September 21, 2019
#335
Gentle reader,
I have been an active photographer since 1995. As a child my parents gave me a green plastic Sears camera which used roll film, I doubt any of the photos survived.
In my first marriage, all we could afford was a JCPenney 110 camera. With it we recorded the kid's growth.
In April, 1995, armed with the first tax refund I did not have to split with my ex-wife, I entered a pawn shop for the first time and picked out an Olympus OM-10 SLR with 50mm f1.8 lens and a generic flash. The first photo I took with it was of who would be my future and permanent wife and soul mate.
I knew NOTHING about this camera and little about light, shutter speeds, aperture, film speeds or even how to turn the camera on and off. But I learned.
This was before the majority of people around the world had even heard the word: Internet, let alone had access to it. So researching meant a trip to the library.
Later on, after finding an old Yashica rangefinder camera at a church bazaar, I decided to collect cameras. The collection grew to over 200 of all sizes and types. I shot hundreds of rolls of film.
But that is not what this is about. It is about the differences of these two cameras.
Granted, the Nikon D200 has the optional dual-battery pack screwed on the bottom of it makes it taller and heavier. The device has a second shutter button for vertical shooting, plus on/off switch and rotary menu control.
But even without it, the Nikon is still taller, wider and heavier than the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 "bridge camera".
The term, "bridge camera", was coined to describe a digital camera that is a step up from a compact digital camera. Halfway to a DSLR, in other words. It resembles as Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera and handles like one but it's lens is fixed. "Fixed" in this sense is more often used by people in the UK, where American more likely would use the word "attached".
Above and below show the much more versatile and larger screen on the Lumix, it rotates and can be stored to protect the glass. The rotation is wonderful for many uses, even selfies if one is so inclined. The author is not.
There are a lot more buttons, dials and switches on the Nikon, but based upon the Lumix's 220 page manual, the smaller camera most likely can offer more choices and options than the several years older Nikon can.
Oh, and the Lumix records full HD video, which I just learned is only 2 megapixels. Plus it has stereo microphones, but how much separation they can offer, so close together is questionable.
The D200 is from 2005 and almost all newer Nikon DSLRs also offer the ability to make HD videos. Some purists, like me wish they made modern models that are just for still shooting. But since this the the only and newest Nikon I have, it will have to do.
The FZ200, coincidental that they both are model # 200s, came out in 2012. Lightyears ahead in the digital camera world. But since I no longer own the FZ8 of FZ40 I once had, again, it will have to do.
You may be thinking, "This is 'apples and oranges', you can't compare the two." But I can and am. I think apples and pears, because the fruits are more similar, especially an Asian pear.
Before I get into sensor size, physical and pixel count, lets talk about their lenses.
The Lumix has a Leica lens that is in 35mm equivalent, 25-600mm and has a constant f2.8 aperture. In other words, it lets in the same amount of light, no matter how far out it zooms.
DSLR zoom lenses range from 18-55mm, often the "kit" lens all the way to 150-600mm. Sigma, like Tamron and others are "aftermarket" lens companies. Both companies are high quality lens makers, other lens makers, often Chinese, are of lesser quality and price.
There are also wide angle zoom lenses from around 10-20mm, plus true fisheye lenses. But the wide angle lenses are pricey. Digital sensors really need light to hit them directly and wide angle lenses allow light from up to and beyond 180 degrees in fisheye type. Thus, the light coming through the lens will be at an angle.
Sigma offers two 150-600mm lenses: Both are f5-6.3 which is "variable" aperture, the longer the zoom, the less light they allow to reach the sensor. They range from $1,100 to $2,000.
Lenses with fixed aperture of f2.8 are available for Nikon and other brands of Digital SLR cameras.
To try and match the Lumix lens, Nikon offers a 24-70mm f2.8 lens for $2,397. But you will need a 70-200mm f2.8 for $2,800 AND a 200-400mm f2.8 for $1,397 and that STILL won't reach the 600 millimeters of the Lumix lens.
And they are ALL really heavy! The fact is, if a lens maker was inclined to produce a 25-600mm f2.8 zoom lens it would be enormous and you would need a handtruck to transport it. And the price? Forget about it!
So, how can the Leica lens be so compact and still have such a range all at f2.8?!? The tiny sensor inside the Lumix FZ series camera bodies, means the glass elements can be much smaller and lighter than the glass and corresponding metals to hold and move them needed to cover a DSLR sensor, be it APS-C or full (35mm) frame. The latter lenses are exponentially more expensive than the former.
The Nikon, being a DSLR, can mount countless lenses, and since Nikon's lens mount can accept lenses from the 1950's and shoot with them, the possibilities are endless.
These are the autofocus lenses I have for my Nikon: Nikon 18-55mm, Sigma 19-35mm (f), Nikon 50mm f1.8 (f), Sigma 70-300mm (f) and Tamron 200-400mm (f). The "f" refers to them being made for film cameras rather than optimized for digital sensors. All but the 50mm are variable aperture lenses. As I pointed out, lenses made for digital sensors are optimized to direct the light at the smaller sensor as straight as they can get them to bend it.
I'll show you the small one in front later on, it is really interesting and the only one I've ever seen.
These are all the lenses and accessories I have for the Lumix FZ200. Aside from the camera's captive 25-600mm lens, I have their optional 18mm (18.5 on this camera) auxiliary lens and just over one meter (1020mm) auxiliary telephoto lens and the adapter tube to mount it.
And the very versatile Lumix FL360 flash.
So, with the addition of those two lenses, which when new, were still relative bargains compared to the same for a DSLR, extend the cameras reach from 18.5 to 1020mm, ALL still retaining the f2.8 aperture! On the used market, even more of a bargain.
So, now to sensor sizes. Below are two charts I found on line that show the relative sizes of film and digital sensors.
So, now to sensor sizes. Below are two charts I found on line that show the relative sizes of film and digital sensors.
The FZ200's 12.1 megapixel sensor is actually smaller than the smallest one shown.
Measuring: 1/2.3" (~ 6.16 x 4.62 mm) the CMOS sensor, has a diagonal of 7.70 mm (0.3") and a surface area of 28.46 mm². That is TINY!
The Nikon D200's 10.2 megapixel sensor is "APS-C" sized. APS film was created to allow "drop and load" unlike 35mm film, but not as easy as 110 or 126 film cassettes once were. APS film was 24mm top to bottom.
SO, If you imagine a rectangle slightly smaller than the bottom-right one and move it over the APS-C rectangle seen above, it is obvious the larger sensor's pixels will be able to capture more light with less "noise" than the tiny one in the Lumix.
Now, let's talk about weight. The Lumix camera with no accessories attached weighs 1# 5.2oz. or one pound, five point two ounces. The Nikon with the 50mm lens attached weighs 2# 2.6oz. or two pounds two point six ounces. Other lenses of course will alter the weight of it. Take off the battery pack and use one battery and it will be lighter.
With the longest lenses on them as above, the Nikon with 200-400mm lens weighs 5# 8.6oz. or five pounds eight point six ounces.
Which is why that lens has my monopod adapter fastened to it.
The Lumix with 1020mm lens weighs 3# 3.6oz. or three pounds three point six ounces. The lens adapter tube is aluminum, I don't know what metal the lens is made of, but probably brass and with the glass the total added weight is less than two pound. There is no provision to mount the camera by the lens like the Tamron lens has. But it is not needed.
Another thought on constant f2.8 zoom lenses, at least the Nikon ones I looked up, they all have a tripod ring on them, since they weigh so much.
SO what are my conclusions?
The Nikon is not one I would want to lug around by the neck strap for very long. It is more versatile being there are thousands of autofocus film and digital lenses that it can mount and use.
The Nikon has the physically much larger sensor, so that aforementioned data about that states, is another advantage in it's favor.
Having to change lenses to go from wide angle to extreme telephoto and the time it takes to do so, is a disadvantage. Even if one buys an 18-300mm zoom lens, remembering the "1.5X crop factor" of APS-C digital cameras, that lens is equal to a 27.5 to 450mm lens on full (35mm) frame. It gains on the long end but loses on the wide angle end. And that lens, the cheapest new one, a Sigma, being $400, and it is f3.5-6.3 variable aperture. For a Nikon version, try $700. Same type of aperture.
If you've ever tried to shoot with a long lens on an SLR, even a mirror lens, you quickly find out a tripod or at the minimum a monopod is a necessity. More weight to lug around.
The Lumix on the other hand is: Lighter, more compact, has more pixels, the incredible Leica lens and the optional light weight auxiliary lenses. It records video, which I do not use, as well. It also has SO many built-in settings for every kind of photography situation one can imagine. Great macro capabilities as well. It can handle almost any shot needed with the built-in lens, from 25mm wide angle, to 600mm super-telephoto, all with a fast f2.8 aperture. Built-in image stabilization makes handheld shots at 400-600mm a breeze.
Since Nikon brand lenses are equal in quality and clarity to Leica lenses, AND since in my fixed-income, retirement status, I cannot afford Nikon glass, and I have German engineered Leica lenses on all three of my Lumix cameras, they are the ones which I usually reach for.
Frankly, I do not shoot much these days anyway. I enjoy being home with the dogs and cats. After forty four years of working full time in an industry where air conditioning for the workers is not available, I am enjoying year-round comfort of retirement.
Above is the camera bag that houses all the Nikon gear. It was a lucky thrift store find. Monopod is attached to it.
These two views show the handy hard case which houses the Lumix. I have another aluminum case that holds the rest of the Lumix equipment. That manual above is the quick start book, not the 220 page monster.
Here they sit on the closet shelf. The aluminum cases are on the left.
As promised, this is the little lens I did not describe. It actually is manual focus, but works fine on the Nikon with the exception of any AF data not being passed through it.
It is a "teleconverter" lens. These mount to the camera and the lens mounts to it. The drawbacks are: One stop of light lost: f2.0 becomes f2.8, etc.
Image quality is not as good as a lens of the focal length, say 300mm verses 150mm plus this which makes 300mm magnification.
The really cool thing about this is it lengthens, as you can see. And it does this for macro purposes.
It can achieve TRUE MACRO of 1:1 with a 50mm lens attached to it. What that means is what you photograph will be the SAME SIZE on the film or sensor as it is in life. The definition of macro.
Measuring: 1/2.3" (~ 6.16 x 4.62 mm) the CMOS sensor, has a diagonal of 7.70 mm (0.3") and a surface area of 28.46 mm². That is TINY!
The Nikon D200's 10.2 megapixel sensor is "APS-C" sized. APS film was created to allow "drop and load" unlike 35mm film, but not as easy as 110 or 126 film cassettes once were. APS film was 24mm top to bottom.
SO, If you imagine a rectangle slightly smaller than the bottom-right one and move it over the APS-C rectangle seen above, it is obvious the larger sensor's pixels will be able to capture more light with less "noise" than the tiny one in the Lumix.
Now, let's talk about weight. The Lumix camera with no accessories attached weighs 1# 5.2oz. or one pound, five point two ounces. The Nikon with the 50mm lens attached weighs 2# 2.6oz. or two pounds two point six ounces. Other lenses of course will alter the weight of it. Take off the battery pack and use one battery and it will be lighter.
Another thought on constant f2.8 zoom lenses, at least the Nikon ones I looked up, they all have a tripod ring on them, since they weigh so much.
SO what are my conclusions?
The Nikon is not one I would want to lug around by the neck strap for very long. It is more versatile being there are thousands of autofocus film and digital lenses that it can mount and use.
The Nikon has the physically much larger sensor, so that aforementioned data about that states, is another advantage in it's favor.
Having to change lenses to go from wide angle to extreme telephoto and the time it takes to do so, is a disadvantage. Even if one buys an 18-300mm zoom lens, remembering the "1.5X crop factor" of APS-C digital cameras, that lens is equal to a 27.5 to 450mm lens on full (35mm) frame. It gains on the long end but loses on the wide angle end. And that lens, the cheapest new one, a Sigma, being $400, and it is f3.5-6.3 variable aperture. For a Nikon version, try $700. Same type of aperture.
If you've ever tried to shoot with a long lens on an SLR, even a mirror lens, you quickly find out a tripod or at the minimum a monopod is a necessity. More weight to lug around.
The Lumix on the other hand is: Lighter, more compact, has more pixels, the incredible Leica lens and the optional light weight auxiliary lenses. It records video, which I do not use, as well. It also has SO many built-in settings for every kind of photography situation one can imagine. Great macro capabilities as well. It can handle almost any shot needed with the built-in lens, from 25mm wide angle, to 600mm super-telephoto, all with a fast f2.8 aperture. Built-in image stabilization makes handheld shots at 400-600mm a breeze.
Since Nikon brand lenses are equal in quality and clarity to Leica lenses, AND since in my fixed-income, retirement status, I cannot afford Nikon glass, and I have German engineered Leica lenses on all three of my Lumix cameras, they are the ones which I usually reach for.
Frankly, I do not shoot much these days anyway. I enjoy being home with the dogs and cats. After forty four years of working full time in an industry where air conditioning for the workers is not available, I am enjoying year-round comfort of retirement.
Image quality is not as good as a lens of the focal length, say 300mm verses 150mm plus this which makes 300mm magnification.
The really cool thing about this is it lengthens, as you can see. And it does this for macro purposes.
It can achieve TRUE MACRO of 1:1 with a 50mm lens attached to it. What that means is what you photograph will be the SAME SIZE on the film or sensor as it is in life. The definition of macro.
2X and less common 3X teleconverter lenses were not used by serious photographers because of the issues I told you.
I have never seen any teleconverter with this one's macro capabilities. I have not tried shooting with it yet, but have focused on things with the 50mm lens and it really does give terrific magnification!
Have I successfully explained my reasoning? I hope so. I switched from Times New Roman font to Arial in bold, hoping that it is more readable. However, in previewing the page, portions still appear in TNR and some lines are smaller! I do my best, constantly hitting SAVE, but it does what it wants. Plus, the type is grey not black! Grrr!
Thanks for taking the time to read my humble blog. I have really been in a writing mood lately. Anyway, our kind words and comments are such an encouragement to me.
Scott
September 21, 2019
#335
No comments:
Post a Comment