Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic Lumix FZ15 ve FZ20

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 7, 2005 6:47:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

I know........

The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
flash shoe.

Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?

Iris
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:47:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, "Iris" <Iris87@aolnospam.com> wrote:

>I know........
>
>The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>flash shoe.
>
>Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>
>Iris
I have the FZ15. I like it a lot. The only feature on the FZ20
I might have wished for would be the 'remote' shutter release.
There is a 2 and 10 second timer, plus the stabilsation feature
on the FZ 15 if you have shaky hands.
March 7, 2005 6:47:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:

> I know........
>
> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
> flash shoe.
>
> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>
> Iris

There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
they generally prefer the FZ-15.

You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at

http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic

HTH
Related resources
March 7, 2005 6:47:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

My wife has a FZ15 for animal and nature photography. It's a wonderful
camera, and knocks my Nikon 4500 for six. Progress I guess,
DonB
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:04:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:15d2dv18ufo32.vkk2eub1sh05.dlg@40tude.net:

> There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC
> Magazine, and they generally prefer the FZ-15.

I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
print?

--

Bill
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:57:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Iris wrote:
> I know........
>
> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care
> about that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an
> external flash shoe.
>
> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369
> while the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality
> and noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same
> sized sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?

Iris,

In principle you are correct - there should be slightly lower noise on the
4MP sensor because the individual pixels are larger, and the efficiency of
light capture should be better because the readout electronics may take up
less space.

The movie clips don't have audio on the FZ15.

There are also some new lightweight models - the FZ4 and FZ5 - with a
similar feature difference, sacrificing a little in the aperture at
maximum zoom (f/3.3 cf. f./2.8). Whether these newer models have a newer
sensor and therefore better image quality I don't know.

Cheers,
David
March 7, 2005 12:34:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
> print?

I looked quickly at their website, and don't see it online, but you can
check for yourself at www.pcmag.com. PC Mag is available at just about any
newsstand or public library (in the US).

HTH
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:40:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> My wife has a FZ15 for animal and nature photography. It's a wonderful
> camera, and knocks my Nikon 4500 for six. Progress I guess,
> DonB

... although I bet you still find the swivel of the 4500 useful, compared
to the fixed LCD on the FZ15..?

David
March 7, 2005 12:41:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
> print?

Bill: Try this...

Go to www.pcmag.com
Click on the DIGITAL CAMERAS icon right under the SEARCH box
Click on the Superzoom link under DIGITAL CAMERA FINDER

You'll find at least a summary of the mag's latest Panasonic reviews there

Pete
March 7, 2005 5:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
> flash shoe.

You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles :-) and no flash
shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other features that the
big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:48:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:1d6qpbvmv75sz.417qxlfiww5.dlg@40tude.net:

> On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or
>> only in print?
>
> Bill: Try this...
>
> Go to www.pcmag.com
> Click on the DIGITAL CAMERAS icon right under the SEARCH box
> Click on the Superzoom link under DIGITAL CAMERA FINDER
>
> You'll find at least a summary of the mag's latest Panasonic
> reviews there
>
> Pete

Thanks, Pete.

--

Bill
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles :-) and no flash
> shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other features that the
> big brothers have, at around 300 fish.

The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but is not
f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need speed.

ittsy <leicarose@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Both of them are OK cameras for the money. They do not come close to SLR
> or rangefinder quality, partially due to the extremely small sensor and
> partially due to the ridiculously large zoom range... but most consumers
> are pleased with the images.

Although it seems like the Leica-badged lens is better than anything
available at reasonable cost for DSLR. The Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
goes wider but not nearly as long and has questionable optical quality
especially at the long end. Canon makes a good 28-300/3.5-5.6 IS
but it is very heavy and expensive.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:22:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:47 -0800, Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:
>
>> I know........
>>
>> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>> flash shoe.
>>
>> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>>
>> Iris
>
>There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
>they generally prefer the FZ-15.
>
>You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>
>http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic
>
>HTH


Also try this

http://www.dcresources.com


keith
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:09:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:422df6c2@news.meer.net:

> DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles :-) and no
>> flash shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other
>> features that the big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
>
> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but
> is not f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most
> need speed.

The EXIF for a pic I took at max zoom on my FZ3 says F2.8.

Michael
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:51:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Benson wrote:
> Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:422df6c2@news.meer.net:
>
>> DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles :-) and no
>>> flash shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other
>>> features that the big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
>>
>> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but
>> is not f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most
>> need speed.
>
> The EXIF for a pic I took at max zoom on my FZ3 says F2.8.
>
> Michael

That's what it says on the front of the lens as well....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

David
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:39:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:
>
> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but is not
> f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need speed.

Sorry, I was wrong -- the FZ3 lens is a 35-420/2.8 constant aperture.

For me the main problem with Lumix cameras is the electronic viewfinder.
March 9, 2005 3:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7-Mar-2005, leicarose@yahoo.com (ittsy) wrote:

>
> Both of them are OK cameras for the money. They do not come close to SLR
> or rangefinder quality, partially due to the extremely small sensor and
> partially due to the ridiculously large zoom range. . but most consumers
> are pleased with the images.


That's partly true but I think that in good light they come very , very
close to a DLSR.
PC Mag makes the telling point that they are ideal travel cameras offering a
vast range of image making opportunities.
That ridiculous zoom throws more effective images into my viewfinder than
any other camera I've owned.
To match that with a DLSR requires a bigger walllet , a heavy kit bag , more
lenses and a supply of CCD Cleaner.

In poor light , it's no match for a DSLR as I found out recently while
shooting a wedding in a dimly lit Texan Church!
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 8:03:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:05:49 GMT, "Swifty"
<swifty@notarealaddress.net> wrote:

>That ridiculous zoom throws more effective images into my viewfinder than
>any other camera I've owned.

Swifty,

I was about to write something similar. I have a Panasonic Lumix
DMC-FZ1-2, and its Leica lens is just wonderful for the kind of
photography I do (see for example
http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/).

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:12:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Somebody posted:
>>
>> You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>>
>> http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic

This is a very interesting review! The Olympus C-720 comparison samples
are awful. And nowhere else have I read about the FZ10's "dead zone"
in the 1 to 6 foot range.

Olympus has a novel approach for solving the purple fringing problem:
reduce resolution enough so that nobody can see it!
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:41:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:47 -0800, Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:
>
>> I know........
>>
>> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>> flash shoe.
>>
>> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>>
>> Iris
>
>There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
>they generally prefer the FZ-15.
>
>You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>
>http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic
>
>HTH


Also try this

http://www.dcresources.com


keith


Opppppppppps that should be http://www.dcresource.com not dcresources

Sorry
March 11, 2005 6:09:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 10:12:13 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

> Somebody posted:
>>>
>>> You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>>>
>>> http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic
>
> This is a very interesting review! ...nowhere else have I read about
> the FZ10's "dead zone" in the 1 to 6 foot range.

I run into the dead zone feature constantly with small subjects, and it's a
PITA.

Consider taking a picture of something the size of a credit card. The only
way to fill the image with the subject is to get between 3" (7.5cm) and 9"
(22.5cm) away. In the dead zone and beyond, the subject can't fill more
than 15-25% of the image.

My favorite example is shooting a fish in an aquarium tank. You can't jump
in the tank with the fish. And if you back off beyond 6' (2m), not only is
the fish tiny, but you see all the handprints, scratches and reflections on
the glass.

Similarly for small animals a few feet behind a chain link fence at the
zoo.

Even without something between you and the subject, it's a disappointment
for an otherwise excellent camera.

I'd be interested in hearing if the FZ15 and FZ20 have the same problem as
the FZ10. I'm assuming they do.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:38:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ugf77l9y49dr.jz4pqyek1661$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > This is a very interesting review! ...nowhere else have I read about
> > the FZ10's "dead zone" in the 1 to 6 foot range.
>
> I run into the dead zone feature constantly with small subjects, and it's a
> PITA.
>
> Consider taking a picture of something the size of a credit card. The only
> way to fill the image with the subject is to get between 3" (7.5cm) and 9"
> (22.5cm) away. In the dead zone and beyond, the subject can't fill more
> than 15-25% of the image.
>
> My favorite example is shooting a fish in an aquarium tank. You can't jump
> in the tank with the fish. And if you back off beyond 6' (2m), not only is
> the fish tiny, but you see all the handprints, scratches and reflections on
> the glass.
>
> Similarly for small animals a few feet behind a chain link fence at the
> zoo.
>
> Even without something between you and the subject, it's a disappointment
> for an otherwise excellent camera.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing if the FZ15 and FZ20 have the same problem as
> the FZ10. I'm assuming they do.

Yes, it's the same with the FZ20. At maximum optical telephoto zoom, the
closest focused distance is about 2m (say 6ft) At maximum wide angle
that drops to 300mm (about 1ft) but of course the image seems far away
because it's wide angle. Manual focus makes no difference.

With the Macro function, the wide angle is dropped to 50mm, almost
inside the lens hood, with no change to the minimum at telephoto.

The only solution I can think of for this conundrum is to try a closeup
lens, 2x dioptre would be a good start.

The numbers quoted above are from the manual(Page 54), confirmed with a
few uncalibrated checks with the camera.

I've been meaning to get a set of CU lenses, I guess this is as good a
time as any. Will report back.

STOP PRESS: I just did some fiddling with the FZ20 and found that if I
set up a business card at about 300mm/1ft and focussed on it at Wide
angle 1x, I could tweak the zoom to about 3x before the focus was lost
This was enough to increase the card's image from 1/16 of the screen to
better than 1/4. At 4x zoom I'd lost it. A crumb of comfort.
--
YAnewsWatcher.
March 14, 2005 2:46:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:38:36 +1300, YAnewswatcher
<umustbjoking@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>In article <ugf77l9y49dr.jz4pqyek1661$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is a very interesting review! ...nowhere else have I read about
>> > the FZ10's "dead zone" in the 1 to 6 foot range.
>>
>> I run into the dead zone feature constantly with small subjects, and it's a
>> PITA.
>>
>> Consider taking a picture of something the size of a credit card. The only
>> way to fill the image with the subject is to get between 3" (7.5cm) and 9"
>> (22.5cm) away. In the dead zone and beyond, the subject can't fill more
>> than 15-25% of the image.
>>
>> My favorite example is shooting a fish in an aquarium tank. You can't jump
>> in the tank with the fish. And if you back off beyond 6' (2m), not only is
>> the fish tiny, but you see all the handprints, scratches and reflections on
>> the glass.
>>
>> Similarly for small animals a few feet behind a chain link fence at the
>> zoo.
>>
>> Even without something between you and the subject, it's a disappointment
>> for an otherwise excellent camera.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing if the FZ15 and FZ20 have the same problem as
>> the FZ10. I'm assuming they do.
>
>Yes, it's the same with the FZ20. At maximum optical telephoto zoom, the
>closest focused distance is about 2m (say 6ft) At maximum wide angle
>that drops to 300mm (about 1ft) but of course the image seems far away
>because it's wide angle. Manual focus makes no difference.
>
>With the Macro function, the wide angle is dropped to 50mm, almost
>inside the lens hood, with no change to the minimum at telephoto.
>
>The only solution I can think of for this conundrum is to try a closeup
>lens, 2x dioptre would be a good start.
>
>The numbers quoted above are from the manual(Page 54), confirmed with a
>few uncalibrated checks with the camera.
>
>I've been meaning to get a set of CU lenses, I guess this is as good a
>time as any. Will report back.
>
>STOP PRESS: I just did some fiddling with the FZ20 and found that if I
>set up a business card at about 300mm/1ft and focussed on it at Wide
>angle 1x, I could tweak the zoom to about 3x before the focus was lost
>This was enough to increase the card's image from 1/16 of the screen to
>better than 1/4. At 4x zoom I'd lost it. A crumb of comfort.

I was just about to order the Fz20 tomorrow. I take a lot of close up
pics of things and also have to zoom in many times to get the subject
detail as they fly in the air a lot.

From what I am reading above is this camera going to be a problem for
me?
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tellme wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:38:36 +1300, YAnewswatcher
> <umustbjoking@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>In article <ugf77l9y49dr.jz4pqyek1661$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>>>This is a very interesting review! ...nowhere else have I read about
>>>>the FZ10's "dead zone" in the 1 to 6 foot range.
>>>
>>>I run into the dead zone feature constantly with small subjects, and it's a
>>>PITA.
>>>
>>>Consider taking a picture of something the size of a credit card. The only
>>>way to fill the image with the subject is to get between 3" (7.5cm) and 9"
>>>(22.5cm) away. In the dead zone and beyond, the subject can't fill more
>>>than 15-25% of the image.
>>>
>>>My favorite example is shooting a fish in an aquarium tank. You can't jump
>>>in the tank with the fish. And if you back off beyond 6' (2m), not only is
>>>the fish tiny, but you see all the handprints, scratches and reflections on
>>>the glass.
>>>
>>>Similarly for small animals a few feet behind a chain link fence at the
>>>zoo.
>>>
>>>Even without something between you and the subject, it's a disappointment
>>>for an otherwise excellent camera.
>>>
>>>I'd be interested in hearing if the FZ15 and FZ20 have the same problem as
>>>the FZ10. I'm assuming they do.
>>
>>Yes, it's the same with the FZ20. At maximum optical telephoto zoom, the
>>closest focused distance is about 2m (say 6ft) At maximum wide angle
>>that drops to 300mm (about 1ft) but of course the image seems far away
>>because it's wide angle. Manual focus makes no difference.
>>
>>With the Macro function, the wide angle is dropped to 50mm, almost
>>inside the lens hood, with no change to the minimum at telephoto.
>>
>>The only solution I can think of for this conundrum is to try a closeup
>>lens, 2x dioptre would be a good start.
>>
>>The numbers quoted above are from the manual(Page 54), confirmed with a
>>few uncalibrated checks with the camera.
>>
>>I've been meaning to get a set of CU lenses, I guess this is as good a
>>time as any. Will report back.
>>
>>STOP PRESS: I just did some fiddling with the FZ20 and found that if I
>>set up a business card at about 300mm/1ft and focussed on it at Wide
>>angle 1x, I could tweak the zoom to about 3x before the focus was lost
>>This was enough to increase the card's image from 1/16 of the screen to
>>better than 1/4. At 4x zoom I'd lost it. A crumb of comfort.
>
>
> I was just about to order the Fz20 tomorrow. I take a lot of close up
> pics of things and also have to zoom in many times to get the subject
> detail as they fly in the air a lot.
>
> From what I am reading above is this camera going to be a problem for
> me?

It depends. As I read the above, you're limited to about 3x zoom at
distances less than about six feet. If by "close up" you mean "I can
place the camera as close as I want to the subject", you'll likely be
OK. And if the things flying through the air are more than six feet
away, you'll apparently be able to use the full 12x zoom. You might
get sharp focus and motion blur, but that's a separate issue. There's
apparently a discontinuity in the amount of zoom you can use at about
six feet. This sort of thing is not unique to Panasonic's 12x zooms.

I have the Olympus C700, which is the ancestor of the C720 that was
compared with the FZ10. I can't use the full 10x zoom at distances
inside about six feet. I can use more of it than the FZ10 can,
apparently, since I can focus on a full-frame business card at a
distance of one foot. If I go to full zoom at a distance of one foot,
focus is lost. If I put the thing in macro mode, the minimum full-
zoom distance drops to about three feet and the minimum wide-angle
focus distance drops to about 2.5".

Can any FZ{10,15,20} owners clarify what happens to the zoom capability
when the camera is in macro mode? Can you use 3x zoom down to three
feet, for example? If so, that might leave the proprietary battery and
the small sensor as the only things that would make me think twice about
upgrading to an FZ20.

Paul Allen
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:57:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:
>
>>The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but is not
>>f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need speed.
>
>
> Sorry, I was wrong -- the FZ3 lens is a 35-420/2.8 constant aperture.
>
> For me the main problem with Lumix cameras is the electronic viewfinder.
>

I find the electronic viewfinder on my FZ-15, a godsend. Lets you brace
the camera against your face for stability, diopter adjustment for tack
sharp wiewing, no washout in strong sunlight and WYSIWYG 100%.
If that is not satisfying, you can switch to the LCD screen for viewing
with the press of a button.

The FZ-15 is my 4th Digicam and it is by far, the most versatile.
You gotta love that image stabilized 420mm f2.8 Tele.
Try pricing an IS, f2.8 35-420 mm Zoom for a 35mm film camera.
Apples and Oranges to be sure but it puts things in prespective.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:23:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ibydnXgOpPssaanfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
Paul Allen <nobody@nowhere.org> wrote:

> Can any FZ{10,15,20} owners clarify what happens to the zoom capability
> when the camera is in macro mode? Can you use 3x zoom down to three
> feet, for example? If so, that might leave the proprietary battery and
> the small sensor as the only things that would make me think twice about
> upgrading to an FZ20.

According to the manual, Macro mode has no effect on the 12x Tele end
(Infinity to minimum 2m) but improves the WA minimum from 300mm to 50mm.

At 3x zoom/macro mode the autofocus is working at 120mm in front of the
lens. At that range and zoom I'm only seeing about 2/3 of my business
card in the viewing screen, which is better than the 3/4 of the card
visible at WA and 50mm, which is too damn close for most purposes
anyway. Even bumble bees get spooked by a bloody great lens poked that
close to them.

I'm thinking the FZ20 isn't as bad as some folk (including me) have
feared.

Note that at 4x zoom/Macro the autofocus is struggling at 1.08m.

The proprietary battery also isn't really a problem. Compared to my
previous Canon S1 IS I calculated that by the time I had bought a useful
number of NiMH AA cells plus a normal slow charger and a fast charger
for emergencies, the total cost was the same as the second and third
Li-Ion batteries I have bought for the FZ20. The first battery and fast
charger are included with the camera.

The Li-Ion batteries last much, much longer than NiMH and don't seem to
leak charge while sitting in my bag, a major problem previously.

--
YAnewsWatcher.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It seems that the Panasonic FZ camera have the finder positioned for
people who are right handed and use their right eye for viewing.

Anyone who is left handed and views using their left eye have any
experience with these cameras.

Bob Williams wrote:

>
>
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
>> Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:
>>
>>> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but
>>> is not
>>> f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need
>>> speed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I was wrong -- the FZ3 lens is a 35-420/2.8 constant aperture.
>>
>> For me the main problem with Lumix cameras is the electronic viewfinder.
>>
>
> I find the electronic viewfinder on my FZ-15, a godsend. Lets you
> brace the camera against your face for stability, diopter adjustment
> for tack sharp wiewing, no washout in strong sunlight and WYSIWYG 100%.
> If that is not satisfying, you can switch to the LCD screen for
> viewing with the press of a button.
>
> The FZ-15 is my 4th Digicam and it is by far, the most versatile.
> You gotta love that image stabilized 420mm f2.8 Tele.
> Try pricing an IS, f2.8 35-420 mm Zoom for a 35mm film camera.
> Apples and Oranges to be sure but it puts things in prespective.
> Bob Williams
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:51:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> It seems that the Panasonic FZ camera have the finder positioned for
> people who are right handed and use their right eye for viewing.
>
> Anyone who is left handed and views using their left eye have any
> experience with these cameras.

Works just fine for me (left eye viewer), but I do have to clean the LCD
of nose smudges occasionally!

David
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems that the Panasonic FZ camera have the finder positioned for
> people who are right handed and use their right eye for viewing.
>
> Anyone who is left handed and views using their left eye have any
> experience with these cameras.
>

I've experienced no problems, in fact I reckon it's one of the easier
cameras for a left handed/left eyed user to work with (oh and I wear
glasses too!)

I admit to using the back LCD screen more often than the EVF, but it
works fine for me.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:22:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <KyuZd.10852$C47.9701@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> It seems that the Panasonic FZ camera have the finder positioned for
> people who are right handed and use their right eye for viewing.
>
> Anyone who is left handed and views using their left eye have any
> experience with these cameras.
>
A short P mode only play (left-eyed, right handed) was fine for me,
better than Canon bodies with the wheel/switches on the back.

It is time to put your own nose print on the FZ screen at the camera shop
as nothing beats personal experience when it comes to camera feel. As an
example, on paper I thought the Canon 350D would be my next camera, but
my slightly arthritic index finger found the shutter button to be in an
uncomfortable position, even though I like smallish cameras. I will try
again another day to be sure.
!