FZ8 or Fz18? 80 dollars more for the bigger, newer lens. Are there other features that make the move up a good idea? Or is this FZ8 the way to go "for now" and wait a year or two for bigger sensor? Do accessories cost more for the 18 and make that 80 grow larger? Can't decide which. Thanks FZ8 or Fz18? 80 dollars more for the bigger, newer lens. Are there other features that make the move up a good idea? Or is this FZ8 the way to go "for now" and wait a year or two for... » Read More FZ8 or Fz18? 80 dollars more for the bigger, newer lens. Are there other features that make the move up a good idea? Or is this FZ8 the way to go "for now" and wait a year or two for bigger sensor? Do accessories cost more for the 18 and make that 80 grow larger? Can't decide which. Thanks « Show Less
783742
Face detection is, I think, the only other feature. Note though that the wide angle end of the zoom range is now wider (28mm on the FZ18 vs. 35 mm)
783743
Here is the best place to get reviews and info.Do a search on the model and when that page comes up use the menu bar on the left to get to any one of the topics, like Steve's conclusions.http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.htmlAlso try Consumersearch.com for a more concise summation of all reviews.
529730
if you look at the specs, the fz8 tops the fz18 in one crucial area: aperture. it's f/3.3 fully zoomed out, which is fairly impressive. the wider the aperture --smaller the number-- the more light is let in to the camera. this helps in low-light situations and in acquiring focus. that's a pretty big plus, but the fact that the fz18 starts at 28mm and is a true wide-angle in addition to going longer might weight heavier for some.
783744
I had a same dilemma, but settled with FZ8 which I love. Comparing pictures , FZ18 didn't wow me enough for worth $80 more. Looking at two "Birds of paradice" by Tahir J. Naim(on FZ18 page)-which one of them was taken w/FZ7-, you can't tell there is much difference. Or the moon photos. One thing is though, while I do have some great shots of portraits, in general, it is not so satisfying. That's only thing that I want to see how good "face detection" is on FX18. Other than that FZ8 takes great scenery pics in my opinion which I take most anyway. Like you(MazeDancer), I'm thinking of buying a bigger sensor, a DSLR in a year or two, so this camera(FX8) will do enough job for me for now. I had a same dilemma, but settled with FZ8 which I love. Comparing pictures , FZ18 didn't wow me enough for worth $80 more. Looking at two "Birds of paradice" by Tahir J. Naim(on FZ18 page)-which one of them was taken w/FZ7-, you can't tell there is much difference. Or the moon photos. One thing is though, while I do have some great shots of portraits, in general, it is not so satisfying. That's only thing that I want to see how good "face detection" is on FX18. Other than that FZ8 takes great scenery pics in my opinion which I take most anyway. Like... » Read More I had a same dilemma, but settled with FZ8 which I love. Comparing pictures , FZ18 didn't wow me enough for worth $80 more. Looking at two "Birds of paradice" by Tahir J. Naim(on FZ18 page)-which one of them was taken w/FZ7-, you can't tell there is much difference. Or the moon photos. One thing is though, while I do have some great shots of portraits, in general, it is not so satisfying. That's only thing that I want to see how good "face detection" is on FX18. Other than that FZ8 takes great scenery pics in my opinion which I take most anyway. Like you(MazeDancer), I'm thinking of buying a bigger sensor, a DSLR in a year or two, so this camera(FX8) will do enough job for me for now. « Show Less
467108
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that.The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.
1575542
It's not so much the IS as the "STM" or stepping motor used inside this lens vs. the USM motor used in their other high quality lenses. The USM is built to bring subjects into focus with bullet speed. That's great for still image (sports, auto racing, etc) photography but not so good for video where you want a slightly smoother transition when focusing between subjects. The STM motor is designed to work with the new Hybrid CMOS sensor in the camera that utilizes both contrast and phase detect focusing technologies, with the phase detect being the new addition. The STM motor is also stated to be quieter which should translate into less in camera noise being picked up in your videos. Basically once the camera is set into video mode the camera uses the phase detect AF system to get the camera very close to 100% focus lock and then switches over to contrast detect for 100% lock. This of course all happens in nanoseconds. At least this is what I've been able to gleam from the numerous preview articles I've read today. Hope this helps somewhat. FWIW, I'd be looking to get the 18-135 STM kit when/if I do decide to upgrade from my Rebel XT (yes, same camera for 7 years, can you believe it). The flexibility of the 18-135 focal range for all-around still shooting plus the video enhancements make it very appealing. At least as long as the IQ testing backs it up. Plus this lens was stated to sell for around $550 all by itself if I'm not mistaken so in the kit represents a great savings imo.
1746412
Late to respond, but my previous camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ18, a point and shoot camera which I thought took outstanding pictures...until I bought the DMC-FZ150. Holy cow! What a jump in performance that even an unsavvy enthusiast like myself can actually use. I am, however, shocked by the price increase. I had to buy it online because it wasn't available locally but with the reviews and my past experience with Panasonic, I took a deep breath and did it, purchasing it through Amazon for $439 in early April 2012. I consider it top echelon of the "amateur" use cameras.
1815999
I upgraded from the D90, haven't used the D3100. I'd expect it's a good upgrade as the D3100 has been upgraded twice. I think waiting at least ntil the second upgrade makes sense as the next upgrade is more incremental than revolutionary. I think you'll like the D7100. I find it easier to operate and use thatn my D90 even though I had it 3 years. Have fun shooting with whatever you choose.
786038
I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies! I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies!
1827617
These are two wonderful lens. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the f/4 IS. You have great IS capable of shooting sharp images up to to four stops without a tripod. However, you will not be able to stop the action in low light because of the F/4 aperture. IS fixes the shakes from your hands, it has no effect of freezing action in low or dim light. You could raise your ISO, but then you have to worry about noise. The weight of the F/4 will be much more comfortable around your neck than the f/2.8 because it weighs almost half as much. The price of the f/4 is another factor. Its around $500.00 bucks cheaper. The f/2.8 IS is a beast that will produce fantastic images but you are going to pay a price for it. It's heavy and you need to have deep pockets. On the other hand if sports is your thing and creating fantastic images with great bokeh than why not splurg and get what you really want. Are you shooting indoor sports? You should probably consider the f/2.8. Either way you are going to spend some money and you might as well get the one that is going to fit your needs. To sum up if you are shooting indoor sports i would go with the 2.8. If not the f/4 will not dissappoint you.
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
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
648861
The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is terrible lighting.Hope this helps. The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is... » Read More The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is terrible lighting.Hope this helps. « Show Less
194936
I am an amateur photographer and do not plan on going to an FX sensor. I plan on shooting from both a monopod and free hand. I do enjoy having the best but only when it makes sense. I have not had much luck shooting my son's hockey games with my current lense and need the 2.8 to get the low light, high speed shots. A friend has the VI and she is able to get some great shots. That was the lens I was orignally looking at until this one came out. Can you point me to a site that has the comparison shots. In light of ths information, what would you go with. Thanks again for your response.
462704
More bang for your buck will be the XTi, since it is cheaper and you honestly won't get much better photos from the 40D. However, if you can swing the money, I wholeheartedly recommend the 40D. I recently upgraded from the XT to the 40D. The additional controls make it so much easier to change settings, the larger size feels more balanced, etc etc. However, the XTi is a great camera, and don't feel bad about buying that either! It's a nice upgrade from my XT, which I loved for 2 years. You honestly can't go wrong with either one. Go to a store and handle each and see if one feels better in your hands than the other. More bang for your buck will be the XTi, since it is cheaper and you honestly won't get much better photos from the 40D. However, if you can swing the money, I wholeheartedly recommend the 40D. I recently upgraded from the XT to the 40D. The additional controls make it so much easier to change settings, the larger size feels more balanced, etc etc. However, the XTi is a great camera, and don't feel bad about buying that either! It's a nice upgrade from my XT, which I loved for 2 years. You honestly can't go wrong with either one. Go to a store and handle each and see if one feels better in... » Read More More bang for your buck will be the XTi, since it is cheaper and you honestly won't get much better photos from the 40D. However, if you can swing the money, I wholeheartedly recommend the 40D. I recently upgraded from the XT to the 40D. The additional controls make it so much easier to change settings, the larger size feels more balanced, etc etc. However, the XTi is a great camera, and don't feel bad about buying that either! It's a nice upgrade from my XT, which I loved for 2 years. You honestly can't go wrong with either one. Go to a store and handle each and see if one feels better in your hands than the other. « Show Less
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
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...
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