Canon EOS 500D vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

ok all im looking to buy a new camera fro September as i go away to Wales for my first ever holiday i want to gte some amazing ut of this world pictures of my holiday and i dont think i can justify buying a dslr unless the premium compact ive looking into isnt that good for picture quality as dslr camera

the two i like are

Canon EOS 500D
http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/eos_500d/index.aspx
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500D/

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 / 38
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_...per+Zoom/DMC-FZ38/Overview/2718819/index.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072704panafz38.asp


now ive done LOT of research into the Lumix DMC-FZ35 and i know its the best compact camera around and i love the price and it would seem to suit me just right but i dont want to be ashamed by the quality of the pictures so i was wondering if their were some sample images of the same from both these camera so i could compare them ??

 

ive think ive answered my own question ive fount a review which shows very near photos taken with both camera and it shows that over al the Panasonic is on par with the canon 90% of the time some picture even look better with the Panasonic how weird i say

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz38_review/sample_images/

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_500d_review/sample_images/

 

Urgh, the Panasonic has a 1/2.33" sensor. That would be the definite turnoff for me (noise, DOF, diffraction, dynamic range -- all better on APS-C.) As for the picture quality being on par -- maybe in some situations (well lit, both on JPG, bad glas on the 500D.) Get a good lens, shot raw and the 500D will blow away the Panasonic.

Just my 2c. It's really up to you how you value the extended features like HD movies, if you can live w/ lower picture quality (it's still very good for consumers ), how much money you want to spend, and if you're ok w/ the steeper learning curve handling a DSLR.

 

DSLR all the way. If you want gimmicks (all in one lens, hd video etc) buy a bridge. If you want ultimate picture quality, get a dslr. Why do you think say 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens costs 2 grand and weighs over 3 pounds? I know it's a bit of an extreme comparison, but even then, those bridge all in one lenses are poor. Try the wide end, you'll get tons of distortion, long end will be soft most of the time. Look, a bridge will be ok for landscapes. set it to say 35mm, stop it down to f/11, put it on a tripod and shoot a panorama. It'll be great for that. Try macro, sport, portraits, low light anything and you'll quickly regret not getting a DSLR.

 

damien i have a 500D myself, it's a very good starting camera, or if you can afford it get the 550D, i am using 500D + 24-105mm L f/4 lens and it's been fantastic

 

I can't believe I'm seeing those two cameras being compared.

Here's the main thing. As you get better with photography, you'll outgrow the lumix and long for something with more flexibility (trust me, I bought a bridge camera before getting a t2i/550D). The Rebel 500D is a really nice consumer-level camera that you can add many great accessories to later on. The lens lineup for EOS is awesome, and you can find an adapter for almost anything.. I run a few manual Nikkor/Nikon lenses on mine.

 

This.

Take a look at these 2 images I plucked from the links you gave us:
Canon 500D
Panasonic lumix

Do you seriously think the panasonic has better IQ after comparing those?

 

ur links are dead matey please repost them and as for the rest of the reply's thank you and ill post back to each when i have more time after work,

 

Even if I'm a Nikon user myself, between the two choices you laid out, I'd say: Get the Canon dSLR. the _ONLY_ thing that Panasonic has "going for it" is its size, and if you want to hold a camera steady under ... non-ideal conditions that reduced weight is a handicap, not an asset (more mass means more inertia and more stability)

//Svein

 

Seriously, looking at those comparison shots, the 500D blows the bridge away even at low iso. Try going iso 800 or higher, the 500d will be spot on, the bridge will be mud.

 

this is why i said the quality was some times better on the Panasonic this is a 100% crop of the same image and the top part is the panasonic vs bottom canon


am i blind the top one does look allot more detailed and less blurs/washed out?? :/ ....i have done this to a few pics and came up with same conclusion please explain to be what you advanced camera users are trying to show me please

 

That's not a fair comparison!

It is clearly sunny in the first pic, while it is cloudy in the 2nd one!

Hint: Look at the shadow....

 

ok after comparing these the canon deferentially has better pictures then alot of detail is needed the painting are quiet sharp on that guys stall and the overall pic is too


could someone help me and find a macro shop of both or similar camera types please

 

^^ Try to get a EOS 550D if u can, it will last much longer than the EOS 550D ...

 

people with macro and none macro lenses for a dslr could you get me a comparison shot with both lenses so i can see what a macro lens can do better then a none macro lenses... try to get the best close-up shot possible please

 

1st one is w/ a 24-70 f2.8L on a 40D, it's almost a 1:1 crop from the middle of the frame IIRC (have to look it up at home to be sure). 2nd one is done w/ a 100 f2.8 Macro on a 50D, mildly cropped and scaled down. Overall the macro lets you get WAY closer (ie. subject starts covering more pixel but the DOF gets very schallow.) Also, being a prime, the macro delivers better picture quality -- very nice for regular work as well. For not too small subjects the 24-70 works fine tho, good for "emergencies" when I left the macro home



Edit: I'll add a 1:1 crop of the 2nd image later today. And BTW -- if you go for a Canon APS-C camera, my lens pick (if I had to choose a single lens) would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (see also.) Fantastic general purpose lens that works w/ Canons 12 or 25mm extension tubes for macro work.

Edit2: here are two 1:1 crops from the two frames above. Caveat tho, the 50D (2nd pic) has 15MP vs the 40Ds 10MPs. Also, FYI, the 24-70 (1st pic) has a max. magnification of 0.29x -- the max. mag. of the 17-55 I recommended is 0.17x, but a 12mm extension tube would get it to 0.45x (that's almost 1:2).



For reference, two more recent 1:1 crops w/ my current setup -- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on a 7D (1st pic, 18MP APS-C) and a 5DII (2nd pic, 21MP FF).

 

Why don't you go to your local Jessops and try a DSLR with a macro lens attached? There's not a lot to describe, you have to see it for yourself. It'll be razor sharp, seeing as macros are primes and also it'll focus super close to your object.

I'm gonna sum this up... Do you want a camera but don't want to spend a fortune? Buy any entry level DSLR. Do you want a jack of all trades? Buy a bridge. Just don't expect it to take as good a photos as the DSLR.

You can see my macros in the other thread, you'll never get that quality with a bridge. Not saying my macros are great btw. Looking through a proper viewfinder and a macro lens is something you can hardly explain to someone who never had the oportunity...

 

The main difference between a macro lens and a non-macro one, is the level of distortion it generates when focused near it's short extreme. Macro lenses are made to be almost totally linear even when focused close up, while normal and tele lenses usually get some level of barrel distortion.

//Svein

 

Get a D300s, much better autofocus than any canon.

I have seen so many times that canon have got very bad focussing issuses, especially in low light and they tend to hunt a lot when the light is bad.

Even the old Nikon D700 is better at focussing than the new Canon EOS-1D Mark IV.

I'm not saying Canon are bad, but many have focussing issues and are generally bad for low light.

I have tried the 5d MI and even MII with the 24-105 and it really hunts in the dark where as my old Nikon D300 focuses in black dark with no issues at all.

Get a D300s

 

While I certainly agree that a D300/D300s is quite a lot better camera than the 550D, it also comes with an additional digit in the price tag.

I should know, I'm using one (with MB-D10) daily.

//Svein