Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC MAG FZ5 Review

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:43:32 AM

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

PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo websites
give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20 a
much more favorable review.

PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I am
confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.


Any comments on this?

More about : mag fz5 review

Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:43:33 AM

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

measekite wrote:
> PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
websites
> give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20
a
> much more favorable review.
>
> PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I
am
> confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.

No offense, but do you look at PC MAG for automobile reviews? There are
plenty of good online resources to look for camera/lens reviews. PC MAG
does best reviewing computer gear and they should stick to that.

For camera reviews, look at:
www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com
www.megapixel.net
www.steves-digicams.com

You can also look at user reviews at:
www.photographyreview.com
www.photo.net

All these aren't the final word on photo gear but definitely give you a
good idea.


- Siddhartha

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 7:38:00 PM

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

What is disturbing is the fact the same organization rating the FZ20 far
better. I certainly would lke to know why.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
>>
>>
>websites
>
>
>>give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>>much more favorable review.
>>
>>PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I
>>
>>
>am
>
>
>>confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.
>>
>>
>
>No offense, but do you look at PC MAG for automobile reviews? There are
>plenty of good online resources to look for camera/lens reviews. PC MAG
>does best reviewing computer gear and they should stick to that.
>
>For camera reviews, look at:
>www.dpreview.com
>www.dcresource.com
>www.megapixel.net
>www.steves-digicams.com
>
>You can also look at user reviews at:
>www.photographyreview.com
>www.photo.net
>
>All these aren't the final word on photo gear but definitely give you a
>good idea.
>
>
>- Siddhartha
>
>- Siddhartha
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 7:38:01 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> What is disturbing is the fact the same organization rating the FZ20 far
> better. I certainly would lke to know why.
>
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>> PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
>>>
>>
>> websites
>>
>>
>>> give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20
>>>
>>
>> a
>>
>>
>>> much more favorable review.
>>>
>>> PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I
>>>
>>
>> am
>>
>>
>>> confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No offense, but do you look at PC MAG for automobile reviews? There are
>> plenty of good online resources to look for camera/lens reviews. PC MAG
>> does best reviewing computer gear and they should stick to that.
>>
>> For camera reviews, look at:
>> www.dpreview.com
>> www.dcresource.com
>> www.megapixel.net
>> www.steves-digicams.com
>>
>> You can also look at user reviews at:
>> www.photographyreview.com
>> www.photo.net
>>
>> All these aren't the final word on photo gear but definitely give you a
>> good idea.
>>
>>
>> - Siddhartha
>>
>> - Siddhartha
>>
>>
>>

Let me guess. Because it is a different camera, that costs a lot more?
Nawww, that can't have anything to do with it...
My experience with magazine tests is that they are quite subjective, and
often biased toward whatever company advertises with the magazine...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 2:46:26 PM

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

Measekite wrote:
> PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo websites
> give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20 a
> much more favorable review. PC MAG did point out many negatives that the
> others did not. Now I am confused....


In the halcyon days of personal computing, the American "Byte" magazine held
the sway. Then came along "PC Magazine" which later moved its European
operation to London, then moved again to be an eZine. Its review articles
have been very influential in the industry and I suspect many products had
been saved or destroyed by the 'oracles' from the magazine. The comparative
articles are well written and as non-subjective as possible, as far as I
could see. Their research/comparative survey methodology is published for
public scrutiny. While the standard varies in different edition, the level
has been always very high indeed. I appreciate their objective numerical
measurements, statistical analysis and their graphical representations, not
to mention their tutorials. In comparison, the personal opinion in other
publications are no more than just that, 'personal opinion'.

Digital camera is a specialized computer. It is very much akin to a scan
machine, or, even a computer digital monitor. And, this magazine has an
deservedly enviable reputation in comparative reviews in computers and
peripherals.

I put the opinion from "PC Magazine" above *all* the others one easily finds
on the WWW, especially those with numerous adverts from manufacturers. Now
that its negative commends on FZ5 are voiced, it is even more interesting!

--
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 30, 2005 5:30:46 PM

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

In article <FAwce.26488$Ow2.11356@fe06.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> Let me guess. Because it is a different camera, that costs a lot more?
> Nawww, that can't have anything to do with it...
> My experience with magazine tests is that they are quite subjective, and
> often biased toward whatever company advertises with the magazine...
>
the street price is not much different here because the brand new FZ5 is
closer to list. AUD720 vs AUD820. While I'm not disagreeing with your
points an additional issue is sample variation.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:52:36 PM

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

Lin Chung wrote:
> Their research/comparative survey methodology is published for
> public scrutiny. While the standard varies in different edition, the
level
> has been always very high indeed. I appreciate their objective
numerical
> measurements, statistical analysis and their graphical
representations, not
> to mention their tutorials. In comparison, the personal opinion in
other
> publications are no more than just that, 'personal opinion'.
Your insistence that PCMag's reviews are of a high standard, as you
have so eloquently described above, drew me to read the review.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1785992,00.asp

- I couldn't find the testing/review methodology anywhere.
- I found it very interesting that not a single photograph from the
camera is published in the *review* nor any comparison shots.
- For all talk of detailed objective study, all I could find is some
reference to *lines*. Whats that? Lines per mm? Rows of pixels? Columns
of pixels?

>
> Digital camera is a specialized computer. It is very much akin to a
scan
> machine, or, even a computer digital monitor. And, this magazine has
an
> deservedly enviable reputation in comparative reviews in computers
and
> peripherals.
By those standards, a lot of gadgetry around consists of specialised
computers. One might argue that modern automobiles are robots (a
specialised computer).

> I put the opinion from "PC Magazine" above *all* the others one
easily finds
> on the WWW, especially those with numerous adverts from
manufacturers. Now
> that its negative commends on FZ5 are voiced, it is even more
interesting!
PCMag's review could be *easily* found on the WWW just like
dpreview/dcresource/megapixel. How does easily available relate to the
quality of the review? Are hard to find reviews somehow better? As for
adverts, I don't see them anywhere, thanks to adblock ;) 

To sum-up, after reading PCMag's review, I am more sure that PCMag's
camera reviews are below pathetic. They should stick to testing PCs
(not even enterprise class machines).

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:12:29 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo websites
> give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20 a
> much more favorable review.
>
> PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I am
> confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.

What specific negatives? I have both cameras so could perhaps verify what
they say. Personally, though, the digital camera reviews in PC magazines
are a laught- a 5MP camera is likely to be rated "much better" than a 4MP
camera irrespective of any other attributes.....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:55:08 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo websites
>>give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ20 a
>>much more favorable review.
>>
>>PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I am
>>confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2 ASAP.
>>
>>
>
>What specific negatives? I have both cameras so could perhaps verify what
>they say. Personally, though, the digital camera reviews in PC magazines
>are a laught- a 5MP camera is likely to be rated "much better" than a 4MP
>camera irrespective of any other attributes.....
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>

Read the review and let us know if you believe what they say.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:33:43 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>> PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
>>> websites give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the
>>> Panasonic FZ20 a much more favorable review.
>>>
>>> PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I
>>> am confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2
>>> ASAP.
>>
>> What specific negatives? I have both cameras so could perhaps
>> verify what they say. Personally, though, the digital camera
>> reviews in PC magazines are a laught- a 5MP camera is likely to be
>> rated "much better" than a 4MP camera irrespective of any other
>> attributes..... Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>
> Read the review and let us know if you believe what they say.

I think you are getting somewhat subjective review. There is an
expectation of "new camera = better or more" whereas the FZ5 is simply a
more compact version of the the FZ20, offering reductions of weight and
cost, at the expense of no hot-shoe, manual focus and slightly smaller
lens aperture at maximum zoom (f/3.3 rather than f/2.8).

In their review, they say the EVF is not as clear as they would like. I
agree, but even Minolta have dropped their high-resolution EVF when they
went from the A2 to the A200. Yes, I would like to see a better EVF in
/all/ cameras. The comment on the lack of a swivel LCD, and I agree that
would be nice to have. But it's just the same on the FZ20. They seem to
give no credit to the reduced recycle time and boot time compared to the
FZ20. My own (very limited) tests have shown little difference in lens
quality between the two cameras - I wonder if their sample was faulty?
Their final comment about a 10X zoom camera without image stabilisation
being a better buy shows that they haven't used these cameras in the same
circumstances as I have. A 10X zoom without stabilisation is rather more
limited unless you are very steady or use a tripod. Perhaps the sun is
brighter where they test?

As others have said, they are out of line with the other reviews.

David
May 3, 2005 7:12:47 PM

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

Lin Chung wrote:
> Measekite wrote:
> > PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
websites
> > give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the Panasonic
FZ20 a
> > much more favorable review. PC MAG did point out many negatives
that the
> > others did not. Now I am confused....
>
>
> In the halcyon days of personal computing, the American "Byte"
magazine held
> the sway. Then came along "PC Magazine" which later moved its
European
> operation to London, then moved again to be an eZine. Its review
articles
> have been very influential in the industry and I suspect many
products had
> been saved or destroyed by the 'oracles' from the magazine. The
comparative
> articles are well written and as non-subjective as possible, as far
as I
> could see. Their research/comparative survey methodology is
published for
> public scrutiny. While the standard varies in different edition, the
level
> has been always very high indeed. I appreciate their objective
numerical
> measurements, statistical analysis and their graphical
representations, not
> to mention their tutorials. In comparison, the personal opinion in
other
> publications are no more than just that, 'personal opinion'.

I don't see much of that objectivity in this article - they're put off
by the "cheap-feeling matte plastic body". They "find it a bit odd"
that the lens is no longer a flat F/2.8; to me this says they didn't do
their homework - did they not check the specs closely enough to notice
that the CCD sensor is a different size? Or did they not know that a
larger sensor requires a different lens because focal length is
different?

Comparing it to the FZ-20 when it's clearly a replacement in the
FZ-1/2/3 line is also not in their favor; it's got the same sensor as
the FZ-20 but so what? It's in an FZ-3 body, with FZ-3 controls and
features. I think they just hadn't reviewed the FZ-3 and they were too
lazy to bother trying to get one. DPR at least compared it to a direct
competitor, the Konica-Minolta Z5.

And what methodology did they use to come up with their resolution
"lines"? Any truly objective assessment must mention methods used,
don't you think? They certainly don't agree with lines of resolution
published elsewhere; repeatablity of results is a hallmark of
objectivity.

> Digital camera is a specialized computer. It is very much akin to a
scan
> machine, or, even a computer digital monitor. And, this magazine has
an
> deservedly enviable reputation in comparative reviews in computers
and
> peripherals.

The latest Maytag washers are highly computerized.... should PC Mag be
reviewing them, too? What about cars? I read that some of the newer
cars have the computing power of a recent PC, all together.

OK, I'm being a bit extreme, but it's clear to me that there's more to
some of these devices than the computer bit. Understanding optics
should be a prerequisite to reviewing a camera, or at least
understanding enough to know what a change in the sensor size actually
does to the focal length and to the construction of the lens.

> I put the opinion from "PC Magazine" above *all* the others one
easily finds
> on the WWW, especially those with numerous adverts from
manufacturers. Now
> that its negative commends on FZ5 are voiced, it is even more
interesting!
>
> --
> Lin Chung.

Well, I guess that's one way to do it..... I prefer to listen to many
different opinions and make up my own mind, based on the quality of the
data. I place the most weight on camera reviews from people who
actually take pictures for a living, it just seems like a good idea;
just like I wouldn't trust a car recommendation from someone who
doesn't drive.

Look what happened to Luminous Landscape recently when he jumped the
gun with some erroneous data - they took a huge hit to their
reputation. Sites like that put their living on the line with every
word they print. PC Mag would have shrugged it off, and published a
little two-line retraction somewhere no-one would see it, if they
bothered to retract at all.

ECM
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:27:21 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>PC MAG gave the Panasonic FZ5 a poor review. The major photo
>>>>websites give it a more favorable review. Yet PC MAG gave the
>>>>Panasonic FZ20 a much more favorable review.
>>>>
>>>>PC MAG did point out many negatives that the others did not. Now I
>>>>am confused. I sure would like to see PC MAG review the Canon S2
>>>>ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What specific negatives? I have both cameras so could perhaps
>>>verify what they say. Personally, though, the digital camera
>>>reviews in PC magazines are a laught- a 5MP camera is likely to be
>>>rated "much better" than a 4MP camera irrespective of any other
>>>attributes..... Cheers,
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Read the review and let us know if you believe what they say.
>>
>>
>
>I think you are getting somewhat subjective review. There is an
>expectation of "new camera = better or more" whereas the FZ5 is simply a
>more compact version of the the FZ20, offering reductions of weight and
>cost, at the expense of no hot-shoe, manual focus and slightly smaller
>lens aperture at maximum zoom (f/3.3 rather than f/2.8).
>
>In their review, they say the EVF is not as clear as they would like. I
>agree, but even Minolta have dropped their high-resolution EVF when they
>went from the A2 to the A200. Yes, I would like to see a better EVF in
>/all/ cameras. The comment on the lack of a swivel LCD, and I agree that
>would be nice to have. But it's just the same on the FZ20. They seem to
>give no credit to the reduced recycle time and boot time compared to the
>FZ20. My own (very limited) tests have shown little difference in lens
>quality between the two cameras - I wonder if their sample was faulty?
>Their final comment about a 10X zoom camera without image stabilisation
>being a better buy shows that they haven't used these cameras in the same
>circumstances as I have. A 10X zoom without stabilisation is rather more
>limited unless you are very steady or use a tripod. Perhaps the sun is
>brighter where they test?
>
>As others have said, they are out of line with the other reviews.
>
>David
>
>

Currently I am using a borrowed 4MP Sony P9. I find that on all outdoor
use the LCD is so washed out I can neither see the text on the menu
items nor can I frame anything. The only time the LCD is usable is when
you are inside. Does the FZ5 have the same problems?

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:44:57 PM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> Currently I am using a borrowed 4MP Sony P9. I find that on all
> outdoor use the LCD is so washed out I can neither see the text on
> the menu items nor can I frame anything. The only time the LCD is
> usable is when you are inside. Does the FZ5 have the same problems?

Not that I am aware of, but I use the EVF most of the time.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:51:19 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>Currently I am using a borrowed 4MP Sony P9. I find that on all
>>outdoor use the LCD is so washed out I can neither see the text on
>>the menu items nor can I frame anything. The only time the LCD is
>>usable is when you are inside. Does the FZ5 have the same problems?
>>
>>
>
>Not that I am aware of, but I use the EVF most of the time.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>

I do also but I would at least like to be able to read the menu choices
when outside. With this Sony I can't.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:51:20 PM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:51:19 GMT, measekite wrote:

>>> Currently I am using a borrowed 4MP Sony P9. I find that on all
>>> outdoor use the LCD is so washed out I can neither see the text on
>>> the menu items nor can I frame anything. The only time the LCD is
>>> usable is when you are inside. Does the FZ5 have the same problems?
>>>
>>Not that I am aware of, but I use the EVF most of the time.
>>
> I do also but I would at least like to be able to read the menu choices
> when outside. With this Sony I can't.

The Sony presents menu information only on its LCD and not on the
EVF? With my Fuji the menu is available on both.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:37:53 AM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> I do also but I would at least like to be able to read the menu
> choices when outside. With this Sony I can't.

Cecilia says this isn't a problem with the FZ20 - she tends to use the LCD
for framing rather than the EVF. Obviously there may be /some/ situations
where you need a little shielding - intense direct sunlight, for example.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:17:20 AM

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

I looked at the FZ5 at a camera store. It seems well balanced. It has a
good feel. I find that the EVF is on the poor side and the LCD is faint
in the sunlight. However, unlike the Sony P9, I can read the menu in
the EVF. That is nice. The menu system seems OK at first glance.
Basically the camera seems to have enough features.

The main thing that I cannot tell at the store is the results. And I do
want to compare them against the Canon S2. While at the store I was
told that the recently released Fuji S5100 is going to be replaced with
something and they are clearing them out. I wonder if Fuji will go for
a longer zoom with IS. Then there will be a 3 horse race. The Minolta
Z5 is out based on all of the reviews I have read.

What is your comments on all of this?

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>I do also but I would at least like to be able to read the menu
>>choices when outside. With this Sony I can't.
>>
>>
>
>Cecilia says this isn't a problem with the FZ20 - she tends to use the LCD
>for framing rather than the EVF. Obviously there may be /some/ situations
>where you need a little shielding - intense direct sunlight, for example.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 11:19:46 AM

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

measekite wrote:
> I looked at the FZ5 at a camera store. It seems well balanced. It
> has a good feel. I find that the EVF is on the poor side and the LCD
> is faint in the sunlight. However, unlike the Sony P9, I can read
> the menu in the EVF. That is nice. The menu system seems OK at
> first glance. Basically the camera seems to have enough features.
>
> The main thing that I cannot tell at the store is the results. And I
> do want to compare them against the Canon S2. While at the store I
> was told that the recently released Fuji S5100 is going to be
> replaced with something and they are clearing them out. I wonder if
> Fuji will go for a longer zoom with IS. Then there will be a 3 horse
> race. The Minolta Z5 is out based on all of the reviews I have read.
>
> What is your comments on all of this?

I'm pleased that the visibility is OK with the FZ5's LCD - I was sure that
Cecilia would have found any significant problems. I agree with you about
the EVF, it could certainly be improved. The Canon S2 IS is an unknown,
and not here yet. Wait, and by the time the S2 IS is here there will be
another even better camera announced! On the other hand, if AA cells and
640 x 480 movies are vital, then the FZ5 is ruled out. Even if Fuji bring
out an image stabilised camera, it will be their first attempt, whereas
Canon and Panasonic are well beyond that.

Comparing the Panasonic FZ5 and Nikon 8400, I find that the Panasonic is
rather more keen to turn up the ISO than the Nikon is. Also, whereas the
8MP Nikon limits itself to a maximum of ISO 200 in auto on an 8.8 x 6.6mm
sensor, the 5MP Panasonic goes up to ISO 400 on its 5.76 x 4.29mm sensor.
The result is a lot more noise, and the noise reduction in the Panasonic
then makes the resulting images "artistic" to say the best! I would be
tempted to turn off the auto-gain-up (auto ISO) in the Panasonic, to be
honest, or to watch very carefully what it did.

[These notes after using both cameras fairly solidly for three days. In
general, the image quality from both is excellent.]

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:47:54 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>I looked at the FZ5 at a camera store. It seems well balanced. It
>>has a good feel. I find that the EVF is on the poor side and the LCD
>>is faint in the sunlight. However, unlike the Sony P9, I can read
>>the menu in the EVF. That is nice. The menu system seems OK at
>>first glance. Basically the camera seems to have enough features.
>>
>>The main thing that I cannot tell at the store is the results. And I
>>do want to compare them against the Canon S2. While at the store I
>>was told that the recently released Fuji S5100 is going to be
>>replaced with something and they are clearing them out. I wonder if
>>Fuji will go for a longer zoom with IS. Then there will be a 3 horse
>>race. The Minolta Z5 is out based on all of the reviews I have read.
>>
>>What is your comments on all of this?
>>
>>
>
>I'm pleased that the visibility is OK with the FZ5's LCD - I was sure that
>Cecilia would have found any significant problems.
>

Is there a LCD Hood available for the FZ5?

> I agree with you about
>the EVF, it could certainly be improved. The Canon S2 IS is an unknown,
>and not here yet. Wait, and by the time the S2 IS is here there will be
>another even better camera announced! On the other hand, if AA cells and
>640 x 480 movies are vital, then the FZ5 is ruled out. Even if Fuji bring
>out an image stabilised camera, it will be their first attempt, whereas
>Canon and Panasonic are well beyond that.
>
>Comparing the Panasonic FZ5 and Nikon 8400, I find that the Panasonic is
>rather more keen to turn up the ISO than the Nikon is. Also, whereas the
>8MP Nikon limits itself to a maximum of ISO 200 in auto on an 8.8 x 6.6mm
>sensor, the 5MP Panasonic goes up to ISO 400 on its 5.76 x 4.29mm sensor.
>The result is a lot more noise, and the noise reduction in the Panasonic
>then makes the resulting images "artistic" to say the best! I would be
>tempted to turn off the auto-gain-up (auto ISO) in the Panasonic, to be
>honest, or to watch very carefully what it did.
>
>[These notes after using both cameras fairly solidly for three days. In
>general, the image quality from both is excellent.]
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:58:39 PM

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

measekite wrote:
[]
> Is there a LCD Hood available for the FZ5?

I don't recall seeing one in the manual, but there are plenty of 3rd party
devices which should work. I've not used any myself.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:13:22 AM

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

What will be interesting will be a comparaison between FZ5, and the
Canon S 2IS which will be release soon. I was about to order a FZ5,
but i may wait a little.

Laurent.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:56:16 PM

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

Mee Too! I did see the FZ5 at a shop and was more favorably impress
than seeing any other camera thus far. The only other Camera I like now
is the Fuji S5100 but without IS I rules it out.

Laurent Gelu wrote:

>What will be interesting will be a comparaison between FZ5, and the
>Canon S 2IS which will be release soon. I was about to order a FZ5,
>but i may wait a little.
>
>Laurent.
>
>
>
!