Premium compact vs compact system

d2ww

Hi all, I'm looking to upgrade our 5 year old casio compact camera to take photos of the family, holidays etc some of which could be printed off and framed.
I'm trying to decide between these two Panasonics
http://www.currys.ie/Product/PANASONIC-Lumix-DMCGF3KEBK-Interchangeable-Micro-Compact-System-Camera-with-1442mm-Lens-Black/310119/176 and
http://www.currys.ie/Product/PANASONIC-Lumix-DMCTZ27EBK-Advanced-Compact-Digital-Camera-Black/313025/174#product-information

On the one hand you have portability, a great 20x optical zoom versus an 8 times bigger sensor(four thirds) that gives "a better quality image" but won't fit easily in a coat pocket.
My question is, what does a "better quality image" mean? How big can prints get before you notice a difference? 8x10, 10x12, 12x16?
Thanks

cnocbui

Image quality is largely determined by the lens and the sensor.

Roughly speaking, the greater the zoom range, the more optical compromises that have to be made in the lens and the lower the image quality. High image quality zoom lenses usually have a focal length range less than 5X.

It is usually considered that 300 dpi is required in a print for a high quality appearance. So given the sensor dimension in pixels it's easy to work out the maximum print size you can have.

The compact has a sensor with 4320x3232 pixels

The GF3 has 4000x3000 pixels

So the maximum quality print sizes are 14.5x10.8 inch for the compact and 13.3x10 inch for the GF3

The larger sensor in the GF3 will allow for much better performance at low light levels, due to less noise.

The GF3 will allow for higher quality images due to a better quality lens and sensor. The images will be sharper, have higher contrast, less chromatic aberration and less noise.

d2ww

Thanks cnocbui for the reply, it's got me rethinking about what this camera is for again. I'm one of the few luddites left who doesn't have a smart phone, but I see my wife using her samsung galaxy, and the way a photo is taken and fired off on "whatsapp" and it's all about spontaneity and a bit of fun, and frankly the image quality isn't really that important.
Personally, I think that this will make the p&s type of camera as dead as a dodo, which goes for the premium compacts as well. 95% of the time, the camera phone does a pretty darn good job.
So, I'm leaning towards the GF3 for that other 5% of the time.
d2ww

cnocbui

That is definetley the way to go and the way things are heading.

I have an Olympus m4/3 camera and a very decent camera in my phone. I use the phone for visual note taking, documents and stuff I don't have time to write down and for photos when it's all I have on me. But the m4/3 is in another league in terms of image quality and flexibility altogether.

If you are not in a huge hurry, It might be worth waiting a few weeks for the newly announced Olympus ZX-2 to become available. It has a fast high quality lens and a backside illuminated sensor and promises to be a very attractive proposition for people looking for rthe sort of thing you are. I have seen some amazing quality images taken with the ZX-1 predecessor. From fashion style shoots to macro.

The GF3 would still be the better pick and is amazing value, and probably cheaper!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-xz2/olympus-xz2A.HTM

diarmaidol

I'd give another vote to the GF3 , I have the GF2 and love it for that camera between My SLR and Clunky lenses and the phone. I got it with the 14mm and invested in a 14-42mm and a 45-200mm lens. In the end it's a system camera that has gotten off to a good start.

Remember the best camera is the one with you. So while the GF3 has it's merits. The cameras on the new Smartphones are not to be ignored and should be thought as part of a system you may like to have. (I always have my phone with me.)

d2ww

Picked up the GF3 from Curry's yesterday and a couple of shots with it and our old casio compact camera. The sales guy there was not surprised when I told him that they were cheaper than Pixmania.ie, as he said that they had bought out pixmania a few years ago, which was something I didn't know before.
Anyway, while the outdoor photo's looked very similar on the laptop, with the indoor ones there was a world of difference, it was dusk at the time. The casio was very grainy to the point of being unusable, while the GF3 photo was still clear. So it was a bit of a relief to have our purchase vindicated.
Thanks again,
d2ww
ps. found dpreview.com site to be a really useful and comprehensive source of info on different cameras.

cnocbui

Congratulations. The graininess is noise. There is a distinct relationship between noise and sensor size. That is the benefit you are seeing in low light.

If you ever find yourself wanting better low light performance, Want to take portraits with nice shallow depth of field (blurred bacgrounds) and generally sharper shots, you might want to look at the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8 for use on your GF3.

Dpreview is a very good site for checking out photo equipment, probably none better.

diarmaidol

The Panasonic 14mm 2.5 isn't a bad lens either ... or the 20mm 1.7. Just look what you've started ;-)... It's a great buy.

BTW for low light work as well it's worth shooting in RAW and processing after the fact. Once you have a RAW file safe you can always reprocess to try get the best Image Quality out of the file. Even a few years later you can go back with new processors and or skills and make an old image just that bit better. Based of that I'd say getting a copy of Adobe light room might be a good plan before you go getting more lens and the like.