Proctologist? Gynocologist? Excuse the language!

How does a NON DIGITAL have MEGAPIXELS?????

LOL, thats a good one bumpkins, wait til you use the viewfinder they are so
crappy that you will puke.

Maybe because some of us want more than a P&S can provide. For sure they are
convenient, and obviously all YOU need.
I do agree that some people who buy a DSLR with standard lens, and never buy
any other accessory, would sometimes be better off with a P&S, but many DSLR
buyers would simply give up photography if an FZ50 was all they could ever
own.

MrT.

<features snipped>

Have to present a contrary opinion here.
My FZ30 appears to have a very similar feature list.  That's what sold me.
I particularly liked the prospect of:

* manual focus
* tilt/swivel LCD VF
* huge zoom range
* IS

The focus is almost unusable with the EVF.  The sensor noise is just plain
unacceptable. The IS is pathetic (it *works*, but so does holding your
breath)

I still like the tilt/swivel VF and the huge zoom, but on balance the camera
is complete and utter crap. Unreliable in arginal conditions, and
effectively unusable in low light.  Forget flash.  My 1.3Mp Mavica did a
better job.

My FZ30 is not worthy of doorstop status. The noise and crappy focussing
render it useless. (Oh - almost forgot - the auto focus on long focal
lengths takes ages and is unreliable.)

The camera works satisfactorily in ideal conditions: bright natural light
and medium focal length.
BUT! I don't buy cameras for ideal conditions - I buy them for all
conditions.

My Nikon D50 cost me $300 more and is infinitely superior.

I keep the FZ30 at work for recording casual, unimportant events.  I bring
in the D50 if the shots are important.  I'd've disposed of the Panasonic by
now, but my religion forbids it.

Unless the FZ50 is a complete rebuild (new, much larger sensor; much better
manual and auto focussing; etc.) then I would strongly advise against buying
one of these POS.

I have now spent a shirtload of cash getting focal length equivalence to the
FZ30 for my D50 (12-300mm - or 8-2500mm if you count fisheye and telescopes)
and I don't begrudge a single cent.  I've spent more on one lens than on the
FZ30, and am delighted to have done so.

The FZ30 joins my small list of absolute lemons, along with a first
generation Casio battery-eater.

Of course, these are just my opinions, based on ownership and fairly heavy
use.

--
Jeff R.

I don't know why I would want  a x12 zoom lens. Even if it was branded
as  a Leica.  The brand on the lens sometimes has little relevance to
the quality. Nikkor and Canon have made some pretty crappy lenses.

Why would I want 9 minutes of video from a still camera  - makes no
sense to me.

As to the rest of this Douglas, none of it is particullarly relevant
to me or ,I think, to the OP.

I agree that a good quality point and shoot digicam can be a really
good thing. I have a couple that I use almost daily and quite like the
results.

I am glad that you are happy with your Panasonic. I hope you use it to
good effect.

The OP asked why would you get a DSLR when you can get a P&S  with a
big zoom and lots of megapixels. Would you like to discuss why a big
zoom and lots of megapixels are not always the best way to measure
the worth of a camera?  Or do you agree that a bigger zoom and/or more
pixels actually do make a better camera?  Have you rid yourself of
DSLR cameras and now run your (fabulous) wedding photography business
with only your Panasonic digicam?  What about all the boys on your
boat? Do they all use Panasonics?

I hear Nokia are coming out with some pretty radical phonecams,
perhaps you could rationalise the whole thing and just turn up with a
2 Mpixel phone. All of us that follow your adventures know that you
could turn a 2 mpixel phonecam image into a perfectly exposed and
perfectly sharp printed image that would cover the side of a bus. I
really don't know why you would spend $700 on a digicam, even if it
does have "leica"  screen printed on the side.