My impression is that older model Canons with a more modest zoom were much
superior in clarity. The new supertelephoto versions (I use one) let you get
identifiable photos at a great distance, but at the expense of crispness at ALL
distances. Great for documenting rarities but poor for anything in the way of
crisp quality.
Alan Contreras
Eugene, Oregon
acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Hendrik Herlyn <hhactitis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mary and everyone,
I can only echo Mark's sentiments. I started out with a couple of Canon
PowerShot bridge cameras. In 2008, I got a used Canon S2 IS, and I was very
happy with it. With good light, it took excellent, sharp pictures. Sadly, it
didn't like the endless blowing sand on Oregon's beaches (I dragged it along
most days while doing Snowy Plover surveys back in 2009), and the zoom
mechanism got irreparably clogged up. I replaced it with a Canon PowerShot
SX10, which was ok (although I felt that many pictures came out a bit more
blurry than with my first camera).
At some point, the new Canon developed a few problems, and since I had read
very good reviews about the Panasonic Lumix (and seen some very nice photos
from people who used it), I went ahead and splurged on a Lumix FZ200. I've
been VERY happy with it (although it is still hard to get a really
super-crisp shot). But I guess that's the trade-off between a bridge camera
with a good zoom and an SLR, which requires a huge and expensive lens.
I can certainly recommend the Panasonic Lumix as a very decent camera for
bird photography. With good light and a little patience, you can actually get
publication-quality shots, at a very reasonable price.
Hendrik
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Mark Nikas <elepaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mary,
I have used the Panasonic Lumix line of super zoom bridge cameras for
several years and have been very happy with them. There is a link at the
end to my Flickr album of bird photos that show examples. Other albums
there for bugs and dragonflies show the macro capabilities which I have also
been happy with.
I dropped and broke my trusty FZ47 model last summer in Texas and have been
trying to find a suitable replacement. I started out with a Canon PowerShot
SX60. It has an impressive 65x optical zoom and is a favorite of many
birders. It did a decent job for me but I never could get a really super
crisp picture out of it. To be fair I rarely get such photos from my Lumix
models either. I'm just a point and shoot photographer. I snap away a lot
and every once in awhile I get a nice photo. I never use a tripod and even
though these cameras all have image stabilization that can only do so much
on hand held high magnification photos. The Lumix did take some really
awesome pictures on occasion though so those photos of lesser quality were
because of operator error. The camera itself is capable of quality photos.
The Buff-breasted Sandpiper photo in my Flickr bird album even made it onto
the cover of Oregon Birds a few years ago. The Canon does get good reviews
and is well liked by others so it merits your consideration.
So, I sold the Canon and splurged on the Panasonic flagship bridge camera,
the Lumix FZ1000. This camera is double the price ($650) of many
competitors. It has a 20 mega pixel 1"-type CMOS sensor that is much
larger than other bridge cameras and should be capable of better resolution
photos than others. Another big plus for many is that it takes 4K HD video.
The zoom is only 16x but I figured the higher resolution photos would allow
closer cropping when needed to approximate the 24x of my old FZ47. I used
this camera for 3 months and could never get max zoom photos that weren't a
touch "soft". It did very well with lesser zoom and macro photos but the
max zoom gets used a lot for bird photos and I just wasn't thrilled with
what it could do with those. This camera gets rave reviews and I can't help
but wonder if I just got a bit of a lemon. Look around on Flickr or other
sites and see if you like the photos others have taken with this model. For
the money it cost I felt the camera should perform noticeably better than
any other Lumix model and for me it didn't so I sold it as well.
Which brings me to my latest camera - the Lumix FZ200. This model has been
around for going on 3 years which is why it wasn't at the top of my
contender list. It should have been. It has a 12.1MP 1/2.3"-type CMOS
sensor and 24X zoom. Not overly impressive numbers compared to the latest
crop of super zoom bridge cameras but it has taken pictures as good or
better than any of the FZ47 photos in my Flickr album (I haven't had time to
put any of this camera's pictures up there). Like all the Lumix line this
camera has a quality Leica glass lens. It also has a constant f2.8 aperture
through the whole range of zoom which is very nice in low light. So so
performance in low light has been common with all the other bridge cameras I
used. The price is right as well. Since this is an older model it can be
had for less than $250. Despite its age I think it deserves to be in the
short list of contenders. Look around on line and you'll find plenty of
users and active groups still singing the praises of this camera.
3 years ago when I bought the FZ47 the FZ200 was double its current price
and quite a bit more than the FZ47 so I went with the economical model.
Except for the constant f2.8 of the FZ200 the cameras are very similar.
Even the bodies seem the same. The FZ47 is old news and can be found used
for around $100 now. I am considering picking one up as a spare glove box
camera. It is very capable.
So, that's my experience. I like Lumixes. They were one of the first super
zooms of decent quality. They have a proven track record. I've been happy
and stuck with them. All the major camera manufacturers make super zooms
now and most get decent reviews. I have little experience with those but
when you're shopping it would be good to compare what you're looking at with
the Panasonic Lumix line. If you're like me and don't use a tripod but just
pull out a camera when opportunities arise I wouldn't put a whole lot of
weight on the 50x + mega zooms as a deciding factor. I don't think image
stabilization exists that can get you a crisp hand held photo at at 65x. If
you're just looking to document a distant bird they will suit your needs
well though.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77323634@N00/albums/72157626006501292
Mark Nikas
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mary Garrard <springazure1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi everyone, I’m going to upgrade my camera (currently a decent
point-and-shoot) to better photograph birds on the trip to Australia later
this year. Any recommendations?
Thanks!
Mary GarrardPOST: Send your post to obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
JOIN OR QUIT: //www.freelists.org/list/obol
OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol
Contact moderator: obol-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
__________________________
Hendrik G. Herlyn
Corvallis, OR
"Nature is not a place to visit. It is home."
-- Gary Snyder
