Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
better than the other for photo quality?

C

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:39:48 GMT, Cordovero <cordoveroxxxremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> wrote:
> I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
> larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
> it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
> better than the other for photo quality?

The FZ20 has an extending lens; the upcoming FZ30 has a fixed lens.

I believe the diameter of the FZ20 lens itself is slightly larger than
that of the Canon; you need a larger diameter lens to get the wider
aperture at the long end of the zoom. Additionally, the FZ20 has a focus
ring mounted on the outside of the lens housing, which adds additional
bulk to the whole assembly.

-dms

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

In article <UfoPe.1626$Wd7.768@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Cordovero" <cordoveroxxxremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> wrote:

> I was looking at both yesterday, and it seemed to me that the Z20 has a much
> larger lens. Is that just an optical illusion (no pun intended)? Or does
> it have to do with the Z20's being stationary and the S2 extends, and is one
> better than the other for photo quality?

Do a side-by-side comparison over at DPreview, then check out their
sample photos. There probably isn't a lot in it. The decision may come
down to do you prefer say, flip out viewer or hot shoe flash, NiMH AA
cells or LiIon battery.

--

Thingumy Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Cordovero" <cordoveroxxxremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> writes:

> Thanks, Bob. I'm a little bitter about the review sites (dpreview, steve's,
> et. al.) -- I think they mix in far too much information of relatively
> useless info with tiny nuggets of vital info hidden, and then extreme
> vagueness on the most important issues ("could be better at low light
> focusing" or "some noise above ISO 200" ) which, in my opinion, should
> warrant some of the effort at analysis that went in to describing every
> single menu option..

I disagree. I think they generally do good job, but Imaging Resource
is my favorite. For example, here's the summary of their FZ20
review:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ20/FZ20A13.HTM

These sites may not be perfect, but they're free, and thoroughly
testing/reviewing a camera is a *lot* of work.

If you think they're doing such a poor job, feel free to show them how
it should be done.

-Dave

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <J6GPe.2415$z2.2263@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Cordovero" <cordoveroxxxremovexxx@yahooxxx.com> wrote:

> I think the most
> useful feature are comparison photos, but very often they are not really
> comparable, because the pictures are taken on different days from different
> spots (for the outside photos -- is it that hard to find a spot on the
> ground that you always use for the tripod?) and there are even variables in
> the inside shots.

Agreed. I worked in the Consumer Products Evaluation industry and some
of the reviews make me cringe. For comparisons you MUST have consistent
conditions. They might get away with outside shots in California or
Nevada, with pretty regular weather, but even that might require waiting
a day or three for cloud cover, sun angle, etc to return to their
designated baseline. It probably wouldn't be worth it for anyone running
a web site.

Even interiors could be tricky to do consistently, unless they were
always shot at night with wholly artificial lighting. About the only
thing they can really get consistently are the still-life arrays. I
would like to see a page of fine-print text included amount the Mickey
Mice.

--

Thingumy Bob