Do you own a Canon SX100IS or S5IS camera?

[raynerj1]

Paul,

A low end video camera has poor color rendition, low dynamic range, a poor lense. I could go on and on. The point I was tryting to make. is if you are used to TV or better video then you would not be happy with a cheap camera.

For instance... Remember TV before Cable/satelite? Would you want to go back to that poor reception again after watching cable? You just wouldn't be satisfied. The same is true with video. Except it is even easier to get green people.

[pauland]

John, I have a Sony DSP P10. The video on it looks a bit like a keystone cops film - the frame rate is slow. It's poor quality, but I love the videos taken with it. Would I like better quality? sure, but it doesn't mean I'm unhappy with it. It's done it's job, I'm no spielberg and the camera is never going to impress for modern video performance.

TV before satellite and cable? Absolutely. I'm buying the DVDs right now. Sometimes the quality is superb, sometimes awful. I still enjoy them, either way.

If I was looking for the best clarity and technical features from my movie camera because picture quality is vital, I'd be right with you. Unfortunately I'm happy to compromise on many things to fit my (poor) budget and I can accept inferior performance and enjoy it.

I think we can accept we've different viewpoints that are bot valid. Your quite right that most people (correctly) want the best quality they can get for their money. It doesn't mean that the rest of us with less capable equipment won't enjoy what we have, or may buy that isn't up there with the absolute best.

Paul

[steve.ledger]

Look I'm perfectly happy with the movie results of the LUMIX LZ10, after all it's why I chose the model.

I don't know of course whether John has viewed my samples or not, I know Paul has, but I think anyone would agree that for a pocket p'n's cam the results are perfectly acceptable and actually better than some dedicated DV cams I've seen in a similar price range.

My disappointment was the audio bitrate and the difficulty of easy editing when the .mov container is used.

I didn't buy the cam for stills, though I hoped for better than it actually achieves. Maybe I'm too fussy and find problems too easily - perhaps that's just an affect of being a PC tech who's day generally consists of looking for problems.

Again, this thread wasn't about comparing pocket cams with DV cams as much as it wasn't about comparing pocket cams with dSLR's. I actually said in post#1 that I didn't want a digital video camera.

I'd be interested in more feedback from pocket cam owners, how they rate their choice and even even samples.
Horses for courses

[ss-kalm]

Out of interest and curiosity I've just taken conditional comparison shots using the old PENTAX Optio S5n and the new PANASONIX LUMIX DMC-LZ10........

I've been doing a little research recently as I am looking to purchase a new camera.

Surprisingly ... The 1/2.5" CCD is smaller than the 1/2.33" (See http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_sizes_01.htm). So the smaller MP camera actually had a smaller sensor too. Which blows a hole in your theory.

The difference in the photographs where you say it "makes objects seem further away" is probably due to the actual focal length of the lens. The Lumix lens seems to have a smaller focal length as much more of the tree on the right is in the frame.

I think the results say enough.

Maybe as you have seen the original pictures, it may be obvious. But to my tired old eyes. Both of those jpg's look identical in quality - or at least near enough that it probably doesn't matter.

[steve.ledger]

I've been doing a little research recently as I am looking to purchase a new camera.

Surprisingly ... The 1/2.5" CCD is smaller than the 1/2.33" (See http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_sizes_01.htm). So the smaller MP camera actually had a smaller sensor too. Which blows a hole in your theory.

Wasn't a theory Keith - just an observation from results.
Bear in mind though the actual mm size is as you say, the greater pixel density in cramming 10.7 million sensors on a CCD which is just 0.38mm larger than one with 5.3 million sensors makes the former smaller by this measure. It will always result in more noise to deal with which the camera compensates for by more agressive noise reduction. This results in loss of detail, smear and artifacts.
The images are larger it's true, but the quality is much less.

The Panasonic has horrific JPEG artifacts when viewed at the resolution 'off the camera'. Even when set at best quality. The 5mp cam isn't so aggressive and while some noise is present at higher ISOs and in dark areas, the JPEG compression is less and shows none of the artifacts that the 10mp Panasonic does.

My brother bought the higher grade T5Z model, the results unfortunately are the same. So no gain with a bigger cam, bigger lens and higher price tag there.

Maybe as you have seen the original pictures, it may be obvious. But to my tired old eyes. Both of those jpg's look identical in quality - or at least near enough that it probably doesn't matter.

Is it not clearer to you, even at the posted sizes, the the 5mp image has retained more detail and is actually sharper? I'm long sighted and wear glasses and can easily spot the difference.

Bottom line is a bought the cam for it's compact size, because it uses easily obtainable AA batteries, the seperate SD card access (not via the battery compartment) and the movie mode, which is pretty good and of course the price. The Canon SX100IS or S5IS didn't do the 16:9 ratio wide screen which the Panasonic does (848x480 @ 30fps). The Canons are much bulkier and more expensive. The Canon SX100IS or S5IS movie mode is good (I have samples from the S5 IS which are really nice), but I think the Panasonic movie mode is just as good and trumps it with the wide screen capability. No-one in my family have 4:3 ratio TV's or PC monitors any longer, so sharing photos and movie clips with them is best done at modern wide-screen ratios.

Oh one other thing, the DMC-LZ10 lens almost eliminates Chromatic Abberations completely (unlike the the DMC-T5Z ). Very happy with that side of things.

After a few weeks with it, I'm over the disappointments and the camera will do nicely for the purposes I bought it.

Good luck with your up coming purchase Keith.