Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:37:01 AM

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

The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!

Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.

Ok, I'm sold!!!

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:53:52 AM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96329EF767B87ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>
> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>
> Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>
> Ok, I'm sold!!!
>
> --
> Eric Babula
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA


Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))
Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you???
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:53:53 AM

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

"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019
@athnrd02:

> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96329EF767B87ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>>
>> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>>
>> Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>>
>> Ok, I'm sold!!!
>>
>> --
>> Eric Babula
>> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
>
>
> Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))
> Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you???
>
>
>

What do you mean, how much did I fetch? If you're implying I'm getting
money for this post, no, I'm not. I just know there are others that were
waiting for the dpreview.com review of this camera. I do not own it, nor
do I own any Panasonic product, yet. I'm not in any way affiliated with
Panasonic.

I was looking for a digicam with at least 10x optical zoom, decent macro
capabilities, excellent pictures, for around the $500.00US range. I had
some other requirements, too - if you're curious, you can do a search in
this NG for Eric Babula. I researched a lot of cameras, and dropped my
list down to these:

* Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5
* Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5
* Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
* Nikon Coolpix 8800
* Canon PowerShot S1 IS
* Kodak EasyShare DX 6490 (4MP, 10x zoom)
Consumer Reports liked this one.
* Kodak EasyShare DX 7590 (5MP, 10x zoom)
* Olympus Camedia C765, C750 or C770 (4MP, 10x zoom for all three)
Consumer Reports liked all three of these, too.

After researching dpreview.com, dcresource.com, steves-digicams.com,
cnet.com, pcworld.com, pcmagazine.com, imaging-resource.com, and this
NG, I was pretty convinced that the KM Z5 was the camera for me. Then, I
read a review that kept referencing the Panasonic FZ4, FZ5, FZ15 and
FZ20, while reviewing the KM Z5. I discounted the FZ4 and FZ15 and
looked at the FZ5 and FZ20. After looking at the Pros and Cons of all
the cameras on my shortlist, I cut my short-short list down to the KM
Z5, Pana FZ5 and Pana FZ20. I found the KM Z5 and Pana FZ20 in a couple
different stores, here, and actually held them in my hand. I thought the
KM Z5 was nice enough to hold, and seemed to take good pics (from what I
could tell in the store). I thought the Pana FZ20 was too big and bulky
(especially would be for my wife, who was looking at the pocket-sized
cameras!). So, the short-short list really was down to the KM Z5 and
Pana FZ5.

After long discussions with a few people here, and re-reviewing the
reviews of each of these two cameras, I've been convinced that the Pana
is the better camera. Maybe it's not, in reality, but I'm convinced it
probably is. This latest review on dpreview.com, along with the direct
comparison between the FZ5, the KM Z5 and even the Pana FZ20, has me
convinced that the Pana FZ5 will be a wonderful camera.

All cameras at this price range have their problems (noisy at higher
ISO, some redeye, etc.). You have to figure out which 'Cons' you're
willing to live with. But, for me, anyway, I think I'll probably be
happy with the FZ5.

Ok, was that long enough? Sorry for rambling.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention
of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body.
But rather, it’s to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow! What a ride!!!'
Related resources
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:53:54 AM

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

On 08 Apr 2005 21:49:38 GMT, Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.com> wrote:

>"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019
>@athnrd02:
>
>> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96329EF767B87ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>>>
>>> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>>>
>>> Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm sold!!!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Babula
>>> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
>>
>>
>> Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))
>> Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you???
>>
>>
>>
>
>What do you mean, how much did I fetch?

Well, you did say 'OK, I'm sold', so how much
did you go for?
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:17:50 AM

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

Eric Babula wrote:
> g n p wrote:
> > Eric Babula wrote:
> > > The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
> > > Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
> > > Ok, I'm sold!!!
> > Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))...
> What do you mean, how much did I fetch? If you're implying I'm
> getting money for this post, no, I'm not....
> All cameras at this price range have their problems (noisy at higher
> ISO, some redeye, etc.). You have to figure out which 'Cons' you're
> willing to live with. But, for me, anyway, I think I'll probably be
> happy with the FZ5....


I was delighted that there was nothing seriously deficient in FZ5, according
to this review. However, there are three points which may be of interest to
those contemplating purchasing this model.

1) In the DigitalCameraInfo review, http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2BD258CA,
under Noise Auto ISO, "When the FZ5's automatic ISO settings were tested,
the camera produced extremely noisy images", and under Noise Manual ISO,
"The FZ5 received a 3.52 overall manual noise score, which far exceeds the
camera's automatic performance, though this will not hold any weight in the
eyes of prosumer users". The way this deficiency was described suggested
that the reviewer wanted to say that this level of noise was *not
acceptable* in this class or level of sophistication. Not just there but
too much.

2) This review was ready some two (or more) weeks ago but was withheld from
publication after a communication with Panasonic HQ. Could it be that some
deficiency discovered in the review was unacceptable to Panasonic who
instructed/requested the writer to redo and/or alter certain wording? It is
all very comfortable comparing the FZ5 lens performance with FZ20, but could
it be that a direct comparison with another manufacturer's models would show
up an unacceptable noise level (or indeed some other parameter)? We don't
know unless and until some other reviewer takes up this challenge. Is that
why a 4 Mpic (FZ4) is also offered along side with FZ5? The lesser Mpic
with the same sensor size (1/2.5") naturally produces less noise.

3) FZ4/5 does not have manual focus. This may become very awkward in
certain situations, and, in my mind, is the one feature I miss most.

Just a personal rant, you understand. :)  I probably will end up buying this
one anyway!

--
Lin Chung.
[The Water Margins of Liang Shan Po were at the time of the Sung dynasty.
Replace that with "ntlworld" for emails.]
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:49:40 PM

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

Lin Chung wrote:
[]
> 1) In the DigitalCameraInfo review,
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2BD258CA, under Noise Auto ISO, "When
> the FZ5's automatic ISO settings were tested, the camera produced
> extremely noisy images", and under Noise Manual ISO, "The FZ5
> received a 3.52 overall manual noise score, which far exceeds the
> camera's automatic performance, though this will not hold any weight
> in the eyes of prosumer users". The way this deficiency was
> described suggested that the reviewer wanted to say that this level
> of noise was *not acceptable* in this class or level of
> sophistication. Not just there but too much.

Looking at the DP Review images suggests that the Minolta Z5 is far worse
than the Panasonic FZ5. If the lowest noise at high ISO is critically
important to you, get a DSLR.

> 2) This review was ready some two (or more) weeks ago but was
> withheld from publication after a communication with Panasonic HQ. Could
> it be that some deficiency discovered in the review was
> unacceptable to Panasonic who instructed/requested the writer to redo
> and/or alter certain wording? It is all very comfortable comparing
> the FZ5 lens performance with FZ20, but could it be that a direct
> comparison with another manufacturer's models would show up an
> unacceptable noise level (or indeed some other parameter)? We don't
> know unless and until some other reviewer takes up this challenge. Is
> that why a 4 Mpic (FZ4) is also offered along side with FZ5? The
> lesser Mpic with the same sensor size (1/2.5") naturally produces
> less noise.

More FUD I suspect. (Fear, uncertainty and doubt). Other manufacturers
offer multiple resolutions in a similar sensor size (e.g. Nikon 5700 and
8700) and the buyer can choose which they want.

> 3) FZ4/5 does not have manual focus. This may become very awkward in
> certain situations, and, in my mind, is the one feature I miss most.
>
> Just a personal rant, you understand. :)  I probably will end up
> buying this one anyway!

As the DP Review conclusion says, if manual focus or external flash are
essential to you, then you can get the Panasonic FZ20 instead. They
conclude:

"There is so much to like here - and so little to complain about - that
the DMC-FZ5 has to come highly recommended, and certainly has to make its
way to near the top of the list for anyone looking for an affordable,
compact super zoom camera."

and I concur with that view. And I bought one!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:22:35 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:49:40 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
> "There is so much to like here - and so little to complain about - that
> the DMC-FZ5 has to come highly recommended, and certainly has to make its
> way to near the top of the list for anyone looking for an affordable,
> compact super zoom camera."
>
> and I concur with that view. And I bought one!

I have a FZ1, an impressive little camera especially after I upgraded the
firmware to give FZ2 functionality. The size of the FZ10 was a big turn-off
to me, despite the attraction of more pixels, and the FZ20 didn't improve
enough to justify its size to me either. I still like the idea of a small
superzoom camera with IS to supplement my primary SLR but my FZ1's 2Mpix
sensor is a little too restrictive in many cases. So the advent of a
FZ1-sized camera with FZ20 image size makes the FZ5 very attractive indeed,
especially as I'm perfectly happy with the handling quirks of the FZ1.

--
John Bean

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce better
idiots. So far, the Universe is winning (Rich Cook)
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 5:16:19 PM

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

irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rj0e51hopvpifuv0tvl77od1219rv4joj6@
4ax.com:

> On 08 Apr 2005 21:49:38 GMT, Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.com> wrote:
>
>>"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019
>>@athnrd02:
>>
>>> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns96329EF767B87ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>>>>
>>>> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'm sold!!!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Eric Babula
>>>> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))
>>> Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What do you mean, how much did I fetch?
>
> Well, you did say 'OK, I'm sold', so how much
> did you go for?
>

You don't wanna know! Let's just say, it was a lot!

;-)

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:01:13 PM

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

Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.com> wrote:
>
> the cameras on my shortlist, I cut my short-short list down to the KM
> Z5, Pana FZ5 and Pana FZ20. I found the KM Z5 and Pana FZ20 in a couple
> different stores, here, and actually held them in my hand. I thought the
> KM Z5 was nice enough to hold, and seemed to take good pics (from what I
> could tell in the store). I thought the Pana FZ20 was too big and bulky
> (especially would be for my wife, who was looking at the pocket-sized
> cameras!). So, the short-short list was down to the KM Z5 and Pana FZ5.

I have two Pelican boxes that I've been using for 35mm film equipment,
but it looks like the Panasonic FZ5 won't fit in the smaller Pelican box
anyway. The lens sticks out a long ways, doesn't it? I can't see how
you can call it a pocket-sized camera.

Not that it doesn't look wonderful, depending on eventual selling price.
The FZ20 fits easily into my larger SLR-based Pelican box.

Do you think the higher chrominance noise in the K-M Z5 is due to
the Sony CCD, versus the Panasonic CCD in the FZ5? The red and blue
channels are extremely bad in the K-M Z5; green isn't bad at all, but
maybe that's because Bayer-pattern uses twice as many green sensors.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:57:31 PM

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

"Lin Chung" <lin.chung@the.Water.Margin.com> wrote in
news:o aF5e.10578$JO6.6317@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

> Eric Babula wrote:
>> g n p wrote:
>> > Eric Babula wrote:
>> > > The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>> > > Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>> > > Ok, I'm sold!!!
>> > Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))...
>> What do you mean, how much did I fetch? If you're implying I'm
>> getting money for this post, no, I'm not....
>> All cameras at this price range have their problems (noisy at higher
>> ISO, some redeye, etc.). You have to figure out which 'Cons' you're
>> willing to live with. But, for me, anyway, I think I'll probably be
>> happy with the FZ5....
>
>
> I was delighted that there was nothing seriously deficient in FZ5,
> according to this review. However, there are three points which may
> be of interest to those contemplating purchasing this model.
>
> 1) In the DigitalCameraInfo review,
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2BD258CA, under Noise Auto ISO, "When
> the FZ5's automatic ISO settings were tested, the camera produced
> extremely noisy images", and under Noise Manual ISO, "The FZ5 received
> a 3.52 overall manual noise score, which far exceeds the camera's
> automatic performance, though this will not hold any weight in the
> eyes of prosumer users". The way this deficiency was described
> suggested that the reviewer wanted to say that this level of noise was
> *not acceptable* in this class or level of sophistication. Not just
> there but too much.
>
> 2) This review was ready some two (or more) weeks ago but was
> withheld from publication after a communication with Panasonic HQ.
> Could it be that some deficiency discovered in the review was
> unacceptable to Panasonic who instructed/requested the writer to redo
> and/or alter certain wording? It is all very comfortable comparing
> the FZ5 lens performance with FZ20, but could it be that a direct
> comparison with another manufacturer's models would show up an
> unacceptable noise level (or indeed some other parameter)? We don't
> know unless and until some other reviewer takes up this challenge. Is
> that why a 4 Mpic (FZ4) is also offered along side with FZ5? The
> lesser Mpic with the same sensor size (1/2.5") naturally produces less
> noise.
>
> 3) FZ4/5 does not have manual focus. This may become very awkward in
> certain situations, and, in my mind, is the one feature I miss most.
>
> Just a personal rant, you understand. :)  I probably will end up
> buying this one anyway!
>

I don't know about the conspiracy theories. I'm not gonna even venture
down that path at all.

Please read the reviews at: www.digitalcamerainfo.com again (as I said, I
was down to the KM Z5 and the Panasonic FZ5, so I wanted to directly
compare these two cameras). This website also picks the FZ5 over the Z5.
Actually, look at their Digital Camera Ratings page - the FZ5 is ranked #
6 overall, and the KM Z5 is ranked #18. There are only a couple dSLRs and
a couple other cameras abouve it - the FZ5 is the highest ranked
superzoom digicam. That should mean something, too, if you're interested
in 10x zoom, min.

Seems to me that every camera at this price range has some problems. They
all seem to have too much noise, especially at higher ISO levels. Some
have more redeye than others. Some have better/worse video than others.
Some have worse distortion. None of these cameras is perfect. You have to
pick what you're willing to live with and what you can't.

Look at the dpreview.com review again. Look at the Comparison pages -
comparing the FZ5 to other cameras. The FZ5 performs admirably, in
comparison to other similar cameras. Look at the Sample pictures -
they're beautiful. I don't notice any real problems that would bother me
that much.

From what I see, everyone is picking the FZ5 to be one of, if not the
best $500 superzoom digicam available. I haven't seen one person pick the
KM Z5 over the Panasonic FZ5. Seems to me that this is a good enough
camera for me - but, then, I'm no professional, and I don't have the
money (nor do I want) to buy a dSLR.

YMMV.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 7:28:02 PM

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

Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.coom> wrote in
news:Xns9633654CB487Aebabulacare2com@24.94.170.102:


Oh, also read the review at megapixel.net. All 9s and 10s for the FZ5.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 8:14:38 PM

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

Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.coom> wrote:

> From what I see, everyone is picking the FZ5 to be one of, if not the
> best $500 superzoom digicam available. I haven't seen one person pick the
> KM Z5 over the Panasonic FZ5.

Then you haven't been following this thread. I not only picked the KM
ZS5, I bought it and am thrilled with it.


Konica Minolta DiMage Z5
 Pluses:
 + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power
 + best macro mode to 1 cm.
 + fastest zoom
 + fastest focus
 + fastest save
 + available for $421
 + widest wide angle
 + external flash support with hot shoe
 + supports S-video
 + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
 + supports manual focus
 + has widest ISO range
 Minuses:
 - No focus assist lamp


Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5
 Pluses:
 + at 290 gm is the lightest & smallest
 + focus assist lamp
 Minuses:
 - just became available
 - no external flash support
 - uses Panasonic camcorder battery
 - doesn't support S-video movies
 - doesn't support manual focus

I got the Z5 and it is exactly what I wanted. I take a lot of nature
pictures and needed the anti-shake, zoom and macro features. The reviews
are correct to use the sharp mode for sharp results. The down side of
the Z5 is its inability to focus in the dark. I don't take pictures in
the dark so that is no problem for me.

A very happy KM Z5 owner.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 8:44:33 PM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9632AB4794766ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
> "g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019
> @athnrd02:
>
>> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96329EF767B87ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>>>
>>> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com!
>>>
>>> Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm sold!!!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Babula
>>> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
>>
>>
>> Ok, how much did you fetch??? ;-))
>> Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you???
>>
>>
>>
>
> What do you mean, how much did I fetch? If you're implying I'm getting
> money for this post, no, I'm not. I just know there are others that were
> waiting for the dpreview.com review of this camera. I do not own it, nor
> do I own any Panasonic product, yet. I'm not in any way affiliated with
> Panasonic.

Relax, he was just referring to your saying "Ok, I'm sold!!!"

I just bought the (apparently now discontinued) Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ15K,
which has everything I need in the way of a superzoom camera and is
currently selling at irresistible prices (well under the newer FZ5, which
seems an inferior camera). I am *very* impressed with it. Build quality
seems great, the Leica lens is fantastic as you would expect, and it has
every feature and control I can imagine ever needing on this type of camera.

N.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:54:00 AM

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
[]
> Konica Minolta DiMage Z5
> Pluses:
> + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power

What is the basis for this statement? What are the comparitive power
figures - I have not seen them widely quoted.

> + fastest focus

Actually the Panasonic FZ5 has a special fast-focus mode, and it seems
quite adequate in use.

> + fastest save

providing the buffer doesn't fill, I don't think save speed is any longer
an issue for JPEG files. It might be for RAW or TIFF data, in which case,
what are the figures you have?

> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells

Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than having
eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish to go back to
multiple AA batteries.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:20:27 AM

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

Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote in
news:p ighash-D9DFED.16143809042005@news.isp.giganews.com:

> Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.coom> wrote:
>
>> From what I see, everyone is picking the FZ5 to be one of, if not the
>> best $500 superzoom digicam available. I haven't seen one person pick
>> the KM Z5 over the Panasonic FZ5.
>
> Then you haven't been following this thread. I not only picked the KM
> ZS5, I bought it and am thrilled with it.
>
>
> Konica Minolta DiMage Z5
>  Pluses:
>  + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power
>  + best macro mode to 1 cm.
>  + fastest zoom
>  + fastest focus
>  + fastest save
>  + available for $421
>  + widest wide angle
>  + external flash support with hot shoe
>  + supports S-video
>  + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>  + supports manual focus
>  + has widest ISO range
>  Minuses:
>  - No focus assist lamp
>
>
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5
>  Pluses:
>  + at 290 gm is the lightest & smallest
>  + focus assist lamp
>  Minuses:
>  - just became available
>  - no external flash support
>  - uses Panasonic camcorder battery
>  - doesn't support S-video movies
>  - doesn't support manual focus
>
> I got the Z5 and it is exactly what I wanted. I take a lot of nature
> pictures and needed the anti-shake, zoom and macro features. The
> reviews are correct to use the sharp mode for sharp results. The down
> side of the Z5 is its inability to focus in the dark. I don't take
> pictures in the dark so that is no problem for me.
>
> A very happy KM Z5 owner.
>

Yes, Stephen - I remember your earlier posts to the same effect. That was
one of the reasons I was fairly convinced that I was going to buy the KM
Z5, and that I didn't see the reason to spend $70 - $120 to buy the
Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20.

But, after reading the 'professional' reviews, it seems that most
everyone is saying the Panasonic FZ5 is a better camera, for various
reasons.

There are good and bad things of both of these cameras. I'm sure I'd be
happy with either the KM Z5 or the Panasonic FZ5. There both good
cameras! I'm just choosing the Panasonic, now.

YMMV.

Watch, I'm gonna be just about ready to lay the money down, and Olympus
(or Nikon or someone) will come out with a new camera that is just a
little better than both of these! Ha!

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:23:31 AM

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

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in
news:0pudnR0saf8wo8XfRVn-gg@comcast.com:

> Relax, he was just referring to your saying "Ok, I'm sold!!!"
>
> I just bought the (apparently now discontinued) Panasonic Lumix
> DMC-FZ15K, which has everything I need in the way of a superzoom
> camera and is currently selling at irresistible prices (well under the
> newer FZ5, which seems an inferior camera). I am *very* impressed with
> it. Build quality seems great, the Leica lens is fantastic as you
> would expect, and it has every feature and control I can imagine ever
> needing on this type of camera.
>
> N.
>
>
>

I just misunderstood him - no biggie.

Congratulations on your new camera! I think I'm going with the FZ5 for
its smaller body. The wife in particular wants a small camera.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:24:27 AM

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

Eventually I will like to get a DSLR. Now I am looking to get a camera
that will be a supplement to that and maybe even a small shirt pocket
one as well.

For the supplemental Point and Shoot I ruled out the Canon S1 IS because
of 3MP. I was considering the FZ20 but it did seem more bulky and
heavier than I like but have not ruled that out. I intend to look at
the FZ5 and FZ4. In some ways the FZ4, while producing fewer MP on the
same sensor might have less noise and therefore achieve better results.
I just do not know.

What does bother me is that the difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 is
about $50.00 to $75.00 with the FZ20 having more features, ED glass in
the lens, a hot shoe, more powerful flash, and a constant aperture. It
just seems more worth it but again it is heavier and bulkier. It is a
difficult decision. I guess I think that the FZ5 is somewhat overpriced.

What are some of the other alternatives under $500 that compare to the FZ5?

John Bean wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:49:40 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>"There is so much to like here - and so little to complain about - that
>>the DMC-FZ5 has to come highly recommended, and certainly has to make its
>>way to near the top of the list for anyone looking for an affordable,
>>compact super zoom camera."
>>
>>and I concur with that view. And I bought one!
>>
>>
>
>I have a FZ1, an impressive little camera especially after I upgraded the
>firmware to give FZ2 functionality. The size of the FZ10 was a big turn-off
>to me, despite the attraction of more pixels, and the FZ20 didn't improve
>enough to justify its size to me either. I still like the idea of a small
>superzoom camera with IS to supplement my primary SLR but my FZ1's 2Mpix
>sensor is a little too restrictive in many cases. So the advent of a
>FZ1-sized camera with FZ20 image size makes the FZ5 very attractive indeed,
>especially as I'm perfectly happy with the handling quirks of the FZ1.
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:20:57 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:54:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>
>Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than having
>eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish to go back to
>multiple AA batteries.

Your good right of course. But when I bought my camera I paid about
EUR 20 for a set of 4 NiMH AA cells and charger. I happened to notice in
the rack a proprietary battery (I no longer remember for which camera)
without charger for EUR 84. That is one hell of a price difference.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:32:09 PM

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

Stephen Poley wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:54:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>>
>> Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than
>> having eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish
>> to go back to multiple AA batteries.
>
> Your good right of course. But when I bought my camera I paid about
> EUR 20 for a set of 4 NiMH AA cells and charger. I happened to notice
> in the rack a proprietary battery (I no longer remember for which
> camera) without charger for EUR 84. That is one hell of a price
> difference.

Oh, if cost was the only concern, of course AA NiMH come out top. They
also have the advantage of being able to use non-rechargables in an
emergency.

While I would agree that Li-ions and chargers are over-priced (in addition
to basically being more expensive), you can buy 3rd party cells such as
Hahnel (a brand I trust) for a lot less than manufacturer's own brand.
Hahnel batteries for both the Nikon 5700 and Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 retail in
the UK at about 36 Euro.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:59:21 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:24:27 GMT, measekite wrote:

> What does bother me is that the difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 is
> about $50.00 to $75.00 with the FZ20 having more features, ED glass in
> the lens, a hot shoe, more powerful flash, and a constant aperture. It
> just seems more worth it but again it is heavier and bulkier. It is a
> difficult decision. I guess I think that the FZ5 is somewhat overpriced.

It doesn't matter to me that the FZ20 has all the extra features - it's too
big. If the FZ5 is overpriced then it will be a failure. If it sells well
then it isn't overpriced. As the person with the money, only you can decide.

> What are some of the other alternatives under $500 that compare to the FZ5?

There is nothing that interests me, but it's very unlikely that our
requirements coincide. I'm biased by my very positive experience of the FZ1,
and the FZ5 improves on that in all sorts of ways, not just number of
pixels.


--
John Bean

If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt (Dean Martin)
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:59:22 PM

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

John Bean wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:24:27 GMT, measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>What does bother me is that the difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 is
>>about $50.00 to $75.00 with the FZ20 having more features, ED glass in
>>the lens, a hot shoe, more powerful flash, and a constant aperture. It
>>just seems more worth it but again it is heavier and bulkier. It is a
>>difficult decision. I guess I think that the FZ5 is somewhat overpriced.
>>
>>
>
>It doesn't matter to me that the FZ20 has all the extra features - it's too
>big. If the FZ5 is overpriced then it will be a failure. If it sells well
>then it isn't overpriced. As the person with the money, only you can decide.
>
>
>
>>What are some of the other alternatives under $500 that compare to the FZ5?
>>
>>
>
>There is nothing that interests me, but it's very unlikely that our
>requirements coincide. I'm biased by my very positive experience of the FZ1,
>and the FZ5 improves on that in all sorts of ways, not just number of
>pixels.
>
>


www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise is
the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken, which
is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results correctly and
I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.

>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:59:22 PM

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

John Bean wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:24:27 GMT, measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>What does bother me is that the difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 is
>>about $50.00 to $75.00 with the FZ20 having more features, ED glass in
>>the lens, a hot shoe, more powerful flash, and a constant aperture. It
>>just seems more worth it but again it is heavier and bulkier. It is a
>>difficult decision. I guess I think that the FZ5 is somewhat overpriced.
>>
>>
>
>It doesn't matter to me that the FZ20 has all the extra features - it's too
>big. If the FZ5 is overpriced then it will be a failure. If it sells well
>then it isn't overpriced. As the person with the money, only you can decide.
>
>
>
>>What are some of the other alternatives under $500 that compare to the FZ5?
>>
>>
>
>There is nothing that interests me, but it's very unlikely that our
>requirements coincide. I'm biased by my very positive experience of the FZ1,
>and the FZ5 improves on that in all sorts of ways, not just number of
>pixels.
>
>


www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise is
the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken, which
is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results correctly and
I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.

>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:12:36 PM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
> insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise
> is the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken,
> which is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results
> correctly and I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.

Compare the images at:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp

The Panasonic measures higher - more noise - but look at the map and watch
images. Which looks better? Try printing the image at your usual size.
Does the noise matter? Try printing the sample ISO 80 images.

If you want noise-free, wait until you can afford a DSLR.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:21:54 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:12:36 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> measekite wrote:
> []
>> www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
>> insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise
>> is the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken,
>> which is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results
>> correctly and I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.
>
> Compare the images at:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp
>
> The Panasonic measures higher - more noise - but look at the map and watch
> images. Which looks better? Try printing the image at your usual size.
> Does the noise matter? Try printing the sample ISO 80 images.

Yes, that is my perception too. I've had all sorts of cameras with all sorts
of noise, and simple measurement is not necessarily useful. The image is
all-important and images are interpreted by human senses, not
instrumentation.

> If you want noise-free, wait until you can afford a DSLR.

Indeed. And even in this domain noise "character" is at least as important
as its magnitude, just as in the silver halide world there are grainy films
that look good and less grainy films that look ugly.


--
John Bean

Times fun when you're having flies (Kermit the Frog)
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:30:35 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:47:17 GMT, measekite wrote:
> Noise is the one element that can ruin photos.

I can't agree with this at all, it just doesn't match up with my experience.
There are lots of things that can ruin a photo, the most common one by far
being the photographer. On the equipment front, bad exposure, poor
sharpness, colour fringing, jagged rendering.... there's a whole lot of
things that can damage a real-world digital image much more than noise.

But if you find the noise levels of the FZ5 unacceptable then buy something
else. It's as simple as that.

--
John Bean

Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly
because it means you don't have to try (Peggy Noonan)
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:32:55 PM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.coom> wrote in message
news:Xns9633BB1769F12ebabulacare2com@24.94.170.98...
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in
> news:0pudnR0saf8wo8XfRVn-gg@comcast.com:
>
>> Relax, he was just referring to your saying "Ok, I'm sold!!!"
>>
>> I just bought the (apparently now discontinued) Panasonic Lumix
>> DMC-FZ15K, which has everything I need in the way of a superzoom
>> camera and is currently selling at irresistible prices (well under the
>> newer FZ5, which seems an inferior camera). I am *very* impressed with
>> it. Build quality seems great, the Leica lens is fantastic as you
>> would expect, and it has every feature and control I can imagine ever
>> needing on this type of camera.
>>
>> N.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I just misunderstood him - no biggie.
>
> Congratulations on your new camera! I think I'm going with the FZ5 for
> its smaller body. The wife in particular wants a small camera.
>
> --
> Eric Babula
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA


Yes, the smaller body is really appealing, though in the case of this style
of camera it's still not small enough to be pocketable, of course.

Panasonic makes an impressive product. I have over a dozen digital cameras
(buying them is a kind of sickness with me) but this FZ15 is my first
Panasonic camera ever. They sure make an impressive product, and I'm sure
you'll be happy with your FZ5. Best of luck with it!

N.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:54:10 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Stephen Poley wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:54:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>>>
>>>Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than
>>>having eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish
>>>to go back to multiple AA batteries.
>>
>>Your good right of course. But when I bought my camera I paid about
>>EUR 20 for a set of 4 NiMH AA cells and charger. I happened to notice
>>in the rack a proprietary battery (I no longer remember for which
>>camera) without charger for EUR 84. That is one hell of a price
>>difference.
>
>
> Oh, if cost was the only concern, of course AA NiMH come out top. They
> also have the advantage of being able to use non-rechargables in an
> emergency.
>
> While I would agree that Li-ions and chargers are over-priced (in addition
> to basically being more expensive), you can buy 3rd party cells such as
> Hahnel (a brand I trust) for a lot less than manufacturer's own brand.
> Hahnel batteries for both the Nikon 5700 and Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 retail in
> the UK at about 36 Euro.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
When I can dart into a drug store in a town of under 1500 and buy one
(Li-ion for this camera), let me know, until then, I would MUCH rather
use AA NIMH.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:57:22 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L%06e.18579$FN4.12978@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Eventually I will like to get a DSLR. Now I am looking to get a camera
> that will be a supplement to that and maybe even a small shirt pocket one
> as well.
>
> For the supplemental Point and Shoot I ruled out the Canon S1 IS because
> of 3MP. I was considering the FZ20 but it did seem more bulky and heavier
> than I like but have not ruled that out. I intend to look at the FZ5 and
> FZ4. In some ways the FZ4, while producing fewer MP on the same sensor
> might have less noise and therefore achieve better results. I just do not
> know.
>
> What does bother me is that the difference between the FZ20 and FZ5 is
> about $50.00 to $75.00 with the FZ20 having more features, ED glass in the
> lens, a hot shoe, more powerful flash, and a constant aperture. It just
> seems more worth it but again it is heavier and bulkier. It is a
> difficult decision. I guess I think that the FZ5 is somewhat overpriced.

I think so too, but of course it's a new model. Wait a few months. ;-)


>
> What are some of the other alternatives under $500 that compare to the
> FZ5?

Have you looked at the FZ15? It's essentially the same as the FZ20 except 4
megapixels, no hot shoe and no mike. Those differences are not important to
me. Generally I'd like a hot shoe but a superzoom like this is going to be
pretty much an outdoors-only camera for me anyway. I just bought one last
week for $372 at Buydig.com and I love it. (Today I see it's $367 there.
Dang.)

N.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:16:05 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:o _66e.8740$G8.3281@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> measekite wrote:
> []
>> www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
>> insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise
>> is the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken,
>> which is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results
>> correctly and I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.
>
> Compare the images at:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp
>
> The Panasonic measures higher - more noise - but look at the map and watch
> images. Which looks better? Try printing the image at your usual size.
> Does the noise matter? Try printing the sample ISO 80 images.
>
> If you want noise-free, wait until you can afford a DSLR.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Wow, I'm an novice and have no dog in this fight, but I can easily see the
Panasonic shot is much better. I also notice the Panasonic was taken at 400
ISO with auto white while the KM use 320 ISO and custom white balance. I
don't know allot about photography, but seems to me the slower speed should
be better with less noise. I wonder how they would compare with both at 400
ISO?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:31:53 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
>>insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise
>>is the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken,
>>which is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results
>>correctly and I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.
>>
>>
>
>Compare the images at:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp
>
>The Panasonic measures higher - more noise - but look at the map and watch
>images. Which looks better? Try printing the image at your usual size.
>Does the noise matter? Try printing the sample ISO 80 images.
>
>


I did read both of the reports. This is what is confusing. dpreview is
basically saying the FZ5 has acceptable noise levels but the other
report at camerainfo is saying the noise is unacceptable. Noise is
noise and while subjectivity does allow for differences of
interpretation of the same thing there should not be a reason where one
sees black and the other sees white. Both should be at best slightly
different shades of gray.

Also with the same size sensor the FZ4 may produce less noise. Could
this almost identical camera produce better results?

>If you want noise-free, wait until you can afford a DSLR.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:31:54 PM

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

In article <Zxc6e.107$dT4.80@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> David J Taylor wrote:
>
> >measekite wrote:
> >[]
> >
> >
> >>www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they
> >>insist that the pics is much more noise than the competition. Noise
> >>is the one element that can ruin photos. Either they are mistaken,
> >>which is hard to believe or I am not interpreting their results
> >>correctly and I doubt that also. Read the report as comment on it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Compare the images at:
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp
> >
> >The Panasonic measures higher - more noise - but look at the map and watch
> >images. Which looks better? Try printing the image at your usual size.
> >Does the noise matter? Try printing the sample ISO 80 images.
> >
> >
>
>
> I did read both of the reports. This is what is confusing. dpreview is
> basically saying the FZ5 has acceptable noise levels but the other
> report at camerainfo is saying the noise is unacceptable. Noise is
> noise and while subjectivity does allow for differences of
> interpretation of the same thing there should not be a reason where one
> sees black and the other sees white. Both should be at best slightly
> different shades of gray.

I am interested in the FZ5, too. But I am a bit puzzled by your fixation
on the noise section of the digitalcamerainfo review. You are putting
lots more emphasis on that one aspect of the camera than the reviewer
did - noise problems get no mention in his conclusion, and in the
overall ratings for all the cameras they have reviewed, the FZ5 ranks
sixth!

I suspect that if noise is the most important aspect of a digital camera
for you, then you are going to have to spend quite a bit more money than
what the FZ5 costs. But I would first look at the pictures produced by
the FZ5 before deciding, based on one section of a review at one site,
that the FZ5 produces "noisy" pictures, so noisy that they are
unacceptable. There are lots of sample pictures at the various review
sites, and all of the sites (at least, that I have seen), including
digitalcamerainfo.com, really like that camera.

>
> Also with the same size sensor the FZ4 may produce less noise. Could
> this almost identical camera produce better results?
>
> >If you want noise-free, wait until you can afford a DSLR.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
Bob B.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:05:03 PM

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

John Bean wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:47:17 GMT, measekite wrote:
>
>
>>Noise is the one element that can ruin photos.
>>
>>
>
>I can't agree with this at all, it just doesn't match up with my experience.
>There are lots of things that can ruin a photo, the most common one by far
>being the photographer. On the equipment front, bad exposure, poor
>sharpness, colour fringing, jagged rendering.... there's a whole lot of
>things that can damage a real-world digital image much more than noise.
>
>But if you find the noise levels of the FZ5 unacceptable then buy something
>else. It's as simple as that.
>
>

No Sir! I am looking to buy a digital P&S. The FZ5 looks intruiging.
I am reading as many review as possible. The artical I read said that
the noise above ISO80 was not acceptable and ruined pictures. These are
supposed to be professional reviews. By writing about this in this NG,
I am making an attempt to get to the bottom of this. If this is true
then why are other reviews not mentioning this?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:06:19 PM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> I did read both of the reports. This is what is confusing. dpreview
> is basically saying the FZ5 has acceptable noise levels but the other
> report at camerainfo is saying the noise is unacceptable. Noise is
> noise and while subjectivity does allow for differences of
> interpretation of the same thing there should not be a reason where
> one sees black and the other sees white. Both should be at best
> slightly different shades of gray.

Agreed. Perhaps one reviewer got a bad camera? Perhaps one got a
supoer-good sample? Perhaps the reviewers have different views of how
much noise matters?

> Also with the same size sensor the FZ4 may produce less noise. Could
> this almost identical camera produce better results?

Yes, less noise, but less pixels and no audio with movies. You pays your
money and takes your choice!

David
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:18:06 PM

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

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in
news:9jc6e.51101$1H3.27530@tornado.texas.rr.com:


> Wow, I'm an novice and have no dog in this fight, but I can easily see
> the Panasonic shot is much better. I also notice the Panasonic was
> taken at 400 ISO with auto white while the KM use 320 ISO and custom
> white balance. I don't know allot about photography, but seems to me
> the slower speed should be better with less noise. I wonder how they
> would compare with both at 400 ISO?
>
>
The KM Z5 does not have ISO 400 - I read that it was taken out, because
the images were totally unusable, due to the noise.


--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:03:32 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>I did read both of the reports. This is what is confusing. dpreview
>>is basically saying the FZ5 has acceptable noise levels but the other
>>report at camerainfo is saying the noise is unacceptable. Noise is
>>noise and while subjectivity does allow for differences of
>>interpretation of the same thing there should not be a reason where
>>one sees black and the other sees white. Both should be at best
>>slightly different shades of gray.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed. Perhaps one reviewer got a bad camera? Perhaps one got a
>supoer-good sample? Perhaps the reviewers have different views of how
>much noise matters?
>
>
>
>>Also with the same size sensor the FZ4 may produce less noise. Could
>>this almost identical camera produce better results?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, less noise, but less pixels and no audio with movies. You pays your
>money and takes your choice!
>
>

Audio with movies is not a high priority. Please disregard this when
answered the next question. Do you think that the Fz4 with less noise
and fewer pixels will provide better pictures or do you think that the
FZ5 with more pixels produce better results. I am speaking of 8.5x11
cropped shots with 10% TO 30% cropping leaving70% to 90% remaining.

Which would you buy under all of those circumstances. Or is there
something else in a Point and Shoot that I should consider?

>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:04:49 PM

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

Eric Babula wrote:

>"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in
>news:9jc6e.51101$1H3.27530@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>
>
>
>
>>Wow, I'm an novice and have no dog in this fight, but I can easily see
>>the Panasonic shot is much better. I also notice the Panasonic was
>>taken at 400 ISO with auto white while the KM use 320 ISO and custom
>>white balance. I don't know allot about photography, but seems to me
>>the slower speed should be better with less noise. I wonder how they
>>would compare with both at 400 ISO?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>The KM Z5 does not have ISO 400 - I read that it was taken out, because
>the images were totally unusable, due to the noise.
>
>

What is the KM Z5. Never heard of it. Is is the same as the FZ5
marketed in a different country?

>
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:21:27 PM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> Audio with movies is not a high priority. Please disregard this when
> answered the next question. Do you think that the Fz4 with less noise
> and fewer pixels will provide better pictures or do you think that the
> FZ5 with more pixels produce better results. I am speaking of 8.5x11
> cropped shots with 10% TO 30% cropping leaving70% to 90% remaining.
>
> Which would you buy under all of those circumstances. Or is there
> something else in a Point and Shoot that I should consider?

As I said before, to have noise-free 11 x 8.5 inch images might require a
15MP DSLR. The difference between 4MP and 5MP is the same sized sensor
will be quite subtle, with the 5MP sensor producing slightly noisier
slightly higher resolution images. With the two side-by-side, I suspect
you would need to look quite hard to see the difference. I also cannot
know which of the two you will prefer. If you need a long zoom, and also
more pixels, the Nikon 8800 may be the camera for you, but it costs more.

I bought a Panasonic FZ5, and my wife bought a Panasonic FZ20. I would
suggest you find out how well a camera handles for you before purchase.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:53:44 AM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

I wrote:
> > Konica Minolta DiMage Z5
> > Pluses:
> > + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power
>
> What is the basis for this statement? What are the comparitive power
> figures - I have not seen them widely quoted.

That is the reason Konica Minolta went to this new technology, because
the old lens (high mass) anti shake was too much of a drain on batteries.

> > + fastest focus
>
> Actually the Panasonic FZ5 has a special fast-focus mode, and it seems
> quite adequate in use.

But not the fastest in tests, read them, you may learn something.

> > + fastest save
>
> providing the buffer doesn't fill, I don't think save speed is any longer
> an issue for JPEG files. It might be for RAW or TIFF data, in which case,
> what are the figures you have?

It is a big issue for movies. Again, read the tests.

> > + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>
> Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than having
> eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish to go back to
> multiple AA batteries.

But being proprietary, they are not readily available. If you need a
new battery, AA cells are readily available and the Z5 only uses 4 of
them.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:16:07 AM

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:lNe6e.198$J12.84
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Eric Babula wrote:
>
>>"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:9jc6e.51101$1H3.27530@tornado.texas.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Wow, I'm an novice and have no dog in this fight, but I can easily see
>>>the Panasonic shot is much better. I also notice the Panasonic was
>>>taken at 400 ISO with auto white while the KM use 320 ISO and custom
>>>white balance. I don't know allot about photography, but seems to me
>>>the slower speed should be better with less noise. I wonder how they
>>>would compare with both at 400 ISO?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The KM Z5 does not have ISO 400 - I read that it was taken out, because
>>the images were totally unusable, due to the noise.
>>
>>
>
> What is the KM Z5. Never heard of it. Is is the same as the FZ5
> marketed in a different country?
>
>>
>>
>>
>

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5. It's a pretty good camera - competitor of the
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5.

Check out the reviews of it. Mostly good things to say about it. Some bad
things. But, that's to be expected (by me, anyway) with a camera of this
nature, at this price range.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:17:45 AM

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

Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.coom> wrote:

> > + best macro mode to 1 cm.
> > + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells

> There are good and bad things of both of these cameras. I'm sure I'd be
> happy with either the KM Z5 or the Panasonic FZ5. There both good
> cameras! I'm just choosing the Panasonic, now.

If we always want to buy the best, we will only be happy for a couple
days. The target is always changing. My philosophy is that we must
determine our requirements and then maintain our standards and select
something that meets our requirements. Once we find that, we have done
the best we can. Sometimes I buy what is available because it does what
I want to do, other times I wait until something better comes along that
does it. Everyone needs to make that decision. Good luck with your FZ5.

A couple of my requirements were to use readily available rechargeable
batteries and a top notch macro. I know those are not your
requirements. You want to buy a camera that other people like and I
respect that.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:01:25 AM

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>>> Konica Minolta DiMage Z5
>>> Pluses:
>>> + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power
>>
>> What is the basis for this statement? What are the comparitive power
>> figures - I have not seen them widely quoted.
>
> That is the reason Konica Minolta went to this new technology, because
> the old lens (high mass) anti shake was too much of a drain on
> batteries.

Whilst that might apply to 35mm lenses, is it also true for the smaller
elements in P&S lenses. Nikon, Canon and Panasonic don't show any extra
battery drain with lens-based image stabilisation, which is why I asked
you for the figures.

>>> + fastest focus
>>
>> Actually the Panasonic FZ5 has a special fast-focus mode, and it
>> seems quite adequate in use.
>
> But not the fastest in tests, read them, you may learn something.

I have read the tests - I have used the camera and am happy with it.

>>> + fastest save
>>
>> providing the buffer doesn't fill, I don't think save speed is any
>> longer an issue for JPEG files. It might be for RAW or TIFF data,
>> in which case, what are the figures you have?
>
> It is a big issue for movies. Again, read the tests.

Again, I have used the camera (actually the FZ20 for movies). The
limiting capacity in movie mode is the size of the card, not the buffer
size or the camer save speed.

>>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells
>>
>> Personally, I now prefer a single battery to change rather than
>> having eight AA cells rolling all over the floor. I would not wish
>> to go back to multiple AA batteries.
>
> But being proprietary, they are not readily available. If you need a
> new battery, AA cells are readily available and the Z5 only uses 4 of
> them.

Take a couple of batteries with you and you have enough for the day - no
need to buy more. It's a choice you make, and there is no wrong or right
answer.

David
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:45:02 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> + fastest save
> >>
> >> providing the buffer doesn't fill, I don't think save speed is any
> >> longer an issue for JPEG files. It might be for RAW or TIFF data,
> >> in which case, what are the figures you have?
> >
> > It is a big issue for movies. Again, read the tests.
>
> Again, I have used the camera (actually the FZ20 for movies). The
> limiting capacity in movie mode is the size of the card, not the buffer
> size or the camer save speed.

The higher speed of the Z5 is why the Z5 supports S-video and the FZ5
doesn't. The FZ5 can't, it is too slow. The Z5 has 4 times the
resolution in movie mode.

Panasonic FZ5: 320 x 240 pixels 30 fps
320 x 240 pixels 10 fps

KM DiMage Z5: 640 x 480 pixels 30 fps
320 x 240 pixels 30 fps

The Z5 even has a night movie mode.

Pluses of Z5 compared to FZ5:
+ has CCD anti-shake which uses less power and operates over a wider
range of motion
+ best macro mode to 1 cm.
+ fastest zoom
+ fastest focus
+ fastest save
+ available for $349 (http://www.bwayphoto.com/)
+ external flash support with hot shoe
+ supports S-video

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:38:44 PM

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

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:42584299@news.meer.net:

> Eric Babula <ebabula@care2.com> wrote:
>>
>> the cameras on my shortlist, I cut my short-short list down to the
>> KM Z5, Pana FZ5 and Pana FZ20. I found the KM Z5 and Pana FZ20 in
>> a couple different stores, here, and actually held them in my
>> hand. I thought the KM Z5 was nice enough to hold, and seemed to
>> take good pics (from what I could tell in the store). I thought
>> the Pana FZ20 was too big and bulky (especially would be for my
>> wife, who was looking at the pocket-sized cameras!). So, the
>> short-short list was down to the KM Z5 and Pana FZ5.
>
> I have two Pelican boxes that I've been using for 35mm film
> equipment, but it looks like the Panasonic FZ5 won't fit in the
> smaller Pelican box anyway. The lens sticks out a long ways,
> doesn't it? I can't see how you can call it a pocket-sized camera.
>
> Not that it doesn't look wonderful, depending on eventual selling
> price. The FZ20 fits easily into my larger SLR-based Pelican box.
>
> Do you think the higher chrominance noise in the K-M Z5 is due to
> the Sony CCD, versus the Panasonic CCD in the FZ5? The red and
> blue channels are extremely bad in the K-M Z5; green isn't bad at
> all, but maybe that's because Bayer-pattern uses twice as many
> green sensors.
>
>

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the Panasonic FZ5 was a pocket-
sized camera - it's not. Well, maybe coat pocket, but not shirt pocket.

My wife was originally hoping to get a pocket-sized camera. I had other
plans - I wanted a really good zoom (8x or better). Well, I ended up
winning that battle - neither the Panasonic FZ5 nor the Konica Minolta
Z5 are shirt pocket sized cameras, but do have 12x zoom. I dropped the
Panasonic FZ20 from my short list, because it was definitely too big,
especially for my wife.

I'm not sure about the chrominance noise. I'm no expert at all - far
from it. Maybe someone else can address this issue for you.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:16:57 PM

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

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
news:p ighash-DF620F.08450211042005@news.isp.giganews.com...
[ . . . ]
>
> Pluses of Z5 compared to FZ5:
> + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power and operates over a wider
> range of motion

Why "uses less power"? The in-body AS has to move a frame carrying the CCD
*and* its connections. The in-lens IS has to move a very tiny, compact group
of elements. I don't see any advantage to the in-body system there. I *can*
see an obvious advantage to Minolta's approach in the case of a digital SLR
with interchangeable lenses, but not for a non-interchangeable-lens camera.

I read somewhere that the relative anti-shake effectiveness of one system
over the other depends on the mode used, but on balance Minolta's and
Panasonic's methods are about equal, a slight edge perhaps going to
Panasonic. Unfortunately I can't now recall that source.

The comparison between the Minolta Z5 and Panasonic FZ5 here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/KonicaMinoltaZ5/page8.a...
shows a clear advantage in image quality for the Panasonic, especially in
terms of noise and sharpness.


> + best macro mode to 1 cm.

Sort of meaningless. Subject distance always has been properly measured *to
the film plane*, which obviously is not the case when you're saying it's "1
cm"--which would put the subject somewhere inside the lens if it were.
Distance from the front surface of the lens means little. Indeed, there are
zoom lenses which will focus on an object placed on the surface of the lens,
which really tells you nothing about the degree of magnification.

I am a long-time Minolta enthusiast. I've used Minolta SLRs for about thirty
years, and most of my digital cameras are Minoltas. But in the case of these
superzooms, it seems to me Panasonic's cameras are the better ones. I had a
Minolta Z1 very briefly when they first came out (I returned it for various
problems, the first and only Minolta camera I've ever returned). No doubt
the Z5 is a great improvement over that, but for my first and only
stabilized superzoom I had no hesitation in deciding to go Panasonic--an
FZ15K in my case, and I love it.

N.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:40:38 PM

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
[]
> The higher speed of the Z5 is why the Z5 supports S-video and the FZ5
> doesn't. The FZ5 can't, it is too slow. The Z5 has 4 times the
> resolution in movie mode.
>
> Panasonic FZ5: 320 x 240 pixels 30 fps
> 320 x 240 pixels 10 fps
>
> KM DiMage Z5: 640 x 480 pixels 30 fps
> 320 x 240 pixels 30 fps

Yes, the movie modes available are different. In normal use of the
camera, either for stills or video, the write speed of the FZ5 is simply
not an issue. By the way, DP Review lists the Panasonic FZ5 write speed
as 4800KB/s, more than enough for the larger movie size. About the
Minolta they say: "With write times averaging around 3.2 seconds for a 5MP
Fine JPEG the Z5 is no slouch, though the transfer rate - approximately
615KB/s - is hardly stretching the capabilities of the SanDisk card
(quoted write speed: 9MB/s), nor does it compare that well with some of
its speedier competitors".

> The Z5 even has a night movie mode.
>
> Pluses of Z5 compared to FZ5:
> + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power and operates over a wider
> range of motion
> + best macro mode to 1 cm.
> + fastest zoom
> + fastest focus
> + fastest save
> + available for $349 (http://www.bwayphoto.com/)
> + external flash support with hot shoe
> + supports S-video

You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts to
backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power
consumptions of the FZ5 and the Z5 for anti-shake. Figures not hearsay,
please. Over what range of motion do the two anti-shake operate? Figures
again, please.

David
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:40:39 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > The Z5 even has a night movie mode.
> >
> > Pluses of Z5 compared to FZ5:
> > + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power and operates over a wider
> > range of motion
> > + best macro mode to 1 cm.
> > + fastest zoom
> > + fastest focus
> > + fastest save
> > + available for $349 (http://www.bwayphoto.com/)
> > + external flash support with hot shoe
> > + supports S-video
>
> You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts to
> backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power
> consumptions of the FZ5 and the Z5 for anti-shake. Figures not hearsay,
> please.

I was just quoting the test results of dpreview, dcresource, steves and
others.

You should read them.

dcresource in particular wrote:

Konica Minolta DiMage Z5

What I liked:
12X optical zoom lens
Anti-shake image stabilizer
Blazing AF performance in good light
Full manual controls
Supports wide-angle conversion lens and external flash
Large 2" LCD display
Good redeye test performance
Excellent macro and movie modes
Can use optical zoom in movie mode
Histograms in record and playback mode

What I didn't care for:
Soft images at default settings; noise levels a little above
average
Poor low light focusing; no AF-assist lamp
Lens is on the "slow" side compared to competition
EVF resolution is lacking
Smaller shutter speed range compared to the DiMAGE Z3
SD card slot cover ready to break off at any moment
Camera bundle is not great

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5


What I liked:
Very good photo quality (see issues below)
12X optical zoom lens (a little slower than on the FZ3)
Optical image stabilization system
Robust performance, especially with a high speed SD card; new
focus modes are awesome
Nearly zero purple fringing
Full manual controls (minus focus) plus the ability to fine-tune
white balance
AF-assist lamp
Supports filters and third-party conversion lenses
Lens hood/filter adapter included
Good continuous shooting mode
Histograms in record and playback mode

What I didn't care for:
Images a little too sharp, leading to "jaggies"
Above average redeye
LCD and EVF don't "gain up" in low light
Can't remove memory card while camera is on tripod
A VGA movie mode and manual focus would've been nice
Slowest shutter speed in program and simple modes is 1/4 sec

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:40:40 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > The Z5 even has a night movie mode.
> >
> > Pluses of Z5 compared to FZ5:
> > + has CCD anti-shake which uses less power and operates over a wider
> > range of motion
> > + best macro mode to 1 cm.
> > + fastest zoom
> > + fastest focus
> > + fastest save
> > + available for $349 (http://www.bwayphoto.com/)
> > + external flash support with hot shoe
> > + supports S-video
>
> You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts to
> backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power
> consumptions of the FZ5 and the Z5 for anti-shake. Figures not hearsay,
> please.

I was just quoting the test results of dpreview.com , dcresource.com,
steves-digicams.com and others.

You should read them.

steves in particular wrote:

Konica Minolta DiMage Z5:

"Shooting performance was very robust. From power-up to first image
captured measured approx. 2.2 seconds, that's pretty amazing since it
has to extend its 12x zoom and boot up. Shutter lag was an impressive
1/10 of a second when pre-focused, and 2/10 of a second including
autofocus. The shot-to-shot delay averaged approx. 1.0 - 1.6 seconds
without using the flash and about 2.6 - 3.5 seconds with the flash.
Sports shooters will enjoy 2 modes of rapid sequential shooting:
Continuous, which is a standard burst capture mode, and Progressive,
which captures images continuously at an amazingly fast rate. Using the
Continuous mode, I was able to capture 6 frames in approx. 2.5 seconds.
In Progressive mode, I captured 17 frames in only 1.6 seconds.

Like past models, the Z5 is powered by 4 standard AA-type batteries,
this means you can use alkaline, one-use lithium, and NiHM batteries. As
always we recommend using high-capacity rechargeable NiMH batteries,
they'll save you money in the long run, last longer, and are better for
the environment. We found the battery life quite acceptable, capturing
all of our samples images (about 120 shots) and concluding our other
tests, with a single set of 2500mAh NiMH rechargeables and using the
camera's power-saving features.

Bottom line - the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 offers an excellent "bang
for your buck" at around $450. We've seen some good improvements over
past models and feel it will make a great choice for anyone who is in
the market for a powerful and speedy "super-zoom" model. With its
abundance of exposure modes, it can be used by any member of your
household, its 5-megapixel Fine images will allow you to create photo
prints up to 13x19-inch size with plenty of cropping room for smaller
prints.

Steves doesn't have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 test. Maybe you have
those numbers.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:26:43 PM

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>> You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts
>> to backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power
>> consumptions of the FZ5 and the Z5 for anti-shake. Figures not
>> hearsay, please.
>
> I was just quoting the test results of dpreview, dcresource, steves
> and others.
>
> You should read them.

If you wish to discuss this further with me, you will need to quote
figures. I actually have the Panasonic FZ5, and I know what a splendid
performer it is.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:29:11 PM

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

Stephen Henning wrote:
[]
> steves in particular wrote:
[]
> Steves doesn't have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 test. Maybe you have
> those numbers.

How can you hope to draw comparitive conclusions from people who have only
tested one camera?

David
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:40:30 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>Stephen Henning wrote:
>
>
>>"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>[]
>
>
>>>You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts
>>>to backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power
>>>consumptions of the FZ5 and the Z5 for anti-shake. Figures not
>>>hearsay, please.
>>>
>>>
>>I was just quoting the test results of dpreview, dcresource, steves
>>and others.
>>
>>You should read them.
>>
>>
>
>If you wish to discuss this further with me, you will need to quote
>figures. I actually have the Panasonic FZ5, and I know what a splendid
>performer it is.
>
>
>

Have you ever did a thorough comparison between the FZ5 and the FZ20?
Based on reading the specifications they would be difficult to find in
the vast majority of situations/

>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
!