Pro Wide Tele

Pro Wide Tele

sony h9 versus panasonic lumix fz18?

after months of digging into reviews i decided not to jump on dslr due to its cost. i want an everyday-camera with slr-like features. i came into these two options, but i know every camera has pros and cons..

need a little help here guys,,

i am impressed with fz18's wide-angle to tele range, and with h9's shutter speed.

the only thing that dismayed me with h9 was its lack of raw format, the question is how important is raw format?

according to reviews, h9 has image quality issues and lumix has noise issues.. tsk..

considering this two cameras, what would you choose?

some may suggest fuji s6500, but for me it is too bulky.. better yet choose e410 (am i right?) hehe..

please help, thanks in advance.. im tired of reading reviews, i want personal opinions from u guys.. thanks..

It's tough to recommend either one based solely on what you've written...I don't know anything about what you're photographing most frequently, as your habits would make a recommendation easier, but I'll give it a try.

As for RAW...do you edit your photos a lot after you finish taking them, with a program like Photoshop or a RAW converter like CaptureOne? You see, RAW files out of the camera are not recognized natively by most PC's because it is not a common format like JPG, GIF, etc, so if you want to share your images with friends/family, you have to go and edit the RAW file, then save and convert it to a common file type like JPG. If your friends just took the RAW file and tried to open it, chances are their computer would not recognize the file type.

So, the downside of RAW is that it basically requires you to do (at the very least) a conversion from that file type into a more common one that can be displayed by other PC's. Then you're also faced with the storage problem- having a RAW file and then a duplicate converted JPG file = lots of extra storage needs, both in camera and on computer. RAW files are much larger than traditional JPG because they are (for the most part) uncompressed, so there are two ramifications of this:

1) Your available storage on your memory card will be significantly reduced if you shoot in RAW. You'll get probably 50% the number of photos you would get shooting exclusively in JPG.
2) You will face the problem of extra required storage on your PC- those RAW files will take up a lot of room, especially with the duplicate converted files, so you may need additional hard drive space sooner than you think. You'll also need a system for organizing both sets of files.

Now, that's the downside of RAW. The positive side of it has to do with if you do like to tinker and edit your photos. RAW does not apply any "in camera" filters (sharpening, color enhancement, etc) to the image file, thus it is literally "raw", or what the camera "saw" at the moment the picture was taken. As a result, you have LOTS and LOTS of latitude in how you edit your photos. Since in camera filters are not applied, you can adjust things like exposure, color temperature, and white balance to your liking without having to deal with what the camera spits out. So, the positive side of having RAW would be to have the expanded capability in editing your photos.

THIS IS IMPORTANT: RAW does NOT equal a better photo than a camera WITHOUT it. The difference lies in the photo editing that takes place OUTSIDE of the camera.

So, looking at that description, does it sound like RAW is an an absolute necessity for you? If so, then the Panasonic would be the way to go.

Now, on to the more technical specs...

Are you shooting sports or action shots a lot? If so, the H9's higher shutter speed would suit you.

Are you travelling, taking a lot of nature shots requiring more telephoto? Then the Panasonic would be for you. Quite frankly, I've yet to see cameras that completely satisfied peoples' needs for more zoom. That 18x is remarkable, and will be very flexible, but that's not to say the Sony wouldn't be.

After looking at a side-by-side comparison at DPReview.com (see Link 1 in my resources), I can understand how frustrating it would be to choose. Honestly, here's how I see it...

With any digital camera outside of the digital SLR realm, noise problems are inevitable, as is image quality. Most of the time, non-DSLR sensors are much smaller, and so the attempt by these companies to cram more megapixels in there results in lackluster image quality/high ISO performance, but there are always exceptions. With the photoediting programs out there, both of these cameras will take exceptional pictures.

With that in mind, unless you see yourself wanting to shoot exclusively in RAW and then spend the time editing and organizing images, I would go for the Sony. I like the shutter speed capability, and the ISO ranges available. The HD video out feature is impressive, and 15x zoom should be plenty enough. It offers a monstrous LCD that has more pixels than the Panasonic, so it might be easier to read.

Now, I'm no expert on either camera, but I've owned a DSLR for over 3 years and been through tons of digital cameras before that and recommended lots of equipment, so that's how I would approach it. Hope this helps.