That's interesting. Ah, maybe i should have been using the indoor scene setting rather than (LAzy) auto...
Just looking at a the Nikkon D40 guys. Comparing it to a Panasonic FZ28 it's not looking that good, they're about same price new, but the Nikkon is lacking in some areas, from my non-experienced eyes. Nikkon 6 M pixel, FZ28 10 M pixel Nikkon sensor 2.5" , FZ28 sensor 2.7" Nikkon 3x zoom , FZ28 18x zoom FZ28 does good Q videos too, has RAW output and is smaller. What am i missing?
I looked at those for the Mrs too. (after she left the old compact out in the rain ) They were quiet dear IIRC, you must be gutted.
Paid about 160 for it, sony cybershot for 120 is twice as good!!! so yeah a bit. Oddly the video function on it is ok. And it is great for taking on nights out etc and not having to worry about it as it is pretty indestructable..... underwater pics are cool too. She never bloody uses it anyway, so no biggy - got the desired effect xmas day
Interchangeable lenses I think, and perhaps better image processing/speed in the Nikon. Battery life is often (but not always) higher on DSLRs too. The Lumix cameras are pretty awesome though, and if it's your first 'meaty' camera then I think the absolutely most important thing is that it feels compact enough for you to actually bother taking it outdoors. The number of friends and relatives seduced by DSLRs is quite high, but when it comes to the crunch most of them will leave it at home half the time. The sign of a good 'enthusiast' camera is one that you would be happy to set down on the table at a party, and occasionally snap away. I take pics for a living, but you'll never find me lugging my 5D to a friend's house for dinner...
Is the image processed with the RAW output? I don't think i need the Nikkons extra speed. By "better image processing/speed in the Nikon.", do you mean the Nikkon will give better pictures in full-auto mode?
Totally agree! That's why my camcorder never comes out, and hence why the video functionality in a camera is (for me) worthwhile. I think it's now a toss up between the Lumix fz28 and tz5. The fz28 is bigger, better, better battery, zoom, etc. But i can't help thinking the 9x zoom of the tz5 is enough, although no viewfinder a smaller battery (1/2 the volts), so corresondinly lower flash performance are holding me back.
Possibly - Nikon have a fabulous reputation for colour accuracy, and noise reduction. The image isn't Processed in RAW mode, as the name implies, but often you will find yourself shooting JPEGs only, or JPEGs alongside RAW and most DSLRs are much more capable when it comes to a hard day's work. For occasional use, you won't notice any lack of speed from a Lumix. The glass is a very important part of image quality, and silly zoom ranges aside (18x is frankly not required by 90% of us) you should look for the camera that gives you a good wide setting (28mm or wider preferably) for indoor/party/landscape stuff, and has a reasonably fast aperture - my old Lumix LX-1 starts at 28mm / f2.8, which is why I was happy to pay 450 for an 8.4MP metal-bodied pocket camera when it came out about 4 years ago. It's awesome, I still have it and the original battery still lasts a long time.
Also - back on my unfavourite subject. Shutter lag! With an SLR, image taking is practically instantaneous, but with compacts there is a delay between pressing the button and the shutter opening. So if you don't mind an empty bit of track (because the car has passed whilst you were waiting the shutter to open) or dog/cat/bird's bottom (when they've decided to leave whilst your shutter was thinking about opening), then compact is definitely the way to go! I know more recent compacts aren't as bad as the older ones, but it still happens. I couldn't live with that and although I carry my Canon Ixus with me all the time (and often have to use it for my 365 project) it drives me nuts!
Mine has that bad, but if you push the button 1/2 first (for it to focus) it's virtually instantaneous. I was assuming........ the newer better, compact would be the same, if not better. Obviously that isn't something you see in the specs, a good point. I guess if nobody's complaining about it the rewiews, then it's not a big problem.
that drives me mad and is a good point stella, at least with an SLR it is deliberate when it happens!!!!
^Yup, good point. I had hoped many 'bridge' cameras like the FZ28 would be more akin to firing a DSLR, but I suppose economies must be made somewhere. Now, where's my Contax RTS-III...?
I bought a Nikon d40 last week for 220, my advice if you are looking at those two would be to do the same. 1. the nikon is not a lot bigger, it's deceivingly small! 2. Megapixels do not matter, unless you are printing above A3 then 6 'megapixels' is enough 3. It's a DSLR! they just take better quality pictures (mainly due to the far larger sensor 4. If you get more interested you can buy more lenses, flash etc but the stock camera will take amazing pictures in almost any circumstance. 5. I will remember lots more reasons when I am less tired. The D40 is the better option of those two.
Even with the kit lens the D40 will blow any compact / bridge camera out of the water in terms of image quality. Superzoom compacts are a compromise. For the conveinience of a large focal length range you pay the price of poor low light performance and restricted image quality through compromises in lens design and sensor size. With DSLRs the inconveinience of larger kit and carrying/changing lenses is rewarded with far superior image quality. Just because the FZ28 is newer doesn't mean it's better; it's a completely different animal with a tiny sensor and a compromise filled lens. It's a bit like comparing a brand new lawnmower engine to a 10yr old 16v car engine. Basically if you're not concerned about image quality, want something that offers a good zoom range with the minimum of hassle and that will only be used in good light; get the FZ28. If you want decent image quality, good low light performance, versitility, expandability and the ability to experiment and learn, get the D40.
Whilst I agree with the principles of DSLR over Compact (I have a Canon 5D, a Hasselblad, a Lumix LX-1 and rent the 1DS MkIII rather a lot), what you say is not strictly true, and some of the 'kit' lenses out there are truly woeful. The Canon G10, for example, is capable of fooling many a picture-editor and tbh in the right hands you would be amazed how great a cutting-edge compact camera like that can be. Visit http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ once in a while It really is a case of 'tools for the right job', and a DSLR remains overkill or simply too bulky for many folk.
I'm having trouble comparing sensors, when comparing the quoted 23.7mm x 15.6mm of the Nikon with the 1/2.33"of the FZ28 Does this mean the FZ 28 has 0.43" square sensor? and the the Nikon D40 has a 0.57" square sensor?
I think that's what the FiL has, or the 4D. Not sure on the lens tho.......Will ask. EDIT: Won't bother asking, Pro stuff Wrong ballpark
I am interested in image quality! And am trying to get away from the poor low-light performance of my digital compact. But if it's not automatically good in fully-auto mode, i haven't got a hope-in-hells chance.
mate I learnt from scratch in probably a day how to take better pics with my SLR than I ever have with a compact. This was just playing with it and reading stuff on the tinterweb. I haven't even learnt 5% of what a SLR can do, but with auto and scene settings like a compact it will take great pictures out of the box. I totally see where your coming from, and there is definately a good case for the other camera's you have mentioned - just don't not get an SLR because you don't think you will be able to take good pics because you will
