I've read most of the camera threads here and it seems that many people who have the superzooms are very pleased with them. I've read a number of reviews (not just the summaries)and the reviewers consistently complain about heavy handed noise reduction at ISO as low as 100. I viewed the test's photos on my computer screen and noted there was a considerable loss of detail.
For those that have used the Lumix or other superzoom on your safari:
1)Did you make any prints larger that 5x7? 2)Were you satisfied with the picture quality at those sizes?
On the off chance that I capture a shot that merits an enlargement beyond what I might put in a photo album, I'd like to be able to do so.

It looks like the work around for the heavy handed NR is to shoot in RAW mode. Hmmm. And I'll have photos ready for viewing by WHEN??

I'm not at all a serious amateur photographer and I have no illusions that an expensive camera will transform me into an outstanding photographer. If I decided to get a DSLR, I'd likely get a Nikon D40x with an 18-55 lens and rent an 80-400VR. It's likely that I'd sell the Nikon on craigslist after we returned. I'm more inclined to keep the Lumix to replace the Canon A70 I have now. That's said without having tried either one of them, though!

I used to do quite a bit of photography, with an SLR, about 25 years ago but my interests have changed. I have no doubt that I can become comfortable using a DSLR. Our trip to Tanzania is in late July; my deadline for buying a camera is March.
Ladies and gentlemen, your opinions, please.
And thanks in advance.

I've used a Lumix (various editions - one left in a NYC taxi, another stolen from our basement while we were sleeping ) and now have a FZ8. Assuming you're not trying to blow up a small portion of the frame, there's no problem with 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, provided the focus/lighting etc. is okay to begin with.

The only problem I have with it is the high-ISO ratings (for shots after sunset on game drives etc.) does result in a lot of image degradation. But those shots are relatively few, and if I had to decide between the size, weight and price of the Lumix v. the cost and bulk of a bigtime DSLR and lenses, I'd pick the Lumix.

Thanks, Gardyloo. That's helpful information.
Hopefully I'll hear from other users of both types.

On our first safari Sept 2005 we each used a Canon S2IS, 12x zoom camera, 5 meg pixels. Here are a few safari photos all using only that camera.
http://tinyurl.com/377m5w
Bring some of those up to "original" and you can see what a 5x7 would look like. Some of these we have printed 11x14 to hang on the wall. They look good, and I'm rather fussy about prints and image quality. These were probably taken at ISO 100 or 200. At ISO 400 or 800, night time, the images get rather grainy/noisy.

Since then with newer DSLRs available I've been using Nikon DSLR. But Carolyn still uses the Canon S2 and for making a DVD show of photos for TV viewing it is just as good as my Nikon. I think you will be delighted with the FZ8.

I still use the Canon S2 for VIDEOS. It takes good videos and short video scenes of animal action are very entertaining and work great on the DVD show. If you get a superzoom camera, try it for video, you may really like it.

regards - tom

Hi ccipups

I had a Panasonic FZ30 for 2 years before I wore it out, now I have a FZ18 and my backup camera is a FZ20, which I have not used much at all. I was very happy with the FZ30, but the screen went and I decided against repairing! I now have the FZ18 and am happy with that. I am a serious amateur in a sense, I take a huge number of photos, in the 2 years since I have gone digital, probably about 86,000 photos. I have kept about 6,000. I do frequent 8 x 10 that I have on my walls and good photos look very good as enlargements - very clear!

I would have photos of the last few trips on here, look up KayeN and I was in Africa in January and again in March this year.

If you have any specific questions, please ask.

At the moment, I would not consider a DSLR, as the photos I am producing now I am more than happy with when I think the money I spent on my camera in comparison to what I would need to spend on any DSLR.

Kind regards

Kaye

Hey everyone. My guess is that the OP will be happy with the Lumix, but I will just briefly summarize whey I carry a DSLR to photograph wildlife:

(1) Overall better image quality. Not just when you blow up the prints, but even at web sizes, I think SLR pictures taken with good lenses just look crisper and better.
(2) Better quality means more ability to crop for composition or enlargement.
(3) Superior low-light, high-ISO performance. And frankly, if that is a concern, I would respectfully tell you that Canon DSLRS do better in this category than the Nikon offerings, unless you get one of the new D3s. Please don't flame -- Nikon makes very fine cameras and lenses, but I think tests have universally shown that Canon has better high ISO performance, at least until the absolute newest Nikon bodies like the D3, which look to be more equal with Canon in this respect.
(4) Ability to shoot RAW. This gives superior images and enhances your ability to salvage marginal pictures versus JPEG. And the procesing doesn't take any longer, I actually find it to be faster than JPEG.
(5) Ability to get longer focal lengths. More focal length is always good for wildlife!

Those are my reasons. I don't suggest that everyone should use an SLR, but the OP asked for views from users of both types of systems, so I wanted to respond to that.

Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis

Tom,Kaye, and Chris,

Thanks very much for your replies and links to your photos. Tom, you have some wonderful photos. Kaye, I did locate a thread (from June, I think) with a link to some of your photos. You certainly have a good eye. I've been struck by the absolute joy Lumix users have in using that camera.
Chris, thanks for posting your views as well. Yes, I do want to hear from people who prefer DSLR's. The decision may come down to determining whether I want to become "a camera person" again.
I'll be checking out more photos on pbase today.
I'm still intersted in hearing from anyone else who migth want to chime in.

ccipups - you're welcome. Many years ago, for many years, I shot a lot of 35mm chrome film. Then I lost interest. But the digital age plus safaris got me back into it. With the old chrome film you had to get the image perfect in the camera. No cropping, no covering distractions, no exposure correction, etc. Now with a digital camera, a PC and Photoshop all this has changed. In fact, all serious photographers must master image manipulation AFTER the camera clicks. However, it hasn't changed that the three still most important things for a good photo are the light, the light and the light. Have fun.

regards - tom

I have used a P&S Olympus 10x zoom on my 3 three previous safaris and had fairly decent results in good midday lighting conditions. But as Chris above pointed out above, it’s in those low light dawn/dusk shots where DSLRs really begin to “shine.” Some of my most memorable wildlife encounters have been at dusk and dawn as this often is when wildlife often becomes more active. In these low lighy situations, the auto programs on my camera have become worthless as they default to unacceptable high ISOs.

My particular camera boasts of having ISOs up to 1,600, but I have never obtained quality images with anything over 400 and thus have I have needed to dial down my shutter speeds in low light and risk blurred photos. Perhaps the Lumix is better in this area than my Olympus, but I would believe it would be safe to say that all P&Ss will not perform as well as DSLRs in these low light conditions. I have encountered enough low light situations with great game viewing opportunities that I will at least investigate some of the smaller DSLRs and perhaps rent a longer focal length lens on my next trip. I am torn on this issue as I know I will not take up photography as a hobby outside of my Africa trips, but I hate being “under gunned” in those key moments.

This is an example of what I am talking about. This lion encounter took place in low light around ½ hour before sunset. I was only 15 meters away on foot and I ended up taking the shot with ISO around 400 and SS I believe at about 1/100. Photo was extremely noisy and I ran it through some noise reduction software, but I sure would have loved to have been able to capture this once in a life time opportunity with a camera better equipped to handle low light conditions.

http://www.pbase.com/greendrake/low_light

GreenDrake, you summarized my dilemma, perfectly!
"I am torn on this issue as I know I will not take up photography as a hobby outside of my Africa trips, but I hate being “under gunned” in those key moments."

FWIW, I believe the Lumix FZ18 is likely an improvement over your Olympus, but the same limitations apply.

I spent about 45 minutes at a camera store today, asking questions and handling the Nikon 40x, Canon Rebel XTi, and the Lumix FZ18. The store was very busy, with a number of customers waiting, I knew I wasn't going to buy today so I didn't spend more time there. The salesman did put a 100-400 lens on the Canon so I could get a feel for it. I quickly determined that I'd need to rent that lens at least a week prior to our trip to acclimate to the size and weight. Both dSLR's looked like they'd be easy to learn to operate.
The Lumix was very lightweight, but nevertheless felt substantial in my hand. The motorized zoom was a cinch to operate and very easy to control.

I looked at a lot of photos on pbase today. The dSLR's defintely produce crisper images with better detail. The Lumix produced very good images, that I'd be satisfied with, but only within a narrower range of lighting conditions.

Choosing a dSLR would involve a greater investment of time and money. And yield better results. But I don't think I'm willing to make that investment this time.
It could be a question of shots missed because I'm fiddling with the camera/lens vs. shots missed because of lighting limitations.

The Lumix also has a video mode which I think could be kind of fun. And, unlike the dSLR, I think I can get my partner to use it. Yeah, I think I'll go with the Lumix. Maybe I'll shoot the low light shots in RAW.

I'm pretty sure there's a dSLR in my future, though.

We also use a Panasonic Lumix (FZ20). We've been very happy with the photos and have done a lot of enlargements - 11x14 for www.mypublisher.com scrapbooks and we've got some 8x10s from our safari hanging on the wall. We get constant compliments on our photos, especially the ones from safari.

I think your assessment is correct. You may be able to get better photos with an SLR, but the ease of use of the Lumix goes a long way and you can still get very good pics.

Have lots of memory with you and bring a little tripod or beanbag to help you zoom.

A 12x zoom on a point and shoot would not be sufficient in many circumstances, as this is a true 420mm. This does not nearly compare to what a 400mm lens would get you on, for example, a Canon 40d which has a 1.6x multiplication factor, meaning that the 400mm is actually a true 640mm, more than 50% greater than a 12x lens.

The downside, of course, is in size, weight and expense. Personally, though, I would be very frustrated if I was limited to a true 420mm, and, on occasion, I have even used my Sigma 80-400mm f/4-5.6 in combination with a 1.4x teleconvertor, to get me to a whopping 906mm, although it is with manual focus and with mixed results...still that is way more than double the zoom I would have achieved with a point & shoot 12x zoom.

I have successfully made prints as large as 20" x 30" and that was with my Canon 20d and its 8 Megapixel. The Canon 40d is now above 10 Megapixel and Nikon makes a "pro-sumer" camera that is above 12 Megapixel, which should give great quality to 20" x 30" photos, as well, obviously as to anything smaller, providing the photographer has a clue.

The 12x zoom 38-420mm will serve 95% of the people well 95% of the time.

regards - tom
ps - where mostly it is lacking is not being longer than 420mm but rather on the short end!!! 38mm is a bit "long" 28mm would be nice.

I see you've aleady made you decision but I'll weigh in here anyway.

I'm like Greendrake. I don't use my camera much except on safaris in Africa but a DSLR is oh-so-worth-it - to me. After my first safari I bought all the DSLR photography gear ONLY to get good photos in Africa. I could sell everything (except the older cameras - 10D and 20D) and get most of my money back and I started buying stuff in 2003.

There is no doubt you can get good pictures with a P&S camera because there are great ones posted here all the time. But I don't regret spending the money on Canon cameras and lenses and the time it took/takes to learn photography. Some of my photos are on pbase if you want to have a look.
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/botswana_2007
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/kenya_2007
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/gorillas_in_rwanda_jan_2007
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/africa_2006
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/botswana_africa_2005

Sundowner - outstanding photos!! I particularly enjoyed some of the great bird photos you captured. You obviously have some natural talent that goes beyond equipment.

I could not help being taken at the difference in image quality of your waterbuck photo from your 2005 trip and my recent waterbuck photo. Similar scenes, but a world of difference in terms of clarity. Mine was taken at dawn and I also had a 1.7 teleconveter on my P&S which really hurts image quality, but I thought I needed its reach to capture the image.

Sundowner's waterbuck

http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/51445409

My waterbuck

http://www.pbase.com/greendrake/image/86857202

My 2 cents

SD photo is good because - it is strongly lit from the low right side which is also the face side. There is strong light on the side of the face and this becomes the focal point of the photo. Exposure is perfect, good contrast, also sharp. Rest of photo is unobtrusive and compliments the subject. The right side could be cropped back some, specifically the tree part in the lower right corner. Make it into a 4x3 from the 3x2 it is now.

GD photo is also lit from the low right but not strongly lit from the right. The light is flat and lacks contrast considering there is sunlight. On the face/horns the light is weak and the side of the face in shadow. The face is not the focal point of the photo, the light on its rump competes with it. The buck is not sharp focus, fuzzy. The bucks hooves are chopped off which is distracting (SD photo is ok this way because of the considerable bush in front of the legs). The background is very nice and has an ethereal feel to it.

With 15 minutes in Photoshop I came up with this for the GD buck-
http://tinyurl.com/35p5of
Overall contrast is increased taking away the flat lighting and looking more like sunlight (which it is). The light on the rump was dulled down so that the head area (and horns) is now the strong focal point. The bright grass across the front leg and the “stick” in the neck have been cloned out. The image was sharpened. But sorry, no hooves added.

If you are using a digital camera and serious about your photos, you must learn how to get the most from your images. What is now easy on your PC was not possible 20 years ago when I was shooting 35mm chrome slides.

regards - tom

Tom - those are some great tips on how light, shadows and other composition factors come together to make or break a photo. I would never have thought about how the shadows on the face in conjunction with sunlight on the rear alter the image's focal point. I am truly a rookie in this sphere.

The Olympus software I use for post processing is fairly basic and does not have very good spot touch up tools. Now that I begin to see how you think about a photo and what can be done to enhance it, it convinces me that I should look to upgrade to something at least equivilant to Photoshop Elements no matter what camera I end up using in the future.

I was in Cozumel for the last few days and thought I'd check back on this thread.

I have really appreciated everyone's thoughtful replies. Sundowner, I did see your post and your pictures before I left town. And it caused me to waver...still haven't bought a camera. Your composition and timing demonstrate that you have an artistic perspective. I think you'd take great photos with almost any kind of camera! But there's no question, superior equipment gives you more opportunities.
Tom, thanks for the mini-lesson and the example. That was quite uesful!
Oh and my mistake--I'm looking at the FZ18 not the FZ8. Greater focal length, same ISO/NR issues.