Review: Canon Powershot S2-IS versus Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 digital cameras

Don Bradbury puts this pair of megazoom digital cameras head-to-head

Product	VideoBus II
Company	Belkin
Web	www.belkin.co.uk
Price	£84.99 incl
We like	Effective video capture. Choice of editing software
We don't like	More expensive than competition. No user manuals.
Rating	8/10
Requirements

These days there are many amateur photographers out there who demand, if not the very best image quality that money can buy, then pictures of a high order, plus a do-it-all zoom lens that will cover essentially any subject in which they have an interest.

Add at least five megapixels of image resolution, accurate auto-focussing, metering that is spot on virtually every shot, an LCD display backing up a viewfinder that offers at least accurate framing, with good battery life and overall reliability. Make the camera small and light, with good usability, and everything else would be bonuses.

Either of the digital cameras we're looking at here could fit the bill. With 12x optical zooms of outstanding capability, giving the equivalent of 36 to 432mm focal length on a 35mm camera, with easily accessible features, modes that are relatively easy to take advantage of, and image capture that is, with a little practise, something of which the user can be proud.

Usability

There's little to choose between these two cameras in terms of ease of use. The Panasonic scores in that it has fewer buttons to confuse the user and, perhaps more importantly, that stray fingers might inadvertently press. The Canon, on the other hand, makes for quicker access to certain features simply because it has the extra external buttons, so the adventurous user doesn't have to delve quite so often into menus.

Image quality

Accurate focus-find is the essential here, taking the basic image-forming quality of the zoom lens as read when you have companies like Canon, and Leica with their Vario-Elmarit, on offer, and both cameras showed themselves capable of excellent focussing under most conditions (see later).

In terms of speed, quick to find focus under all normal lighting conditions, the Panasonic was judged slightly more reticent to declare accurate focus in very low light such as you might find indoors by mainly artificial lighting, sometimes hunting a little first. But high enlargement of the final images on the computer showed just what modern megazoom lenses and their associated electronics are capable of.

We viewed, side-by-side, shots taken on these two cameras with similar subjects taken on the far more expensive Nikon 8800 that we reviewed earlier. The latter, having a substantially higher pixel count CCD (8Mpixels compared with 5Mpixels with these two cameras), showed a somewhat smoother image under such magnification. But focus accuracy on all three cameras was comparable, as is shown in the composite image below.

The maximum zoomed, magnified central image is from the Nikon 8800, while the left hand side shows a comparable image from the Panasonic FZ5, and on the right, the Canon S2-IS. Displaying the sort of colour variation you might expect under the differing lighting you get on different days, focus-find on the spectacle frame in essentially identical, and accurate in each case. Impressive but, again, more on this later.

Incidentally, under such dim lighting conditions, photographic modes where you have set the ISO value low (for maximum quality) or the aperture small (for maximum depth of field) can leave your view very dim using either the LCD or the viewfinder. Just pop the camera's mode onto Auto, where everything is set automatically, and a good view is restored. You'll have to sacrifice your precise settings, notably ISO, but it's the quick way out of difficulty when viewfinder illumination is not magnified sufficiently, as with these two cameras.

Outdoor shots

Image quality in terms of colour rendition is somewhat subjective, but our tests suggest that neither the Canon nor the Panasonic would be likely to disappoint. We did note some purple colour fringing from the Canon in subjects displaying high contrast boundaries, and (much less) green fringing on the Panasonic, but at all normal magnifications it was considered unlikely to be significant to the typical user. The Panasonic tended to produce rather cooler images than the Canon, though that can be tweaked somewhat via menu options if required.

The Panasonic comes with a very impressive-looking two part lens hood, while the Canon offers no such facility as standard. The advantage of an efficient lens hood, of course, is to reduce flare in backlit shots, improving image contrast by keeping direct light off the front element of the lens. But unless you point the lens directly into sunlight, modern lenses are unlikely to display significant flare, such is the quality of the coating applied for the purpose.

In addition, if you want to move quickly from flash to non-flash shots you have to remove the Panasonic's lens hood because it can cut off flash lighting from some of the subject. A mixed blessing then, the lens hood, but dedicated photographers will not want to be without one nevertheless.

Macro modes

Some modern digicams show astounding capability for close-up photography, a few letting you get so close to a subject that there's barely sufficient space between the front element of the lens and the subject to let any light through to it. Such is the case with these two cameras.

Both the FZ5 and the S2 IS feature super-macro modes that give the user this facility, while each has a 'normal' macro mode for more typical close-up situations down to about 5cms. Again, the ability of both cameras to find focus in these conditions is excellent.

While both cameras have yet another, very handy mode of super macro shooting, the Panasonic makes more fuss over it in it's manual. The FZ5 features a mode in which the lens is used 12x zoomed. Engaging macro mode on the camera, while the lens is zoomed out to it's maximum (in optical mode) lets you capture images from a minimum range of about one metre. The focal length of the lens under such conditions, and the close range of the subject, means that depth of field is essentially zero, but it has the triple advantages of letting you stand well back from the subject in order to not only improve the aspect (potentially less distortion), but also avoid disturbing the subject as well; an insect, say.

Thirdly, and crucially for some, this arrangement also makes available the use of integral flash lighting because, now, the lens doesn't get in the way of the flash. Image freezing, availability of smaller apertures to maximise depth of field, and hand-held shooting now become feasible, especially in conjunction with the image stabilisation which both cameras feature - about which more later. It doesn't quite offer the closeness of approach of standard macro or supermacro modes, but it will be valued by photographers who are into macro photography. The shot below illustrates closest subject coverage compared with normal supermacro mode which we saw earlier.

But there's more. In a tele macro mode the digital zoom can also add it's effect on narrowing the angle of view, so that ultra close-ups are possible, albeit with the reduction in image quality you would expect by using digital zooming. Still, the equivalent of using a 1700mm focal length lens on 35mm brings dramatic results that may just be usable. The shot below, for example, shows the FZ5's Mode Dial which was taken from a range of six feet, no less, on the S2IS in its tele macro mode with full optical plus full digital zoom, handheld, using flash.

Image stabilisation

Both cameras offer continuous and on-shooting optical stabilisation as well as 'off'. The Canon also a panning mode where the image is stabilised for vertical movement only. The Panasonic scores by offering access to its options via a top mounted button, the canon requiring recourse to the menus. Offering truly amazing capability, the way is at last open for handheld shooting at much lower shutter speeds than previously, perhaps three to four stops worth, and is a feature worth it's weight in gold to megazoom users. We were able to get shots of the moon, for example, hand-held, with spot metering to pick out the disk of the moon, with half-decent sharpness.

Image playback

Here the Canon scores because of its virtually instantaneous reviewing of stored images; the Panasonic, in contrast, takes a pedestrian three seconds or so to load the next high quality JPEG image. That is so long that one wonders, sometimes, whether the request press has registered!

Staged enlargement of the Panasonic's images - to check focus, say - takes place in four large jumps, and they are discrete in that each stage requires a further pressure on the zoom lever. The Canon's ten smaller stages may be either one by one or in a single sweep, and that may be a preferable arrangement for some.

Flashgun

An integral flashgun is ubiquitous on this type of digital camera. Neither is of the automatic pop-up type, though many users will be happy about that. However, missed shots may be the penalty, it has to be admitted. For ourselves, we prefer to forget to set the flashgun occasionally and have to reshoot rather than have the flashgun annoyingly pop up when we don't want it to. It's personal preference here, though you would expect to have to pay more for automation in this aspect.

The Panasonic camera was susceptible to red-eye in about 30% of our flash shots. It also tended to overexpose with fill flash on occasion. Red-eye is a pain, and no camera's 'elimination' facility is perfect. Using software to correct it later is the best way, but having to deal with many shots can be irksome. Bigger cameras, with the flashgun further from the lens axis, are generally preferable in this regard.

However, the Panasonic tended to find accurate focus more often than the Canon in our very low-lighting tests. Just 10% were judged unacceptable, while no less than 64% of the Canon shots were judged substandard in the same, admittedly atypical conditions. Since red-eye is correctable, while being out of focus is not, the Panasonic has to score here.

LCD comparison

Both screens are bright (user variable) and clear, but the Canon scores in that instead of using a fixed LCD, as on the Panasonic, it has a swing-out-and-swivel screen. This is useful for viewing subjects from odd angles. And since the Canon's screen can be laid down on the camera's back facing either inwards or outwards, protecting the LCD from scratches is easy in the former mode, or rapid viewing of images is possible in the latter position. This can, however, lead to some frustration when swapping frequently between viewing and protecting.

Electronic viewfinder

Both are rather poor, it has to be said; the image is indistinct. EVFs featuring just 114,000 pixels, as here, are simply inadequate to compete with even modest optical viewfinders or an EVF employing far more pixels. However, each is capable of letting you frame the subject, and that's really the main point, many users relying on the LCD, however inadvisably, as principle viewfinder.

Zoom lens

Zooming over the entire optical range can be very quick in both cameras. So rapid, in fact, that halting the zoom action at the required stage can be quite difficult. The Panasonic offers no slow motion zoom action at all so the best thing is it to get somewhere close to the required framing and then 'nudge' the zoom control in little stages until you get it right. Not ideal.

If you are careful and apply the very minimum pressure on the Canon's zoom lever, it's possible to slow the zooming action down. This is a preferable arrangement, so the Canon scores here, but the distinction between fast and slow zooming could, with advantage, have been made easier to achieve.

Such is the compactness of zoom design these days that the lens is extended from the body from only 29mm at start up to a mere 33mm on the Canon, and an even more diminutive 21mm to 24mm respectively on the Panasonic, while zooming across the entire 12x optical range. A remarkable achievement in lens design for both manufacturers.

Scenes

Scene modes are offered by both cameras, the Canon from the Mode Dial SCN control on top, leading to final on-screen menu selection, the Panasonic entirely from menu selections. Altogether, with video selections, a perhaps confusing total of thirteen Mode Dial options are offered on the Canon; the Panasonic's Mode Dial bearing just nine options.

The actual scene modes are reasonably comprehensive in each case, and the facility is standard for this sort of camera. Portrait, sports, scenery, night scenery, night portrait, panning, fireworks, party, and snow on the Canon. Foliage, snow, beach, fireworks, indoors, and night snapshot on the Panasonic. Well, some folks find scene mode useful while purists prefer to make the settings manually themselves and have full control

Image size

Images up to 2560 x 1920 are available from either camera. The Canon offers four resolutions and three levels of JPEG compression, while the Panasonic offers just two levels of JPEG compression together with an uncompressed TIFF mode. Again, the latter will be valued by keen photographers who like to work with unmodified images, so the Panasonic scores here.

Further, if you select TIFF mode on the Panasonic, a JPEG file is simultaneously created, using the higher of the two compression rates. That's a useful option for fastidious photographers.

Menus

On the whole, the menu options are easily understood and quick to select. As is usual, certain options are also available from controls on the camera body for easy access. No less than ten external buttons on the Canon control such functions as the self-timer and continuous running, a movie button, metering mode, manual focus, macro (and supermacro), flash/microphone selections, and menu and 'set' buttons, the latter for confirming menu options.

The Panasonic's seven button controls manage EVF/LCD choice, type of display, exposure options, plus menu and focus/delete buttons. Certain options are also on the cursor control dial - self-timer, flash output, white balance, exposure compensation, review, and bracketing of shots. A short learning period is required to master either type.

Both cameras offer adequate image information displays, including a histogram for tuning your exposures. With date/time, shutter speed and aperture, battery level, image size and compression, flash information and of course the image count.

Video capture

Here the Canon scores because it offers interested users a full run-until-the-card-is-full video mode. If you feed this camera with sufficient SD memory, formatted in the camera for capturing video, you can select resolutions as high as 640 x 480 pixels with rates as high as 30 frames per second. No need to hold the shutter button down either; one press starts the action, another press stops it. And you can use the zoom while filming, too. All with stereo sound from the integral twin microphones.

The Panasonic, in contrast, offers just the standard 320 x 240 pixels, at 30 or 10 frames per second, complete with mono audio.

Battery life

The Canon runs on 4 x A4 batteries and has been doing well on our set of 2300mAh NiMH batteries. The Panasonic offers even better life from it's rechargeable Li Ion battery, for which a charger is supplied. Canon thus save on costs once again, as with the absent lens hood, but there are many who value AA power in any event since they know they are never far from a supply of Alkaline batteries. Inefficient for this duty they may be, but plentiful and accessible. Other things being equal, however, dedicated high capacity Lithium ion batteries are generally preferred these days, as on the Panasonic.

Size and weight

Here the Panasonic scores over the Canon, although, by any standards, they can both be classed as small and light. But at just 330gms with battery and memory card, the Panasonic beats the Canon's 530gms by a large enough margin to be of interest to those with an aversion to lugging camera weight around. However, camera weight sometimes translates to ease of handling, and some may prefer the bigger Canon. We didn't find either's handling objectionable.

We have to say that we marginally preferred the Panasonic, mainly because fewer control buttons meant less chance for advertent operation, as we said, though the positioning of the viewfinder (over the lens) on the Canon was preferred to the Panasonic's end-of-body location. It felt rather less easy to locate than on the Canon's closer-to-central position.

Manuals

On this subject, the Panasonic manual, it has to be said, leaves something to be desired. Obviously written by a non-English speaking author, there are passages that leave one wondering about the precise meaning. What, for example, would you make out of a note on spot-focussing?

"The camera focuses on the limited and narrow area in the screen."

The Panasonic manual doesn't offer an index either, though it does give you a contents section at the front. So the Canon manual scores in the camera's favour.

General facilities

Here the Panasonic model scores, having a longer-lasting metal tripod bush. Having said that, few users of these particular models will find themselves employing a tripod, one assumes, in which case a plastic bush serves the purpose for occasional use.

We preferred the swish matt black finish of the Panasonic review sample in comparison with the Canon's all-silver. The latter was already scuffing a little in some places after being through reviewer's hands.

The Canon's neck strap was better designed, however, as the Panasonic's had no lugs to hold down the loop you necessarily get after passing the ends through the camera's strap eyelet. It just looked a little untidy and unfinished. Hardly a major point though.

Some users will not like the fact that on the Panasonic you gain access to not only the battery but also, more importantly, the memory card, via a bottom bay. It means you have to remove the camera from a tripod before you can change the card. The Canon accepts it's memory card through an end bay.

Memory

A meagre 16MB of memory is supplied with each camera, Secure Digital or MMC. That's barely sufficient to get you going. It isn't even enough to get a single shot in the Panasonic's TIFF mode! Users will therefore be quick to upgrade the card, so that cost has to be factored in.

In conclusion

Either of these two digital cameras will have their devotees, and both are recommended with some reservations. They each score in their specialities, and each has it's downsides. We think the Panasonic may shade the issue for stills photography, mainly because it is smaller and weighs significantly less, can capture TIFF images, looks rather better in it's swish all-black variant, too, and finally, it's appreciably less expensive. The Canon will be favoured by those demanding higher quality video as well as good stills shots, plus the ability to run off the ubiquitous AA battery. It also features the more versatile LCD of the two. A decision will principally depend on the user's interests.

 

 

 

 

Don Bradbury