FZ18 vs. FZ8? If one is buying new, would it make more sense to start with the FZ8? Which shoots RAW. In a year, the bigger zooms might have larger sensors. And do other accessories like memory cards and batteries cost more for the FZ18 or is the extra $80 all the extra you'll spend? Trying to decide which way to go. I'm Photoshop skilled. Will never be printing large format. But do like close-ups. Is the FZ18 much better macro? Thanks FZ18 vs. FZ8? If one is buying new, would it make more sense to start with the FZ8? Which shoots RAW. In a year, the bigger zooms might have larger sensors. And do other accessories like memory... » Read More FZ18 vs. FZ8? If one is buying new, would it make more sense to start with the FZ8? Which shoots RAW. In a year, the bigger zooms might have larger sensors. And do other accessories like memory cards and batteries cost more for the FZ18 or is the extra $80 all the extra you'll spend? Trying to decide which way to go. I'm Photoshop skilled. Will never be printing large format. But do like close-ups. Is the FZ18 much better macro? Thanks « Show Less
1196602
Lol you think the FZ18 is featureless... It is an awesome camera. & what exactly is your point2. The cameras 18X zoom is the optical variety & not the digital type so why would 18X spoil image quality. As long as your hand is steady enough it makes no diff to IQ; Even if not steady the improved image stabilization will be handy...
1196603
Here's the deal:F8-older model==> NON wide lens, better quality photos, faster sensor resulting SLIGHTLY better pictures in low lightF18-newer model==> Wide lens, good pictures but slightly less sharper than F8 due to wider lens and more crammed pixels onto the same sensor.And the reason wht the FZ8 get better reviews than the F18 for the points mentioned above.SS
1196604
I won't go as far as to say FZ18 is featureless but I will say that the older one hands down takes better photos. (I have new one/brother has old one). Image quality IS not as good, even with the steadiest of hands. I'd recommend going with older one until sensor is improved in new model.
1196605
Hi, recently bought the FZ18K.At first look i loved it. Still goin over all the modes and features the cam provides.As far as memory card and batteries are concerned they use the same as FZ8I would say go for the FZ18K/S
1196606
Any photos developed yet? My one concern is low light photographs...Just wondering about quality and ease of use. How easy are the automatic features to use?
222440
my Kodak Z812S...and even my old Kodak DX7630 take better pictures than the Fuji S1800. My first digital was a Fuji with 3.2 mp and it was a honey! Since then, two more Kodaks (as mentioned previously) one Sony (which is purse-sized and the pix are okay...it's just so I always have a camera on me) and the Fuji S1800. I have about 120 out of 200 or so that are great pictures from Hawaii; and maybe 80 - 100 more from various events and locations. My Eastern Europe shots were not what I hoped for, but editing helped a lot. I'm online now to order the Z981 and will probably post my opinion of the results. With all that said...I'd suggest you go with the Kodak.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
1848269
To ED F,New 50d owner thanks you for advice on 50D over older 5D. After reading Ken Rockwell's info on the advantage of a full frame sensor, sensor size posed my only regret. If I continue to expand my system I can add the 5D Mark II. I know from the past that it is nice to have two bodies. In the 80's I had (still have) the New F1 w/speedfinder for telephoto pics and what I called my "Focus and Shoot" AE1 Program for everything else. What a combo! I'm new to digital and I have a lot to learn and my 50D should work out nicely.Bob
568654
Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or... » Read More Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). « Show Less
1972150
I own both. But if you only want one, well, a. if you value light-weight, smaller size, easier to lug around, then get the 18-200 b. if you really really want the extra zoom, and don't mind the extra mass, get the 18-300 I wanted both worlds...but I will tell you, my hand did get tired more quickly with the 18-300 mounted...and after I saw the difference in the full zoom pics, I thought to myself : "Is that all the extra I get?"....which I did want more zoom, and I am happy, but thought it would be much bigger than actual results... Holding/shooting with one hand, the 200 felt like a pleasure...the 300 felt hefty. I think hobby-ists can do without the extra zoom...try and find samples of shots at 200mm and 300mm zooms, and decide if it makes a difference to you...
1011445
I shoot weddings and started out with the original 100 macro, I then upgraded to the 100 IS macro (which is amazing) but that lens got dropped and I had to ship it out to have it repaired just before an event so I ordered the 50mm just as a place holder till I got the 100 back. I was able to make some decent images with it and it will certainly get you closer to your subjects than a non macro lens however it doesn't even come close to either of the 100 macro lenses. So short answer: if you have the money go for the 100 2.8 IS it's absolutely worth it, but if money is tight and you're simply looking to add another trick to the back then the 50 will get you by for the moment, what you will be missing is sharpness/clarity but you'll still be able to get in close and get "macro" images.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
1259399
Go with the 20. I owned both, and kept the 20. It takes super photos, and is much less shake-sensitive with max telephoto. The 30 advertises more MP, but the sensor's the same size, and crowding does NOT improve resolution. That's why full frame sensor unitrs cost $3K+.
399093
First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd buy one that Panasonic makes for the FZ200. I have no experience with any of them. Sorry... First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd... » Read More First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd buy one that Panasonic makes for the FZ200. I have no experience with any of them. Sorry... « Show Less
1635760
It seems illogical I know, but I have seen this in camera pricing here many times before: when a new model comes out, the older model often INCREASES in price even if the new model is improved. My guess is that there's some policy of increasing price when existing stock run low, which will naturally occur when an old model is discontinued. Doesn't make a lot of sense in a case like this but I can't think of any other reason for it. As for which you should buy, the newer S8200 has a wider zoom ratio than the S8100 (25-300mm equiv. instead of 30-300mm), which may or may not be good news. The wider angle at the short end is certainly useful, but stretching the zoom ratio of a particular lens design sometimes results in some deterioration of performance. Not having the S8200 I don't know if that's true in this case. I have the S8100 and it is super sharp over the entire zoom range -- I think a bit sharper than my S9100, which has a 25-450mm (equiv.) lens. Also, the S8200 has a 16-megapixel sensor as opposed to the 12-megapixel sensor of the S8100 and S9100. That will be seen as an "improvement" by people who attach great importance to megapixel count; personally I do not see it that way and am really annoyed by this silly megapixel race, which I thought was over with. (Nikon and Canon have both LOWERED the megapixel count of some of their high-end compact cameras, with resulting improvement in picture quality.) I dislike the trend to pixel cramming in sensors really too small to make proper use of such megapixel count. In DSLRs it's different -- their much larger sensors can really use all those pixels -- but these tiny-sensor cameras cannot. It's mostly if not entirely marketing -- camera makers know most consumers will think the more megapixels the better the sharpness, so this supposed "improvement" will sell more cameras. So personally I prefer the older S8100, but again, that is not based on any personal experience with the newer model.
1958590
I have both. For video, I recommend starting with the 18-135 STM. It provides a much greater zoom range. The difference between shooting at 18mm vs 24mm is bigger than it may sound. You can add other lenses later.
724480
I do not know how it compares to the dmc zs8. In my research I found that the zs25 was a newer version of the zs20. A few people seemed to prefer the zs20, however, I am extremely happy with my zs25. It has 20X optical zoom and is small enough to put in a pouch to carry on my belt anytime. These were my major criteria, though I preferred also to have a viewfinder. The only camera with a viewfinder that would go in a small belt pouch was a a Fuji camera, but its zoom was only 4X, so I sacrificed having the viewfinder in order to get a belt pouch size camera with the 20X zoom. My zs25 if fantastic. It comes with a brief user manual, so if you want a complete user manual you would have to print it from your computer, and it 150 pages long though I only printed about 100 pages. Lastly, I decided that the belt pouch recommended by Amazon to go with the camera seemed a bit tight on the dimensions, so I bought my pouch from B&H Photo on line (free shipping) the pouch that they recommended for that same camera. It had about 1/4 extra inch on the width dimension that works just fine, enabling the camera to slip out of the pouch easily when I pull on it. Hope that helps. The zs25 is a great camera. The 20X zoom means a lot to me for a small carry anywhere camera. I think that series by Panansonic may be the only ones available with these two features (hi zoom and belt pouch size) combined, at a great price.
1149039
I had the S5200 until it was stolen. I replaced it with an S700 and even though it was cheaper, it had more features, I like it so much I ordered the S8000Fd, I love what that zoom can do, so much power and can do it hand held. Great macro shooting with both cameras too.
1198691
As someone who spent months in research (and finally decided on the NIKON) allow me to offer my advice: The NIKON P80 has a new sensor with 10.1MP (size 1/2.33" and a pixel density of 36MP/cm2). On its plus side, the small size (although it turns long when zoomed all in), the comprehensive menu and the overall built. On the minus side, the NIKON, although perfectly capable, will not take the best photo if left on Auto. The PANASONIC FZ18 has an older 8.1MP sensor (size 1/2.5" and a pixel density of 32MP/cm2). On its plus size, the impeccable LEICA lens system (and quite short even at maximum zoom), the handy joystick, the great image quality and the mechanical stabilization (the only one of these three that comes with it). On the minus side, the FZ18 is a bit larger that the P80 - and is bound to be replaced by Christmas. The FUJI S8100FD was never a contender for me. With a 10MP sensor (size 1/2.3" and a pixel density of 35MP/cm2) it is not too shabby. Yet, its overall design was not to my liking at all (of course that is a personal preference). The best advice a professional photographer gave me was this: choose the best lens and then the best sensor. Then make sure it is a camera for your level. The PANASONIC has the best lens whereas the NIKON has the best sensor (these cameras are still Point&Shoot, nowhere near the sensor sizes of a DSLR). Bottom line: if new to digital photography or do not care to be concerned with all the tweaking, go with the PANASONIC - it has a much better intelligent Auto (iA) function. If more experienced or would like to be more involved in taking a photo, go with the NIKON. Happy shooting!
1901594
The FZ200 has a 2.8 lens for the full range of the zoom, making it better for lower light photography. The 2.8 lens in more expensive to make. The FZ70 has a variable aperture lens. Both cameras are amazing!
494124
Funny, I was just looking at the two cameras myself and ended up purchasing the SD880IS.The SD880IS is slimmer (0.9 vs. 1.1) and has a bigger LCD screen (3.0 vs. 2.5). Granted, the SD880IS gives up a little in terms of optical zoom (4.0 vs 5.0) but that's the price you pay for having a slim compact camera. I wanted something above the run of the mill 3x optical zoom cameras out there and the 4x SD880IS fits the bill, even if I had to pay $50 extra over the price of the SD890IS. And FYI, the SD880IS is a newer camera, hence the "better" DIGIC 4 Image Processor over the SD890IS's DIGIC III Image Processor. Funny, I was just looking at the two cameras myself and ended up purchasing the SD880IS.The SD880IS is slimmer (0.9 vs. 1.1) and has a bigger LCD screen (3.0 vs. 2.5). Granted, the SD880IS gives up a little in terms of optical zoom (4.0 vs 5.0) but that's the price you pay for having a slim compact camera. I wanted something above the run of the mill 3x optical zoom cameras out there and the 4x SD880IS fits the bill, even if I had to pay $50 extra over the price of the SD890IS. And FYI, the SD880IS is a newer camera, hence the "better" DIGIC 4 Image... » Read More Funny, I was just looking at the two cameras myself and ended up purchasing the SD880IS.The SD880IS is slimmer (0.9 vs. 1.1) and has a bigger LCD screen (3.0 vs. 2.5). Granted, the SD880IS gives up a little in terms of optical zoom (4.0 vs 5.0) but that's the price you pay for having a slim compact camera. I wanted something above the run of the mill 3x optical zoom cameras out there and the 4x SD880IS fits the bill, even if I had to pay $50 extra over the price of the SD890IS. And FYI, the SD880IS is a newer camera, hence the "better" DIGIC 4 Image Processor over the SD890IS's DIGIC III Image Processor. « Show Less