Nikon DSLR Verses Lumix FZ Bridge Camera Does Size Matter?

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 all the lenses I had for my manual focus Nikon SLR cameras. Many are zoom, some are single focal length. 8mm fisheye to 100-500mm telephoto zoom and on the far left a 500mm mirror lens. The tallest one is the zoom. It is f4-5.6 variable aperture. The next tallest was 55-300mm f4.0 constant aperture.

Having some OCD tendencies, I enjoy arranging things and photographing them. I just came across these three (of several) photos of my Nikon autofocus lenses and cameras. The tall camera is film, an N90S. The shorter was my first DSLR, a D70S.

I did have other Nikon brand lenses but have since sold them.

The one marked "0.15X" on the right is a vintage fisheye lens made to attach to the front of a 50mm lens. It makes circular 180 degree images. But to have a crisp circle, one needs a fast 50mm lens, such as the f1.8 in front.

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.

Panasonic Lumix FZ200 Superzoom Camera Goes Wider and Longer. 19-1020mm! I wrote about getting the lenses here. 

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.

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.

Above is the end that attaches to the camera.

At this angle, you can see it is a glass element. And dusty, too.

This is the end the lens attaches to.

That lever, one presses to release the lens so it can be removed.

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
 

Digital Camera Sensor Physical Size. How Critical Is It?

September 19, 2019

#334

Gentle reader,

It's been a while since I've written about cameras. If you are a longtime reader, THANK YOU! And thus, you know my history. But a writer must assume the reader knows nothing about their previous books. Or articles.

NOTE: If you are new to blogger.com, if you click on any image, it will open a second window OVER this one. The images will be larger and you can click through them or use your < and > keys to look through them all.

I think this is an official Fujifilm image. I searched, via Duck-Duck-Go, I prefer that site (and their start page, because they DO NOT TRACK you) for searches, and I put in "1.3 Megapixels". G__gle follows your every move on the Internet.

My fist digital camera was similar to the one above. I have not been able to put my hands on it, so I grabbed that image.

Anyway, as a kid in the 1960's I had a camera  a green plastic camera from Sears, made by Savoy, that used 120 roll film. This and the Savoy version were in my camera collection.

I shot black and white because color film was mostly for slides back then and we were poor, dad being a small-town-in-Kansas preacher at the time.

When I made the mistake, despite dire warnings from her parents that she was crazy, of marrying my first wife, we too were not well off as there was a recession and people were not taking their cars to the dealership for service. So, all we could afford was a 110 camera sold by JCPenney.  

Be patient, there is a reason to this madness. I will get to the point.

This chart was found via Pinterest and created by Negative Spaces, LLC. It shows film negative sizes compared to many digital sensor sizes. Thanks to Negative Spaces for creating this nice chart.

The green camera used 120 film which is 70mm in width, or top-to-bottom, actually. 35mm is 1/2 the size, top to bottom. 35mm film in cine or movies is used vertically not horizontally as in 35mm still cameras. So, top to bottom, what you see in a movie theater is half of 35mm in height. 
What are called "Half-frame" 35mm still cameras use the same size negative as movie cameras but almost all of them move the film horizontally, like regular cameras.

The ONE exception in 35mm half frame cameras is this Konica AA35 half frame camera. Film goes bottom to top. The rectangle with the lens in it is the exact size of a 35mm cinema film camera. Yet, projected it fills enormous movie theater screens!

So, although the green camera used HUGE 70mm film compared to the JCPenney 110 camera which uses 16mm film, the crappy single element lens in the Sears camera meant poor quality images. 

With good 110 film cameras, which I had MANY of in my 200+ film camera collection, one could make fine photos.

The finest 110 cameras made were: Minolta 110 ZOOM SLR Mark II:

And the Pentax 110 SLR which was the world's smallest Interchangeable lens SLR:

Here is a group shot showing the Pentax and Minolta near my Nikon N-90S film SLR for comparison's sake:

However, no matter how fine the 110 camera was, making ENLARGEMENTS from 110 film led to poor results. Unless one used very slow film, like ASA 64, with it's finer grain.

This is the largest camera in my collection. It shoots sheet film that is 4 inches by 5 inches. So, a 8 by 10 inch enlargement is only 2X the size of the negative.

This is an image made with that camera.

OK, now back to the subject at hand. Sensor's physical size and megapixel count.

As mentioned, my first digital camera and the second, was a Fujifilm, they were both bought for me by my wife. Who REALLY loves me. It was similar to the Fujifilm shown at the beginning of the article. She bought it for me because I had begun selling on eBay and needed one. She surprised me with it. It had a 1.3 megapixel sensor. The second one had a 6.3 megapixel sensor.

What it comes down to is this: With film or digital sensor, the bigger the better when it comes to image size. Thus being seen on my PC's 24" wide screen or a print. 

BUT, is it pixel count OR sensor size that is better?

To print a great looking 8" X 11 1/2" photo at home, all you need is 6 megapixels. That's it. It doesn't matter what size sensor, APS-C or tiny 1/2.5" / 5.76 x 4.29mm. As long as it is at least 6 megapixels, it will look fine.

However, printing larger than that requires MORE pixels. The difference in the physical size of the individual red, blue and green sensors is what is different in actual sensor size. As long as the number of them is the same, the images should look identical.

To repeat, as long as the pixel COUNT is the same, I believe, the resulting prints will look the same.

NOTE: This image will not be visible if you click on it. 

So, sensors any larger than that, 6 megapixels, are wasted, in most cases. For things I post on the Internet, here or eBay, I reduce the short side of the image to 1000 pixels. Most people view this on devices anyway, so why make them bigger? At that size, they do not fill half of my 24" screen. Would I print at that size? No.

I have had numerous digital cameras, the two from Fujifilm, the second had a superb lens which focused down to 1/2 and inch. A few Nikon DSLRs, with my current one being a D200. And a bunch of Panasonic Lumix cameras. These mostly come with Leica lenses which, of course, are world renowned for their sharpness and quality.

Here are some of the LUMIX cameras, this image was made with my Nikon. I tried Micro four thirds as you can see. However, Leica lenses for them are WAY outside of my fixed income, retirement pension. And my experiments with adapters and film lenses were varied. And usually disappointing.

I have sold all but my ZS15, LX5 and FZ200. The ZS15 is my always-carry-camera since it fits in a pocket so well. It is 12.1 megapixels and has a 16X optical zoom for a 35mm equivalent of 24-384mm and records full HD video. It is a variable aperture lens, which means, the farther one zooms, the smaller the aperture gets.

Shown above on the left, is my LX5 (next to my GX1) with it's superb Leica Vario-Summicron lens. I bought the optional Live View Finder for both, because shooting looking into a screen is difficult in full sun since many times all I can see is my face reflected on the screen. The LX5 is 10 megapixels and it's lens is 24-90mm, variable aperture: f2.0-3.3. Two f-stop loss at 90mm.

This is my, new-to-me: FZ200. It too is 12.1 megapixels and compared to the sensor size of M4/3 and especially APS-C and "full frame" which is the same as 35mm, it's sensor is TINY.

BUT, I prefer it to the M4/3 cameras because of a couple factors: That lens is FIXED aperture, which means whether at the wide 24mm (35mm equivalent) end it is f2.8 and all the way to 600mm, it is still f2.8. And the shutter lag is almost inexistent compared to the G1 and GX1.

I have the LUMIX 18mm auxiliary lens for the LX5 which also works on the FZ200. Above and below. I know, dusty.

Above zoomed out to 600mm.

And the LUMIX ONE METER, (it's silly saying 1000 milometers, that IS one meter) auxiliary lens and adapter tube. Actually, it's reach is a little bit more than one meter.

These auxiliary lenses being front mount (verses 1.4X or 2X teleconverter lenses that mount on a DSLR and then the lens mounts to them) there is NO light loss when using these.

A woman member on one of the Panasonic LUMIX Facebook groups I belong to, made her first post asking which long lens she should get for her M43 camera. She has $400 to spend. 

I suggested she should by a FZ200 or FZ300 and get a Leica lens with incredible reach instead.

Someone else pointed out the smaller sensor in the FZ series as being a handicap.

I disagree, as I have pointed out to you. 

To recap, I acknowledge that in a larger sensor, there are larger pixels. BUT, if the COUNT of said pixels is the same: 12.1 megapixels verses 12.1 megapixels, the resulting prints or 100% zoom on a large screen, should look the same.

I hope you have enjoyed my article and I suspect some Facebook friends who read this will argue my conclusion. I welcome your arguments. But it won't change my mind.

Scott
September 19, 2019
#334