. I can honestly say that it has given me a chance for photo opportunities I would never have got with my Nikon macro set up. I too carry the DSLR and the Lumix FZ200 with me and am more than happy with the results (although I would be the first to say I still have a lot to learn about the bridge camera). The main advantage to me is the fact that I now rarely miss a photo opportunity, whereas with the macro, the subject may fly off on close approach. I can also record birds with the same camera! I follow Neil Hume's photos with keen interest as he seems to have mastered how to get the best out of his bridge.
Of course if the chance to use the DSLR to it's full advantage arises I will use it, but this usually means lugging a monopod or tripod about.
Regarding the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000, it is available from Park Cameras for £674.00 instead of £749.00 at the Birdfair on 15-17th August at Rutland Water. I would love to see some results from this camera regarding insect photography.

Regards
Mike

[Gruditch]

The images produced using the close up lens are terrific, much better than those I've seen taken in just the macro mode. The working distance of 40-50cm would take some getting used to, but well worth it. I always think pixel peepers run down the image quality of the bridge cameras a bit too much. I know from using some of Neil's images, that they hold up very well printing at A3, and probably beyond.

I don't think the bridges are one trick ponies, your not going to see the paparazzi using them anytime soon at the Olympics, but they don't fall down in too many areas. In the right hands they do produce some great images. If I were to look through some of own images, there would undoubtedly be some images I could not have gotten using a bridge, but I have some very specialised gear, that weighs a ton, and costs .........lots.

Regards Gruditch

[Testudo Man]

This is a great thread.

I started out using bridge cameras 1st, before i jumped into the Nikon DSLR arena.

Ive had a Nikon D5100, D7000...and have just recently bought a mint secondhand D7100...I generally keep a camera for approx a year, then tend to upgrade...but i guess my next step would be a full frame Nikon?!...but that will not be for at least a year down the road, thats if i choose to travel that path??

I still have my bridge cameras though, both the Panasonic FZ28 an the FZ45. I did think about getting the FZ200 for some time(im still thinking about it) but i couldnt justify getting a D7100 and the FZ200 at the same time, so my old bridge cameras will have to do!

When i go out for a session, i will always take both types of camera. The bridge cameras work very well in good light, but when the light is not so good, that is when a DSLR will shine. I try to compare shot for shot with each camera(using the same subject) but its difficult at times,especially when the subjects are flighty butterflies! A bridge camera is easy to handle, the light weight means that you can carry one around all day long. A DSLR(with a nice solid heavy lens attached) is more of a chore to carry around for hours on end! For the most part, I carry both types of camera, one in each hand, so that way, Im set up for most things/subjects that i choose to photograph. But i have to say, i do favour using the DSLR 1st.

Before i bought my D7100, i did have a quick look at that new FZ1000...It looks to be an impressive beast of a bridge camera too, but at that price! i will wait for the price to come down some. More importantly though, i will wait for some 'real reviews', by 'real people' first...before i trade my Nikon DSLR camera/lenses, for a high end Bridge Camera.........................Although, if a bridge camera can match the IQ of a DSLR(in both good and poor light) then youd have to consider "jumping ship".

[Testudo Man]

I have several images here, of the same male Chalk hill Blue.
But this comparison has a few flaws, the light was forever changing, as in different levels of sunshine/cloud. The Panasonic FZ28 shot has been cropped too. I had to do this because of vignetting caused by also using a Raynox 250 macro lens for just this shot. The nikon D7100 shots were not enhanced by the use of the Raynox macro lens.
But even with these flaws, you can still get an idea of the comparison between bridge camera versus DSLR.(in this instance).

So to recap then, FZ28 shot is cropped, and enhanced by the raynox lens attached to camera. The nikon D7100 shots are not cropped, and the lens used was my AF Micro/macro 105mm 2.8D lens.
Hand held, no flash, Jpeg, Auto focus...and with minimal editing, such as slight adjustments in levels/contrast/light/darkness. Although i do utilize the render tool, by throwing a small percentage of light at the subject.

Several photos, cheers Paul.

1st up, the cropped FZ28 photo.

Next up, the D7100 photo(uncropped).

Next up is something a little different! The D7100 has a built in crop factor of 1.3, so instead of shooting at approx 24 megapixels, you can drop it down/reduce the megapixels to approx 15 megapixels. This next shot is at the reduced crop factor of 1.3, which equates to approx 15 megapixels.

Conclusion for this comparison - the old FZ28 bridge camera performs well in this test, but it had an unfair advantage, because of the use of the raynox 250 macro lens(and the image being cropped too). Im pretty sure that if i attached the raynox lens to my d7100(on top of the 105mm macro lens) then the DSLR images would have made a vast improvement.

[Hugh Middleton]

Like many others I am finding this a fascinating thread. As a lifelong SLR user I am amazed at how advanced bridge cameras have become.
On another thread I said my canon 100 macro had broken and was going to be expensive to fix. I am in the position of considering if to buy a new one as I have enjoyed using it and it is very sharp.
However since following this thread the FZ200 seems to be a possibility - not least as the cost would be less than the new macro.
My question is: how good is it at macro? For those of you who use this and a DSLR what are the pros and cons and would you suggest the lumix or a new macro lens?

Many thanks

Hugh

[MikeOxon]

For those of you who use this and a DSLR what are the pros and cons and would you suggest the lumix or a new macro lens?

As I wrote earlier in this thread, you can read about my experiences with both DSLR and Lumix in my PD at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7459&start=40 If you continue reading through my diary, you'll see lots of examples of what these cameras can do and, also, my experiences with close-up lenses.

At present, I use the DSLR + macro lens, when my subjects allow a close approach, and the Lumix for general shots. If your main interest is high-quality macro shots, then I suggest a new macro lens for your DSLR.

Mike

[celery]

Sylvie asked for some examples of shots taken with the Fz200. So here goes.

She stated she takes pictures of dragonflies and lizards too so those are included as well as the butterflies and bugs. All images have minimal correction - a little cropping and contrast adjustment in PhotoShop Elements 11 but never any sharpening. Exif data can be seen by using the button to click through to the images on my Flickr page. Some shots use the close-up lens attachment others simply use the macro setting on the basic camera.

I've been using this camera for about 18 months - here are a few thoughts about its general performance. It's light and easy to carry you won't have to sit all day under the same bush waiting for a critter to appear. You won't need to carry an unwieldy tripod - all my shots are handheld. Great for simple macro shots - providing the light is good - under grey skies it's much harder to tease out an acceptable shot. When using the close-up lens attachment is has a very shallow depth of field - you'll likely get many more misses than hits. It isn't very good at landscape shots, but it has a nice 'sunset' setting. The panorama setting is also good fun.

I don't think you're ever going to take the kind of shots that get included in the UKB calendar with this camera - but it's cheap, robust, easy-to-carry and more than satisfactory for occasional amateur naturalists like myself.

Large Skipper (ochlodes sylvanus)

Hanno Blue (hemiargus hanno)

Silver-banded Hairstreak (chlorostrymon simaethis)

Common Blue (polyommatus icarus)

[Neil Hulme]

Hi celery/all,

"I don't think you're ever going to take the kind of shots that get included in the UKB calendar with this camera"

It's probably worth mentioning that images taken with the older models in this range have indeed appeared in the UKB calendar .... plus in various books and high quality magazines, including front covers. Here's another link to a site where the image quality produced by the Lumix range (in this case FZ38) can be better assessed due to the allowance of a larger file size https://www.flickr.com/photos/125367544 ... /lightbox/

BWs, Neil